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

[Pratters]

The presence of McGrath, Gillespie, Gilchrist, Ponting, Martyn and the like, all of whom have been undroppable to even the most stupid of selectors, might just have helped.

Martyn is a case in point. He was in fact recalled to the Aussie side after being dropped earlier in his career after there was room in the side. What you are suggesting is its just the talent and any bunch of selectors would not matter as Australia would always win. If only selections were as simple as that.

 

[Pratters]

Bringing Clarke in in India, too, was a poor decision, when there were several more deserving candidates. It is a very fine summary of a poor decision which, due to luck on the selectors' part, was made to look like a good one.

Clarke hit a century in a test and I do not know why you call him a poor selection in the tests in India!

Almost every recent Australian batsman, Mark Waugh and Gilchrist aside, have had early spells and later comebacks - Langer, Hayden, Ponting, Martyn, Stephen Waugh, Lehmann, Katich... see? That wasn't particularly good selection, it was fairly obvious in almost all cases that each player deserved another go.

Only brave selectors can drop players when they arent upto it even though they have some basic talent and then bring them back when they have vastly improved. Hayden would be the best example.

 

[Pratters]

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!?

 

[kendall]

well essentially it depends how you define a wicket taking delivery.

Yes i always thought a wicket taking delivery was a ball that took a wicket but richard has shown me otherwise.
There is no point arguing too richard about Harmisson he just doesnt like him and never will. Flintoff is becoming a much better wicket taking bowler as his carrer is progressing and you just have too look at the way he dispatched Gilchrist too tell he has real quality

 

[sledger]

precisely, if you state that a wicket taking ball is a wicket that takes gets a batsman out through no fault of his own then you will see very few wicket taking deliveries.

 

[Richard]

well essentially it depends how you define a wicket taking delivery.

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.

 

[Richard]

if a player starts performing better, it is due to change and your perceptions thus are never wrong really in a specific time then according to you. Really you would never lose.

No, I'm sorry, I'm not wrong to say Symonds was rubbish in ODIs before WC2003, nor that Flintoff was rubbish in Tests before summer 2003.
I did, however, believe both wouldn't improve and was wrong to do so.

But if Lee does not have the requisite talent, if we are to for a second believe that, he cant perform better as you need the talent to perform. So if Lee performs decently, you would in fact lose on the Lee perception you had.

I would, and if so I'll admit as such.
It won't, though, change for a second the fact that I was right that he was rubbish when he was, even if that wasn't down to a lack of talent.

Regarding the pitch being the ONLY reason for Lee's decent showing in a test(agreed it was just one test but it is better than being written off), that, my friend is as rubbish a logic as they come.

The pitch wasn't the only reason - the odd poor stroke (1 of them expectedly, from a tail-ender, 1 not from a batsman as good as Vaughan) also contributed.

 

[Richard]

Martyn is a case in point. He was in fact recalled to the Aussie side after being dropped earlier in his career after there was room in the side. What you are suggesting is its just the talent and any bunch of selectors would not matter as Australia would always win. If only selections were as simple as that.

Recalling Martyn in 1997\98 was the logical and sensible decision that it would not have taken a genius to make, and when it paid dividends (after a little while) the logical decision was to recall him to the Test-match side too, and that paid instant dividends.

 

[Pratters]

No, I'm sorry, I'm not wrong to say..

I never said you were right or wrong on those specific players. The generality of your statement which tends to conclude you are ALWAYS right on judging players and when they perform better it is due to the improvements and your earlier perceptions may be wrong is apalling.

I would, and if so I'll admit as such.
It won't, though, change for a second the fact that I was right that he was rubbish when he was, even if that wasn't down to a lack of talent.

How can he perform if you have said he has no talent - the basic ingredient to perform!?

The pitch wasn't the only reason - the odd poor stroke (1 of them expectedly, from a tail-ender, 1 not from a batsman as good as Vaughan) also contributed.

Yes every thing except the bowling of Lee contributed of course to his wickets/performance

 

[Pratters]

Recalling Martyn in 1997\98 was the logical and sensible decision that it would not have taken a genius to make, and when it paid dividends (after a little while) the logical decision was to recall him to the Test-match side too, and that paid instant dividends.

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.

And I havent heard your reasons to discount Clarke in India, 2004 yet Richard.

 

[Richard]

Clarke hit a century in a test and I do not know why you call him a poor selection in the tests in India!

Because there were more deserving candidates.
Just because a selection paid-off doesn't mean it had to be a good one.

Only brave selectors can drop players when they arent upto it even though they have some basic talent and then bring them back when they have vastly improved. Hayden would be the best example.

No, any fool can drop players who aren't performing, which Langer (pre-1998\99 average 22), Hayden (pre-2000\01 average 21.42), Ponting (pre-1997 average 33), Martyn (pre-1999\2000 average 28.81), Stephen Waugh (pre-1992\93 average excluding the 1989 England series 30.20) and Lehmann (pre-2002\03 average 28.50) weren't.
All are equally good examples, really.
And bringing them back wasn't a particularly difficult thing to do.

 

[Richard]

Yes i always thought a wicket taking delivery was a ball that took a wicket but richard has shown me otherwise.
There is no point arguing too richard about Harmisson he just doesnt like him and never will. Flintoff is becoming a much better wicket taking bowler as his carrer is progressing and you just have too look at the way he dispatched Gilchrist too tell he has real quality

Wow, such wonderful balls he got Gilchrist with.

 

[Richard]

I never said you were right or wrong on those specific players. The generality of your statement which tends to conclude you are ALWAYS right on judging players and when they perform better it is due to the improvements and your earlier perceptions may be wrong is apalling.

No, it's not, it's extremely basic logic.
If anyone seriously thinks Symonds pre-WC2003 was the same player as he has been since it they're a fool of the highest order.
Someone who said "he's rubbish but he's got potential" would have been right. Someone like me who said "he's rubbish and he hasn't got potential" would be wrong.
But the bit about "he's rubbish" would never have been wrong.

How can he perform if you have said he has no talent - the basic ingredient to perform!?

I haven't said "he has no talent", I've said "I don't think he's got the neccessary talent". If, obviously, he performs, I will be wrong to think that and I'll say so.

Yes every thing except the bowling of Lee contributed of course to his wickets/performance

Oh, Lee's bowling contributed obviously, but that contribution wasn't much of an achievement.

 

[Pratters]

Because there were more deserving candidates.
Just because a selection paid-off doesn't mean it had to be a good one.

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

No, any fool can drop players who aren't performing, which Langer (pre-1998\99 average 22), Hayden (pre-2000\01 average 21.42), Ponting (pre-1997 average 33), Martyn (pre-1999\2000 average 28.81), Stephen Waugh (pre-1992\93 average excluding the 1989 England series 30.20) and Lehmann (pre-2002\03 average 28.50) weren't.
All are equally good examples, really.
And bringing them back wasn't a particularly difficult thing to do.

Selection is indeed a thankless job.

 

[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

 

[Richard]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?