"The almighty Flintoff" and "the below test standard Lee"

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Pratyush

Okay you discount good selection acument to bring him back to merely logic. Yes discount every thing. and dont give credit even when its due.

I don't give credit for anything other than making an obvious decision.
And when offset by the stupidity in several other cases not being stupid in this case is hardly a biggie.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Pratyush

If a selection pays off, the player justifies the selectors and it is essentially good, specially over a series.

No, the only way a selection can be a good one is if it's done for the right reasons.
And Clarke's wasn't.
So it was a poor selection.
It was merely good fortune that it paid-off instantly - and since then it hasn't paid-off anywhere near so well.

Selection is indeed a thankless job.

It is if you do it poorly.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by kendall

The second one was pretty good and he also really got at Lara last year, he can get big players out and can now change a game with the ball aswell as the bat

He got at Lara principally because Lara lost sight of 2 of his deliveries, 1 of which caused a dismissal in a subsequent ball and 1 of which caused a dismissal that ball.
The 2nd one was the less good of the 2.
He might have got Gilchrist out twice but
a) that hardly influenced the game and
b) the rubbish he bowled at other times did influence the game - negatively

[Pratters]

Originally Posted by Richard

It was merely good fortune that it paid-off instantly - and since then it hasn't paid-off anywhere near so well.

From an Aussie perspective, if such good fortunes help win important series like it did in India, I am sure they wont complain!

I knew you would try to discount Clarke to fortune/luck at some stage as you do when you cannot come up with some logic in any argument.

Clarke a bad selection for the series in India because there were better candidates even though Clarke played a key role? Its one of the worst points you have come up with ever.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

It happened, as did summer 2004, and the figures were flattering in all cases.

23 wickets @ 24.95 in 5 games.

Is it flattering because you dislike him, or is it flattering because the South Africans are all gods and they gifted him the wickets?

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Pratyush

Clarke in India

4 8 1 400 151 91 73 57.14 1 2 0

So why was he a poor selection according to you!?

Simple.

Richard doesn't think he's good, so that automatically means he's not good.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

Wow, such wonderful balls he got Gilchrist with.

Had it been Vaas bowled them you'd have been telling us how good the bowler was.

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by Richard

It's pretty obvious - if the ball moves sideways it's almost always going to be a wicket-taker, and if it bounces excessively or inexcessively on a decent line.

This, I think, sums up exactly why you are one of the poorest and most maligned judges of cricket on this forum. It takes such an absolutely mind-bogglingly narrow-minded and undeveloped understanding of cricket to believe that only balls which move sideways (and, based on previous conversations, only those which move A LONG WAY) can be legitimate wicket takers.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Pratyush

From an Aussie perspective, if such good fortunes help win important series like it did in India, I am sure they wont complain!

I knew you would try to discount Clarke to fortune/luck at some stage as you do when you cannot come up with some logic in any argument.

Clarke a bad selection for the series in India because there were better candidates even though Clarke played a key role? Its one of the worst points you have come up with ever.

The only reason a selection can be the right one is if it's made for the right reasons.
Saying it was a good selection because it paid-off is like saying throwing yourself off a cliff and happening to fall onto a trampoline on a passing boat was the right decision.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by marc71178

23 wickets @ 24.95 in 5 games.

Is it flattering because you dislike him, or is it flattering because the South Africans are all gods and they gifted him the wickets?

All the figures since 2003\04 are flattering, because of the fact that most spells of wickets were gained without bowling any wicket-taking deliveries.
The fact that I don't rate him is based on that, not the other way around.
Something you appear to be too stupid to realise.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by marc71178

Had it been Vaas bowled them you'd have been telling us how good the bowler was.

No, I'd not.
And you clearly know so little about me as to be utterly unqualified to make such statements.















"Oh, the irony"

[Richard]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

This, I think, sums up exactly why you are one of the poorest and most maligned judges of cricket on this forum. It takes such an absolutely mind-bogglingly narrow-minded and undeveloped understanding of cricket to believe that only balls which move sideways (and, based on previous conversations, only those which move A LONG WAY) can be legitimate wicket takers.

Nope, not those which move a long way at all.
A bat's width is not a long way.
So... how else do you regularly see good batsmen getting out other than poor strokes?

[Pratters]

Originally Posted by Richard

The only reason a selection can be the right one is if it's made for the right reasons.

The intention of selection is to chose a person to perform the task at hand. If some one does that like Clarke did in India, you applaud the selectors that they had perspective to select him despite some other candidates being there. You dont criticise them still just because you feel some one else should have been selected!

[Richard]

You criticise someone for doing something wrong even if doing something wrong ended-up profiting.
Like I say - you don't fail to call someone an idiot for jumping off a cliff just because they happened not to die.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by Richard

You criticise someone for doing something wrong even if doing something wrong ended-up profiting.
Like I say - you don't fail to call someone an idiot for jumping off a cliff just because they happened not to die.

surely the job of the selector is to spot potential..a selector can see if someone has it in them to be a test player, whether or not they produce the goods in first class cricket or not. If that player then plays well in test cricket, that justifies the faith the selectors had in that player..surely