When is someone ready...?

[Richard]

I beg to differ. Look at football, tennis for one.

There are people who argue that both have been afflicted by the "British loser" mentality, every bit as much as cricket.

And as I say - that's before you even go into the fact that the cricket-playing crowd are often cut from a different cloth, one that's likely to be able to place academic achievement even higher than sporting one.

a) Trescothic couldn't go to India. So what if Cook wasn't available?

b) Is having more able players at your behest not an advantage?

Trescothick did go to India, he just pulled-out before the Tests. Cook was available, and played - I don't see what you mean there.

And b), yes, of course it is...

 

[Richard]

do you mind not implying swearing and sleeping, there are kids around, again its not very appropriate

to much effing and jeffing for my liking

Sorry if my z's imply that - it's just a way of avoiding the de-CAPS filter, I promise. Anyway, surely sleeping would be zzzzzzzzzzzzzz's TBH?

And the whole point of FFS is that it's only implied swearing - "the kids" don't really know what we're on. (There was even the temptation to put the : D smiley there)

 

[Pratters]

And as I say - that's before you even go into the fact that the cricket-playing crowd are often cut from a different cloth, one that's likely to be able to place academic achievement even higher than sporting one.

Then it cannot be British people aspect which you referred earlier. If cricket is of a completely different fabric, it is some thing which needs changing then, if cricket is indeed of a different fabric if I am to go by your point.

Trescothick did go to India, he just pulled-out before the Tests. Cook was available, and played - I don't see what you mean there.

Replace go to India with be available for tests.
a) Trescothic couldn't be availabe for tests in India. So what if Cook wasn't available would England not have been worse off in all likelihood.

And b), yes, of course it is...

Thank you for conceding the debate.

 

[Richard]

Then it cannot be British people aspect which you referred earlier. If cricket is of a completely different fabric, it is some thing which needs changing then, if cricket is indeed of a different fabric if I am to go by your point.

It's different in some ways, the same in others. And I'll say it again - it's not neccessarily a bad thing. If people wish to put academic achievements above an earlier start in sport, that's their choice.

Replace go to India with be available for tests.
a) Trescothic couldn't be availabe for tests in India. So what if Cook wasn't available would England not have been worse off in all likelihood.

Well... maybe. Or we might have picked Mark Butcher who might have made an inspired return. Or one of several other candidates.

 

[Pratters]

And I'll say it again - it's not neccessarily a bad thing.

It is a bad thing because you are not having as many able players at your behest which is not as advantageous as having more able players at your behest by your own admission.

Well... maybe. Or we might have picked Mark Butcher who might have made an inspired return. Or one of several other candidates.

Which is why I mentioned in all likelihood. When assessing, we take the likely options.

 

[Richard]

It is a bad thing because you are not having as many able players at your behest which is not as advantageous by your own admission.

But sport is not the be-all-and-end-all of life. There are more important things.

Which is why I mentioned in all likelihood. When assessing, we take the more probable option.

Thing is, Cook's probability of succeeding in India was not strong. If you'd given me the option of him or Butcher at that point in time, I'd have plumped for Butcher.

 

[Pratters]

But sport is not the be-all-and-end-all of life. There are more important things.

I am speaking from the English cricket point of view. Also, you have to make sacrifices if you want to achieve some thing. You cannot choose every thing. A sportsperson will choose a sporting opportunity which comes his way more often than not.

Thing is, Cook's probability of succeeding in India was not strong. If you'd given me the option of him or Butcher at that point in time, I'd have plumped for Butcher.

The selectors obviously believed different, and rightly so - proven by Cook's performance in India.

 

[Sanz]

Thing is, Cook's probability of succeeding in India was not strong. If you'd given me the option of him or Butcher at that point in time, I'd have plumped for Butcher.

And you are not really a great talent scout, are you ? Esp if we consider that you will pick Nasser Hussain over Mathew Hayden.

 

[marc71178]

Well... maybe. Or we might have picked Mark Butcher who might have made an inspired return. Or one of several other candidates.

IIRC, wasn't Butcher injured at that point?

 

[Richard]

And you are not really a great talent scout, are you ? Esp if we consider that you will pick Nasser Hussain over Mathew Hayden.

Anyone would have done that in 1999.

 

[Richard]

IIRC, wasn't Butcher injured at that point?

Don't think so, but he might have been. We should probably ask Matt (Pitt), TBH.

 

[Richard]

I am speaking from the English cricket point of view. Also, you have to make sacrifices if you want to achieve some thing. You cannot choose every thing. A sportsperson will choose a sporting opportunity which comes his way more often than not.

Evidently not so in the case of the British, or at least a certain section of society in the country. And as I say - not everything is taken from the cricket POV above all others. From some people's POV, cricket will be more important than education. From others', the other way around. And it's up to the individual - not everyone should be treated or expected to act the same, just because they share a skill for the game of cricket.

The selectors obviously believed different, and rightly so - proven by Cook's performance in India.

There can be no proof that Butcher wouldn't have excelled either, though.

 

[Sanz]

There can be no proof that Butcher wouldn't have excelled either, though.

And there is no argument that Cook is the Future.

 

[Sanz]

Anyone would have done that in 1999.

No, I wouldn't have.

 

[Pratters]

Evidently not so in the case of the British, or at least a certain section of society in the country.

It is so. The premise - A sportsperson will choose a sporting opportunity which comes his way more often than not os some thing I certain about. Given it, it means some thing else would require changing if we go by 'it is not happening.'

There can be no proof that Butcher wouldn't have excelled either, though.

I will repeat: In choosing an option, we take the more probable option. How probable was it that Butcher would have averaged 61 in 2 tests in India? Not very.

 

[Richard]

No, I wouldn't have.

You're a terrible judge of a batsman, then. Only a complete idiot would take someone averaging over 40 for 3 years and more below someone who'd done virtually nothing of note in a scattergun career.

 

[Richard]

And there is no argument that Cook is the Future.

That's not important, however - all that was being referred to was that particular tour.

 

[Richard]

It is so. The premise - A sportsperson will choose a sporting opportunity which comes his way more often than not os some thing I certain about. Given it, it means some thing else would require changing if we go by 'it is not happening.'

And I'm not certain about it. I've seen too many examples of people putting sporting chances on the back burner for a few years, knowing the chance will remain present.

I will repeat: In choosing an option, we take the more probable option. How probable was it that Butcher would have averaged 61 in 2 tests in India? Not very.

Because he's a good batsman, the First Test was played on a very flat pitch, a sitter of a caught-and-bowled chance was dropped in that game... etc. etc. It's quite possible that he'd have done well in those circumstances.

 

[Sanz]

You're a terrible judge of a batsman, then. Only a complete idiot would take someone averaging over 40 for 3 years and more below someone who'd done virtually nothing of note in a scattergun career.

First of all you need to quit calling names, secondly you dont have to post incorrect information about Hussain. Hussain's avg. in 1997 and 1998 were < 40.

You probably would have picked Nasser Hussain over Sachin Tendulkar in 1989 or over Rahul Dravid in 1996, but I would not have. Its picking players on potential and their performance in domestic cricket. And that's why I would have backed Cook over Butcher or Tendulkar over Gavaskar/Vengsarkar etc in 1989 or Dravid over Sidhu/Manjrekar etc in 1996.

 

[Sanz]

That's not important, however - all that was being referred to was that particular tour.

It is when I am picking a player.