Bilal Shafayat

[Richard]

knight,hick,ramprakash and fairbrother were all test match failures......and strauss isnt by any means proven yet.
add that to some of the other failures in silverwood,tudor,anthony mcgrath,allan mullally,peter martin and players like vaughan,tresco,harmison erc and you'll see that the anomalies are almost as many as those in the trend.....

Can you not understand that if Strauss is not a proven success (and I'll grant you that he isn't - you've got to do it for more than 2 series) then neither is Harmison?
If you call Mullally, Martin, Tudor and even Silverwood successes in county cricket, meanwhile, you really are delusional.
None of them have First-Class records that suggest to me that they're going to be immidiate successes in Test-match cricket.
If you think Anthony McGrath's got a good domestic record in either form of the game, meanwhile, I can only assume you haven't looked and are just hoping no-one else has.
Yes, Knight, Hick and Fairbrother were Test-match failures but you don't seem to have noticed the fact that they transferred their commanding domestic-one-day form into the ODI arena. Therefore they might be anomalies in the First-Class trend, but they conform to the one-day one.

 

[tooextracool]

Can you not understand that if Strauss is not a proven success (and I'll grant you that he isn't - you've got to do it for more than 2 series) then neither is Harmison?

except that harmison has done well not just at home but also away in the WI, and the last i checked harmison had managed to bowl well outside of the lords.....

If you call Mullally

yes 708 wickets at 28 is poor.....

Martin

oh 606 wickets at 27, absolutely appalling that....have to wonder how he even came close to selection! also his list a limited overs record stands at 22 @ 4.07 and what a fine ODI bowler he turned out to be!

Tudor

280 wickets at 28, also useless that.

and even Silverwood successes in county cricket, meanwhile, you really are delusional.

461 wickets at 26.5 also appalling that. incidentally darren gough had an average of 26.74 so he too is not a county success then and therefore against your rule that county successes=international success. matthe hoggard too only averages 26.5 so he too was a county failure. i know you are going to like this one.....angus fraser was also a county failure averaging 27.40.

just wondering, how many county successes are there??

Yes, Knight, Hick and Fairbrother were Test-match failures but you don't seem to have noticed the fact that they transferred their commanding domestic-one-day form into the ODI arena. Therefore they might be anomalies in the First-Class trend, but they conform to the one-day one.

so what?you said that almost every successful domestic player transfers his domestic record to the international level. so if they couldnt transfer their test form then it disproves one your most stupid theories.....

 

[Richard]

except that harmison has done well not just at home but also away in the WI, and the last i checked harmison had managed to bowl well outside of the lords.....

Oh, yes, so totally unimportant things like coincidental success at one ground and the lack of opportunity to play away mean something, now?
You really are clutching at straws here

yes 708 wickets at 28 is poor.....

oh 606 wickets at 27, absolutely appalling that....have to wonder how he even came close to selection! also his list a limited overs record stands at 22 @ 4.07 and what a fine ODI bowler he turned out to be!

280 wickets at 28, also useless that.

461 wickets at 26.5 also appalling that. incidentally darren gough had an average of 26.74 so he too is not a county success then and therefore against your rule that county successes=international success. matthe hoggard too only averages 26.5 so he too was a county failure. i know you are going to like this one.....angus fraser was also a county failure averaging 27.40.

Can you really not see that averaging over 27 does not make someone an especially good bowler? And do you really think I have not taken constant note of the fact that hardly any Englishmen recently have managed to do so?
England's main problem over the last 8-10 years has been that the bowlers with the potential to average 25-6 (like Gillespie) have in fact averaged 27-8 (Gough, Fraser) or even 29-30 (Cork, Caddick).
Regardless of weight of wickets, it's average that defines how good you are - if you take 700 wickets at 29 in your career you're nowhere near as good as someone who's taken 300 at 24.
England's best bowlers have been nowhere near consistently excellent enough at the international level, so it's a revealing fact that very rarely have they done particularly well at the domestic.
Not, of course, that I reckon Fraser wouldn't have taken both his First-Class and Test averages down by at least 2 had he not had such injury problems as he did.

just wondering, how many county successes are there??

Not very many, I've just said that. Not with regards bowlers, anyhow.

so what?you said that almost every successful domestic player transfers his domestic record to the international level. so if they couldnt transfer their test form then it disproves one your most stupid theories.....

Nope, wrong again. Because I did not say "evey player", I said "nearly every player". And there are those who don't, like Knight, Hick and Fairbrother. A strange coincidence indeed that they have been England's best ODI players probably ever, certainly in the last decade, but haven't made Test successes.

