Re: Ganguly 'breaks promise'

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:15:55 -0600, bcl375 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>Mad Hamish wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 01:23:28 -0600, bcl375 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
><snipped>
>> If anybody is made enough to argue that Warne's bowling wasn't
>> affected by his shoulder in 98/99 then words fail me
>
>Well, if that were the only instance of injury being used to justify a 
>poor series for Warne I wouldn't have raised a peep. The previous time 
>Warne visited India he apparently had a finger problem. 

I'm not clear on the chronology anymore. I did have surgery on a
finger at some stage, he's not going to do that if there's another
option.

But I think you're wrong on the chronology there.
iirc he missed a tour or 1 off test in India because he was having an
operation on the finger. The 98-99 tour of India was during his
shoulder problems and the 2001 tour after he'd had an operation on it.

>Also these are 
>professional cricketers and there is no need to make excuses for them. 
>If he wasn't fit enough he shouldn't have played. If he did, no excuses 
>should be made. I am sure many fast bowlers over the years have had 
>shoulder problems. I don't remember many excuses for them.

Well I've argued that Ambrose was affected by his shoulder problems
for the last couple of years of his career. Most noticably in a tour
of Pakistan.
I suspect that a large part of Atherton's problems against McGrath
were due to his back condition. 
I suspect that Milburn was a better batsman before he lost an eye. 
I'm don't think that Thommo was ever the same bowler after his
shoulder problems
-- 
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]