Fit at 41
-
@Bones will wake up tomorrow and get excited about all his replies and then realise it’s a complete hijack about how tall cricketers are.
More likely to be Stargazer than Honey as thread diversion monitor actually.
In a vague attempt to right this. International cricketers over the age of 41?
Clive Lloyd made it to 40 I think. -
-
I would consider any fast bowler under 1.83 m to be "short" by today's cricket standards. Wagner falls into that category too.
Any fast bowler under 1.90 could even be considered short by todays standards really (all the Aussies are well over, even Southee is 1.93) but tall in the general populace, which is the point. How many under 1.79? Even historically.
Wags is 1.83 so still taller than most Kiwi men. Even Gladstone at 5'11 is over 1.80.
-
@Bones will wake up tomorrow and get excited about all his replies and then realise it’s a complete hijack about how tall cricketers are.
More likely to be Stargazer than Honey as thread diversion monitor actually.
In a vague attempt to right this. International cricketers over the age of 41?
Clive Lloyd made it to 40 I think.WG Grace and Jack Hobbs pretty much played til they keeled over and died I think. Don Bradman played his last test innings at 39 ( turned 40 a week later ).
Dunno if any of you know but he got out for a duck in his last dig, what a shit player. No way an Indian Batsman would do that.
-
I would consider any fast bowler under 1.83 m to be "short" by today's cricket standards. Wagner falls into that category too.
Any fast bowler under 1.90 could even be considered short by todays standards really (all the Aussies are well over, even Southee is 1.93) but tall in the general populace, which is the point. How many under 1.79? Even historically.
If that's your standard, Fred Trueman. Listed at 1.78 m. But he would have been tall for his era.
-
-
I would consider any fast bowler under 1.83 m to be "short" by today's cricket standards. Wagner falls into that category too.
Any fast bowler under 1.90 could even be considered short by todays standards really (all the Aussies are well over, even Southee is 1.93) but tall in the general populace, which is the point. How many under 1.79? Even historically.
If that's your standard, Fred Trueman. Listed at 1.78 m. But he would have been tall for his era.
Nice, so we have one (albeit from 50 to 60 years ago). Average height has increased by about an inch in the last 50 years so certainly not a tall guy even then.
-
-
-
-
@Paekakboyz Looking up?
-
@Snowy not to him!! But it does appear I post on a site frequented by giants.
Who knew Polish chicks were so farking tall. Bet you all have killer legs
-
@Paekakboyz said in Fit at 41:
@Snowy not to him!! But it does appear I post on a site frequented by giants.
Who knew Polish chicks were so farking tall. Bet you all have killer legs
You've met me and I could feel you undressing me with your eyes, don't deny it.
-
-
-
Jeez you lot have done a number on poor Boneses thread
Fucken cricket garbage! And I don't seem to be able to delete posts on my own thread. What a fucken con.
Take it as a compliment we chose your thread to sabotage.
While you’re here can you give us an ultimate cricket XI of short batsmen and tall bowlers ?
-
-
@Paekakboyz said in Fit at 41:
Jeez you lot have done a number on poor Boneses thread
He’s a lot blacker than he looks on Facebook
