Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09
Rejecting 'selection deontology' since Mar '15
'Stats' is not a synonym for 'Career Test Averages'
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Tucker
Make of that what you will.
I disagree they're just as likely as one another as well, with regards to performances declining, you're just hoping bad form doesn't hit you. However, to improve your performances you can go spend 4 hours in the nets or something, or stop playing a shot that you're repeatedly getting out to or even make a technical adjustment. Which would increase your chances.
The fact that England were away from home, for example, is a much better point in the context of the debate than the West Indies missing bowlers. As quite often recently you've jumped in with a chest-beating post at the first opportunity without stopping to consider how relevant to the actual topic it is. You're better than that.
If Burgey had said "Had a better average than English Bowler x" he'd have had a point, the fact is England could have won that series and had every bowler perform worse than Bollinger. The fact that Jerome Taylor turned us inside out in that series is hugely irrelevant to the fact that Bollinger took wickets against them.
Last edited by Marcuss; 30-11-2010 at 01:01 PM.
In any rate, I'd strongly argue that if England had bowlers averaging 20 odd in that series, they'd not have lost..
Last edited by Prince EWS; 30-11-2010 at 01:59 PM.
"we use the word Day to describe hours and movements of the earth around the sun" - zorax
The Cricket Web Podcast - episode 18 out now
We're on iTunes - why not give us a review?
As far as Finn is concerned, hes bowled nowhere near well enough to deserve the number of wickets or the average that he currently holds. As I've said before with Johnson, if you bowl poorly long enough eventually your luck will dry out and the numbers will catch up to you (Mitch now averages>30 in test cricket).
Why dont I rate Finn? Well, firstly because he does absolutely nothing with the ball. Secondly, because he continually bowls the wrong lengths and is frequently bowling too short to be a consistent force in international cricket. I can understand that he has some natural attributes that in addition to the guile he may develop over time may make him successful at the international level. But the fact of the matter is that Tremlett and Shahzad are at this very moment in time superior bowlers and in Tremlett's case far more experienced than Finn. The Ashes is the wrong place to be putting people who arent yet at the top of their game or are still developing as bowlers.
Last edited by tooextracool; 30-11-2010 at 02:28 PM.
Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!
Be VERY AFRIDI!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)