 

[tooextracool]

Oh, yes, so totally unimportant things like coincidental success at one ground and the lack of opportunity to play away mean something, now?
You really are clutching at straws here

how are those straws?time and time again we have seen players who struggle away from home and theres no guarantee that strauss is different....

Can you really not see that averaging over 27 does not make someone an especially good bowler? And do you really think I have not taken constant note of the fact that hardly any Englishmen recently have managed to do so?
England's main problem over the last 8-10 years has been that the bowlers with the potential to average 25-6 (like Gillespie) have in fact averaged 27-8 (Gough, Fraser) or even 29-30 (Cork, Caddick).
Regardless of weight of wickets, it's average that defines how good you are - if you take 700 wickets at 29 in your career you're nowhere near as good as someone who's taken 300 at 24.
England's best bowlers have been nowhere near consistently excellent enough at the international level, so it's a revealing fact that very rarely have they done particularly well at the domestic

so your point here is that we shouldnt pick any bowlers then? most of those bowlers in that list had done as well as some of the better bowlers at the domestic level, yet unlike the goughs,caddicks etc they all performed disgracefully at the international level.

Not, of course, that I reckon Fraser wouldn't have taken both his First-Class and Test averages down by at least 2 had he not had such injury problems as he did

oh yes of course, so bowlers like martin,silverwood etc must be useless because they average 1 run more than what fraser might have if he wasnt injured.....amazing that. so now we shouldnt be picking players who average 25.41 because they average .01 more than what fraser could have.

Nope, wrong again. Because I did not say "evey player", I said "nearly every player". And there are those who don't, like Knight, Hick and Fairbrother. A strange coincidence indeed that they have been England's best ODI players probably ever, certainly in the last decade, but haven't made Test successes.

along with mark ramprakash,ed smith, steve james,chris adams(ODIs),graeme swann,james kirtley(tests),ryan sidebottom(tests),chris silverwood, etc

 

[Richard]

how are those straws?time and time again we have seen players who struggle away from home and theres no guarantee that strauss is different....

Not time and again at all, very, very occasionally.
Until we see some evidence in that Strauss struggles away from England we can fairly safely guess that he's going to do pretty well.

so your point here is that we shouldnt pick any bowlers then? most of those bowlers in that list had done as well as some of the better bowlers at the domestic level, yet unlike the goughs,caddicks etc they all performed disgracefully at the international level.

No, no-one for a long while has done as well as Caddick at the domestic level. He is a lone outstanding performer. Not that he's lived-up to it this season. Anderson is looking like he could match him at the domestic level. Probably while being similarly horribly inconsistent at the international.
No, I've never said don't pick any bowlers, I've just said don't expect much success while domestic bowlers are doing what they're doing ATM.

oh yes of course, so bowlers like martin,silverwood etc must be useless because they average 1 run more than what fraser might have if he wasnt injured.....amazing that. so now we shouldnt be picking players who average 25.41 because they average .01 more than what fraser could have.

Had Fraser averaged 25 in First-Class and Test cricket his would have had a very, very good career. Averaging 26 in First-Class, while being very inconsistent and rarely having consecutive good seasons, and in the meantime averaging over 40 in your Test-career, is not anything comparable. Nor is Peter Martin, with his unexceptional First-Class average.
Neither, however, are useless by any stretch of the imagination and both have IMO underachieved. Silverwood still has the chance to put that right.

along with mark ramprakash,ed smith, steve james,chris adams(ODIs),graeme swann,james kirtley(tests),ryan sidebottom(tests),chris silverwood, etc

Graeme Swann? Have you even looked at his List-A career? ER of, presently, 4.57 (it's come down an incredible 0.2 so far this season, he's been outstanding). Not that his 5 ODI overs show much about his failure, of course.
Sidebottom was picked for Tests and ODIs when I would not even have had him in my best Yorkshire XIs.
Smith and James' failures are so limited they don't mean anything to this.
And Ramprakash we've been through enough times.
Kirtley, however, it's interesting that you call him a Test failure, when he's not been brilliant, but nor has he been an out-and-out failure. Nor, I might add, is his domestic record exceptional, it's just pretty good. In domestic cricket. And given the step-up between domestic and international no-one can be expected to maintain an average as low internationally as domestically.
Kirtley's performance is just about as I expected.

 

[superkingdave]

Isn't it about time you two got a room

 

[Richard]

Nah.
As Knuckles once said to Sonic, I need plenty of space to fight my battles.

