Cricket Web - View Single Post - Is it fair to rate players based on their first class records ?

BoyBrumby · 23-12-2009, 02:17 PM

It's probably a knottier question for chaps who've had distinguished FC careers, but whose test records are mediocre (I suppose Hick & Ramprakash are the obvious recent examples). Would anyone rate them as better batsman than someone like Collingwood, who averages far more at the highest level than he does in the first class game?

I think cases could be made either way, but it'd be interesting to see where people stand on the subject.

23-12-2009, 02:17 PM	#12 (permalink)
BoyBrumby Englishman Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Doing the stance Posts: 42,619	It's probably a knottier question for chaps who've had distinguished FC careers, but whose test records are mediocre (I suppose Hick & Ramprakash are the obvious recent examples). Would anyone rate them as better batsman than someone like Collingwood, who averages far more at the highest level than he does in the first class game? I think cases could be made either way, but it'd be interesting to see where people stand on the subject. __________________ *- As featured in The Independent.* "This is not the time for namby-pamby promising youngsters who might just do something; not the time for building for the future. Pragmatism rules and they don't come more pragmatic than Rogers." - Victor Marks makes the case for stiff-legged and stiff-armed 35 year old left-handers in Ashes squads