Re: Who is cricket's answer to Dickens?

by taipan on Tue 07 Feb 2012, 18:42

Red wrote:
taipan wrote:
PeterCS wrote:Is it Henry Blohard?

The right age, at least.

Nominations please.

Before I opened this thread this was the name that came to mind. Let's face it, Dickens was a boring fecker.

He created the most wonderful characters and he took mistresses. He turned 200 yesterday I think.

Isn't that what I siad?

by mynah on Tue 07 Feb 2012, 23:23

tac wrote:Pakistan . . .or AD . . . both like their players young

Peter Roebuck?

by Hass on Tue 07 Feb 2012, 23:55

Dickens was great at plotting and creating memorable characters. He also had great themes going on uderneath and could come up with a good turn of phrase. But his overall writing style is insufferable.

It's why his stuff is such great fare for TV movies but leaves a lot to be desired when you're actually suffering through the pages.

So I guess we're looking for a player who's as ugly as hell to watch, boring at times, while still capable of providing the odd flourish and factoring prominently on the score board...

by Brass Monkey on Wed 08 Feb 2012, 00:04

Paul Collingwood. Golly, I didn't think I'd have to say it twice.

As for ragging Dickens, how was YOUR writing in the mid 19th Century?

by Merlin on Wed 08 Feb 2012, 00:05

So I guess we're looking for a player who's as ugly as hell to watch, boring at times, while still capable of providing the odd flourish and factoring prominently on the score board...

Any number come to mind ...
Sniffer .... Johann .... Kallis .... Punter .... Langer .... oh yes, and the inimitable Chris Tavare.....

by Brass Monkey on Wed 08 Feb 2012, 00:30

Kallis? Punter? What planet be ye from?

by Merlin on Wed 08 Feb 2012, 00:41

Brass Monkey wrote:Kallis? Punter? What planet be ye from?

Ugly (neither are walking Hugo Boss works of art) .... boring (when they're taking England apart - albeit at a s/r of 40) .... and capable ... (well, we've seen enough scoreboards to prove this point)

by Brass Monkey on Wed 08 Feb 2012, 00:43

Oh, I thought you meant ugly in the batting aesthetics sense.

by taipan on Wed 08 Feb 2012, 08:29

Merlin wrote:
Brass Monkey wrote:Kallis? Punter? What planet be ye from?

Ugly (neither are walking Hugo Boss works of art) .... boring (when they're taking England apart - albeit at a s/r of 40) .... and capable ... (well, we've seen enough scoreboards to prove this point)

And a strike rate of 40 is bad why?