When is someone ready...?

[Pratters]

And I'm not certain about it.

It is a certain thing.

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.

As well as Cook? More than likely, not.

 

[Sanz]

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.

Running out of arguments...again ??

 

[Richard]

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.

His average between June 1996 and December 1999 was over 40. I said nothing else.

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.

And of course you take such an interest in Australian domestic cricket as to be expert on Hayden's feats there? In any case, showing potential in domestic cricket is all well and good, but if you're found-out at the international level (which Hayden was) then you're still not going to be worth more in most people's minds than someone who isn't (ie Hussain).

 

[Richard]

It is when I am picking a player.

But you weren't - I was. And I was referring only to that India tour. Cook's time would come - that was precisely the point I was making. It did not absolutely have to come at the time it did.

 

[Richard]

Running out of arguments...again ??

Nope, I posted three very convincing reasons why Cook succeeded and why, as such, Butcher would have done too.

 

[Richard]

It is a certain thing.

I don't think it is. I think it depends on society and the individual.

As well as Cook? More than likely, not.

I don't see so. I think Butcher would have been every bit as likely to achieve what Cook did in that First Test. Of course, it'd have been hailed less as it wouldn't have been quite so unusual.

 

[Pratters]

I don't think it is. I think it depends on society and the individual.

It is certain. You can think whatever you want.

I don't see so. I think Butcher would have been every bit as likely to achieve what Cook did in that First Test. Of course, it'd have been hailed less as it wouldn't have been quite so unusual.

To be almost certain another player would have averaged 61 in the two tests is madness.

 

[Sanz]

But you weren't - I was. And I was referring only to that India tour. Cook's time would come - that was precisely the point I was making. It did not absolutely have to come at the time it did.

Neither were you. In any case the point I was trying to make is when selectors pick a player they keep the future in mind. Yes it didn't absolutely have to come at that point and that's why he was not in the initial team picked, but then due to injury some key English players, he was called from WI and IMO a call that proved very right, justified and made perfect sense.

And it's not like Cook came from nowhere, He was performing welll against the touring teams, 'A' tours, domestic cricket etc etc. Almost everyone who played with/against him or watched him play recognized/praised his talent. So it would have been really naive on Selectors part to ignore him and select someone like Butcher who wasn't even in the initial team .

 

[Sanz]

Nope, I posted three very convincing reasons why Cook succeeded and why, as such, Butcher would have done too.

Flat pitches, dropped catch isn't convincing enough to me. They are your usual reasons to degrade a player's performance when you are arguing against him/his performance.

 

[Richard]

It is certain. You can think whatever you want.

It'd actually be an interesting philosophical discussion. Start a thread about it - that way will undoubtedly get more than just me and you discussing it.

To be almost certain another player would have averaged 61 in the two tests is madness.

TBH, it's more a case of scoring 164 for once out (with one massive let-off) on debut. His Second Test was far from impressive. And I do indeed think Butcher could have done that, given the flatness of the pitch and his calibre as a batsman - which is not in doubt.

 

[Richard]

Neither were you. In any case the point I was trying to make is when selectors pick a player they keep the future in mind. Yes it didn't absolutely have to come at that point and that's why he was not in the initial team picked, but then due to injury some key English players, he was called from WI and IMO a call that proved very right, justified and made perfect sense.

And it's not like Cook came from nowhere, He was performing welll against the touring teams, 'A' tours, domestic cricket etc etc. Almost everyone who played with/against him or watched him play recognized/praised his talent. So it would have been really naive on Selectors part to ignore him and select someone like Butcher who wasn't even in the initial team .

None of that is relevant. All that was in question was whether Butcher, if selected for that tour, would have made the contribution that Cook did.

 

[Richard]

Flat pitches, dropped catch isn't convincing enough to me. They are your usual reasons to degrade a player's performance when you are arguing against him/his performance.

Whether they're usual to me or not, the fact is all three happened. Cook was dropped on 70 by Harbhajan (that could have happened to Butcher too), the pitch was flat (that would have been the case if Butcher had batted on it too) and both are good batsmen.

Simple as.

 

[Pratters]

It'd actually be an interesting philosophical discussion.

I don't really need to get more views. You go ahead if you want to.

Regards.

 

[Sanz]

None of that is relevant. All that was in question was whether Butcher, if selected for that tour, would have made the contribution that Cook did.

No the question was - Whether or not Cook was ready for International Cricket ? He has proved he was more than ready.

You have a habit of cooking up questions in your own mind to divert the threads and go to endless debates untill the other party gives up in frustration.

 

[Swervy]

TBH, it's more a case of scoring 164 for once out (with one massive let-off) on debut. His Second Test was far from impressive. And I do indeed think Butcher could have done that, given the flatness of the pitch and his calibre as a batsman - which is not in doubt.

What is it with you and middle of the road, English, defeat scarred batsman.

 

[Sanz]

Whether they're usual to me or not, the fact is all three happened. Cook was dropped on 70 by Harbhajan (that could have happened to Butcher too), the pitch was flat (that would have been the case if Butcher had batted on it too) and both are good batsmen.

Simple as.

Butcher isn't good enough to get a place in the current English team, whereas Cook's is.

 

[Richard]

No the question was - Whether or not Cook was ready for International Cricket ? He has proved he was more than ready.

You have a habit of cooking up questions in your own mind to divert the threads and go to endless debates untill the other party gives up in frustration.

The question was who would have been more successful on that India tour. Nothing else. The question was not cooked-up by anyone, it was a result of that thing called evolution of conversation which happens in every single half-decent thread. Re-read the entire thing and you'll see clearly how it went in that direction.

 

[Richard]

What is it with you and middle of the road, English, defeat scarred batsman.

What is it with so many people and this "defeat-scarred" nonsense, and this "middle-of-the-road" underestimating (anyone seriously prepared to argue Butcher is a lesser batsman than, for instance, Paul Collingwood wants their head examined IMO) people?

Mark Butcher was a very fine batsman. Sadly, he never got the Test average he should have done, but he was still a good player. And he's easily underestimated.

 

[Richard]

Butcher isn't good enough to get a place in the current English team, whereas Cook's is.

The current team is not the question - though whether he would be good enough is not something that is known, given that he has had no chances of late.

The question is the team of March 2006.

 

[shortpitched713]

What is it with you and middle of the road, English, defeat scarred batsman.

Better drop Cook, Vaughan, Bell, Collingwood, etc then.