Mate you've made an important point. The Indian team srloiusey went over the top with their celebrations after the 7th ODI. They won, yes, but there was no pressure on them and it doesn't change the fact that they lost the games that mattered!Also, the commentators who were hailing it as a phenomenal and famous' victory were really being silly. The fact that India weren't as good as Australia and thus had lost the series very badly was completely ignored!It's not the first time it's happened and that is very disturbing. -2Was this answer helpful?

Indeed nice story as for me. It'd be really cool to read something more concerning such topic. Thanks for sharing this information.

Tboy. Jack related what Gilbert told him. Coleman never refuted that point. Only the myth that Gilbert bowled in bare feet in matches. However its not impossible to believe that living where he did without much cricket gear he would've bowled in bare feet when practising or larking abt. Jack can't be accused of racism just for retelling what Eddie told him. Jack thought Eddie real fast. Same as Mcgilvray, Brown and Ponsford. Its not consistent to believe them when they talk abt Eddie but doubt them when they talk abt Larwood, Voce, Farnes and Allen. You either believe them or reject them. Not pick and choose to suit yourself. Re Gilbert's record. Check his ave. away from Qld. Very interesting. My evidence of the 2005 poms? Speed guns. Only their occasional faster balls got to that pace. Their range was slower. Same deal with Fred and Harmy when they came out here. They're top bowlers anyway. Still waiting for proof abt Bradman's campaign to get Eddie banned though...

Mike we can question each other forever and not be satisfied with the answer of the other. Questioning is not hard. I can question everything you have posted here. Do we let this go, because we will never agree? Conversely I can sit here and justify anything if I choose too, anyone can. You do it each post. Do we let it go? Or should I ask you why you think Colman was not valid again? And again? And again? Even after it was answered in a previous post? Or I can sit here all nite and ask you to prove that all those English bowlers you listed from the 30's were fast, seeking empirical evidence of high pace, not medium fast of fast medium, but fast. Or how about your little gem that "Flintoff, Jones and Harmison only rarely achieved 144kph. They mainly bowled in the 135-140 range." Prove it. I want the data. Not your generalisation. Give me the data, but if I dont like it then I will question that too. Do you get the point Mike? Or should I go on?

No Mike the floor is all yours. Read your own work before you post it.RE: Fingelton where did i even mention him stating Eddie was quick? I was quoting Fingletons unproven statement that Eddie Gilbert said to Fingelton that he, (being Eddie Gilbert) bowled faster without shoes. This was a myth cited by Fingleton & never actually stated by Gilbert. It was a gross statement with a dubious racial basis. Hmm this is in Colmans work, quoted to u, read by u (apparently), yet still u miss it? No wonder u miss your own contradictions, u r so busy justifying your critique of others ("my objections to Colman are valid" in your eyes of course they are!) U have made many comments on this blog eg "Glbert did his best bolwing on gabba greentops" that I would now like u to justify & prove. From a reputable source. But like u I will now attack the credibility of that source. But prove it. Prove that all those Eng bowlers from the 30s were FAST.I want facts. PROOF. Not anectdotes. Show me tha facts

My objections to Coleman are valid. He makes assumptions about Bradman's character in adversity that he spares Gilbert. For example Bradman tried to dodge Gilbert on a green top. This is his conjecture and not backed up by any players. However he never commented on the occasions when Gilbert lost heart. And there were plenty of times when that happened. Coleman was harsh on Bradman and too kind to Gilbert. The rest of your post proves you don't understand contradiction. I'm happy to accept Fingleton's and Bradman's words on Gilbert's pace. Its you who pick and choose. You believe Fingleton when he praises Gilbert's pace but ridicule his recollections of Voce, Larwood, Allen and Farnes; all of whom he considered very fast. You said something "as some people get older the better they were..." Remember? Now before we get to the next topic I believe you have a question to answer. Prove that Bradman led a campaign to have Gilbert banned. All yours...

Nice contradiction Mike. Your opinions (not facts) are "objectively based on comments of the men who faced them." Of course the people u cite are objective, people u dont like eg Mike Colman who researched the recollections of the men who faced Gilbert are subjective. Nice spin mate. A true academic. Always question the truth of others while maintaining that yours are beyond reproach. EG Fingletons account of Gilbert saying he "bowled plurry lot faster without boots" is spurious & fallacious but no less then McGilvray stated in 1981 the fastest ball he ever saw was bowled by Gilbert. No doubt u will question the veracity of that statement but accept Fingletons. So be it. At this juncture I would also to direct u to a dictionary & look for "sarcasm." It may assist u with comprehending previous posts. As pointed out in a prev post, u have actually answered your own question, something that u have conveniently ignored. Mate, we will never agree, accept it & move on. Next subject please?

Well here's the problem then. Who do we believe? In one corner you have Ponsford, Brown and Fingleton and in the other we have...tboy. You see the difficulty? Who do I believe? 3 test greats who took the long handle to these bowlers; or Tboy whose taken the short handle and been found wanting. If we can't believe the opinions of men who've faced these bowlers and we don't have speed guns to verify their pace then how do you know Gilbert was fast? Or any good? You seem to have mixed up imitation with derision...3 times on this blog alone it seems. Now here is something I'd never imitate: Making a claim without backing it up with facts. I'm confident you have those facts. So I'll tease them out with this question: If you think Bradman led a campaign to have Gilbert banned then start providing the evidence. All yours...

Its funny, but as some people get older, the better they were when younger but Im sure this has never influenced the thinking of retired athletes and their perceptions and memories, especially cricketers. Incidentally I never conceded any point to u, sorry Mike, unlike you I didnt return that particular favour. You may not have accepted my arguments, that ok, each to their own mate but I must say you have impressed me Mike! You are the third person on this blog that has imitated my style, its said imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and Im flattered. You are too be commended for having good taste Mike. Perhaps a lack of imagination, but thats ok too. You can be forgiven for that. Have a good night!

I know they didn't have speed guns in the 30s Tboy. Therefore whom ever makes disparaging references to those bowlers are also being subjective. Besides my opinion of the bowlers of his era is objectively based on comments of the men who faced them. Brown, Fingleton, Ponsford...They should know. They played cricket at a high level and saw plenty more after they retired. So I can make the comparison based on their recollections. Just as you believe in Gilbert's pace based on the recollection of players and despite the non existence of speed guns in the 30s. I'm not conceding anything to you over Gilbert. My previous posts all mentioned Bradman's suspicions over Gilbert's action. He's entitled to have that opinion. Many others did as well. What I don't concede is your belief that Bradman led a campaign to get Gilbert banned. So far you have no proof of that. So thanks for conceding the point. Very nice of you actually.