Haha, Cook, no way. You could - to date - make a case for the other three, though.Better drop Cook, Vaughan, Bell, Collingwood, etc then.
Hayden actually didn't have to wait, he got in early and was shown not to be good enough. So, incidentally, were Warne and McGrath - they both had distinctly ordinary starts to their Test careers and, perhaps, would have been better off not playing as early as they did. In McGrath's case, though, as I understand it was a case of needs-must, as there were just a small handful of injury-prone seamers around at that time (McDermott... Reid was gone - due to injury - by then... Hughes... Reiffel... Fleming...) who were, well, injured.They should play depending on quality of player! Like Warne and McGrath got in very early in their careers and Gilly and Hussey and Hayden had to wait
The evolution of thread occured only in your brain as it always happens when you run of ideas to support your arguments. I was still talking in the context of the thread title.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.
Well, Butcher was injured for the majority of 2005 and early 2006. Why should they have picked Butcher ahead of Cook, on what basis ?The question is the team of March 2006.
Hahaha, a bigger load of nonsense I've rarely heard. If I bring stuff up, it is relevant to what has been being discussed, end of story.The evolution of thread occured only in your brain as it always happens when you run of ideas to support your arguments.
In which case, you said something completely out of context. The comment you replied to was wrongly interpreted due to the wholly silly practice of taking everything on the context of the title of the thread.I was still talking in the context of the thread title.
Clearly on the proviso "if fit". That, too, was mentioned earlier in the thread.Well, Butcher was injured for the majority of 2005 and early 2006. Why should they have picked Butcher ahead of Cook, on what basis ?
Well in that case, Cook's selection was a right move because a. Tresco was unavailable, 2. Butcher was injured.Clearly on the proviso "if fit". That, too, was mentioned earlier in the thread.
It may sound silly to you, but most members on this forum try to follow the context of the thread topic while making their case.In which case, you said something completely out of context. The comment you replied to was wrongly interpreted due to the wholly silly practice of taking everything on the context of the title of the thread.
He was 20. And no - simply saying that had Butcher been available and selected for that tour he'd have been every bit as likely to do well as Cook.Well in that case, Cook's selection was a right move because a. Tresco was unavailable, 2. Butcher was injured.
So what are you trying to argue here ? Let me guess - Cooking up assumptions in your mind to prove that picking up cook was a wrong move solely because he was 19 year old and totally disregarding his maturity/performance as a player.
Nonsense. Most members on this forum don't have a stupid obsession with keeping all comment related to the opening post. The only guidelines are to talk about cricket in Cricket Chat.It may sound silly to you, but most members on this forum try to follow the context of the thread topic while making their case.
Except that you didn't say that(one in Bold). You didn't even know that Butcher was not available until Marc pointed out. You were clearly arguing for Butcher's selection ahead of Cook. If he wasn't fit enough to get into the team, there is no point in making furthur assumption and questioning Cook's selection.He was 20. And no - simply saying that had Butcher been available and selected for that tour he'd have been every bit as likely to do well as Cook.
Why dont you start a POLL on this and ask the forum members themselves if they consider it stupid to stick to the thread topic ?Nonsense. Most members on this forum don't have a stupid obsession with keeping all comment related to the opening post. The only guidelines are to talk about cricket in Cricket Chat.
Most people will reply to something if they see something they wish to reply to, and bring-up anything that is significant.
I still don't know whether he was unavailable. Marc was not certain of it.Except that you didn't say that(one in Bold). You didn't even know that Butcher was not available until Marc pointed out. You were clearly arguing for Butcher's selection ahead of Cook. If he wasn't fit enough to get into the team, there is no point in making furthur assumption and questioning Cook's selection.
Seeing as I'm pretty well certain of it, I'll let you do it if you really so desire. Try and stick to the right forum, though (ie, SD not this one).Why dont you start a POLL on this and ask the forum members themselves if they consider it stupid to stick to the thread topic ?
Seeing as I'm pretty well certain of it, I'll let you do it if you really so desire. Try and stick to the right forum, though (ie, SD not this one).