• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

When is someone ready...?

When is someone ready for Test match cricket

  • As soon as talent is spotted?

    Votes: 2 5.9%
  • 10 FC games?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 50 FC games?

    Votes: 4 11.8%
  • 75 FC games?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Depends entirely on quality of player?

    Votes: 27 79.4%
  • Must prove themselves in ODIs?

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Total voters
    34

Chase

Banned
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
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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
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.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
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.
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.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
You will know only by playing them against world class opposition. This is one of the major issues I have with the doing away of the first class games in a touring teams calender. Young batsmen (and even some not so young) would get to play the tourists in a three or four day game and performing well in these games went a long way in preparing them as well as showing the selectors that they had arrived.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
The evolution of thread occured only in your brain as it always happens when you run of ideas to support your arguments.
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.
I was still talking in the context of the thread title.
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.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Well, Butcher was injured for the majority of 2005 and early 2006. Why should they have picked Butcher ahead of Cook, on what basis ?
Clearly on the proviso "if fit". That, too, was mentioned earlier in the thread.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Clearly on the proviso "if fit". That, too, was mentioned earlier in the thread.
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.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
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.
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.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
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.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
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.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
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.
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.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
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.
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 ?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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.
I still don't know whether he was unavailable. Marc was not certain of it.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
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).
 

Top