 

[tooextracool]

Not time and again at all, very, very occasionally.
Until we see some evidence in that Strauss struggles away from England we can fairly safely guess that he's going to do pretty well.

so half those players on the SL side have done brilliantly home and away then? as i said earlier, strauss may have some weakness in playing spin bowling,or they might find weakness in his technique just like they did with trescothick. players like ian ward, adam hollioake all had succesful starts to their international career, and for whatever reasons failed to continue with it.

No, no-one for a long while has done as well as Caddick at the domestic level. He is a lone outstanding performer. Not that he's lived-up to it this season. Anderson is looking like he could match him at the domestic level. Probably while being similarly horribly inconsistent at the international.
No, I've never said don't pick any bowlers, I've just said don't expect much success while domestic bowlers are doing what they're doing ATM
Had Fraser averaged 25 in First-Class and Test cricket his would have had a very, very good career. Averaging 26 in First-Class, while being very inconsistent and rarely having consecutive good seasons, and in the meantime averaging over 40 in your Test-career, is not anything comparable. Nor is Peter Martin, with his unexceptional First-Class average.
Neither, however, are useless by any stretch of the imagination and both have IMO underachieved. Silverwood still has the chance to put that right..

so someone like gough who averages 27 and went on to be a success would once again prove you wrong then?

Sidebottom was picked for Tests and ODIs when I would not even have had him in my best Yorkshire XIs.

thats not much of a point given that hes averaging 25 in first class cricket ATM.

Smith and James' failures are so limited they don't mean anything to this..

they were both given more chances than someone like troughton and far more than mahmood, yet you classify the both of them as failures!

Kirtley, however, it's interesting that you call him a Test failure, when he's not been brilliant, but nor has he been an out-and-out failure. Nor, I might add, is his domestic record exceptional, it's just pretty good. In domestic cricket. And given the step-up between domestic and international no-one can be expected to maintain an average as low internationally as domestically.

so averaging in the 25s in domestic cricket makes his record not exceptional then? and kirtleys record has been a failure, if you look at his performances outside th up and down trent bridge wicket where anyone could have taken wickets on, his average would be in the high 30s
and how many times do i have to say it.....if intl cricket is a step up from domestic cricket then its quite likely that there will be successful domestic players who fail at the intl level, and we've seen that on several occasions.

 

[Richard]

so half those players on the SL side have done brilliantly home and away then? as i said earlier, strauss may have some weakness in playing spin bowling,or they might find weakness in his technique just like they did with trescothick. players like ian ward, adam hollioake all had succesful starts to their international career, and for whatever reasons failed to continue with it.

So Ian Ward's 39 in his 1st innings now counts as a successful start, does it?
Ward was never going to be a success because he's an opener and he was picked to bat at number-seven and six. Regardless of the playing-across-the-line tendancy, which didn't actually result in his wicket all that often.
Trescothick's weaknesses has always been blatantly obvious - he doesn't move his feet, he hits the ball in the air far too often, he can't leave balls way outside off for very long, and he struggles with deciding whether to drive or leave fullish balls just outside off. Just because they've not been exploited, and because he benefited from a massive amount of luck in the first 2 years of his career, doesn't mean the weaknesses weren't very obvious, it just means the bowlers weren't good enough to exploit them or were unlucky with dropped catches and bad decisions in the batsman's favour.

so someone like gough who averages 27 and went on to be a success would once again prove you wrong then?

And you'd classify Gough a success, would you? I don't have any question in my mind that he'll be disappointed with his eventual Test record, and anyone who watched him bowl very much would share that. He could have done much, much better but for injuries and occasional losses of form against South Africa especially.
While he wasn't a failure, by any stretch of the imagination, just like Fraser, his record could have been so much better than it was.

thats not much of a point given that hes averaging 25 in first class cricket ATM.

Yes, it is - because I wouldn't have picked him for England, and he failed in his only Test-match (not that you can say for certain that he's not Test-class on one game, but I wouldn't guess he is anyway).

they were both given more chances than someone like troughton and far more than mahmood, yet you classify the both of them as failures!

Oh, so Troughton was given less chances (5 innings) than Smith (5 innings) and James (4 innings). Not that either were given a wholly fair chance, 5 innings isn't much, but regardless, all of them failed.
Just because they failed, though, doesn't mean their failures are absolute. And nor did I say Mahmood's was, because it would be wholly stupid to say so on one game and 7 overs, however abysmal they were.

so averaging in the 25s in domestic cricket makes his record not exceptional then? and kirtleys record has been a failure, if you look at his performances outside th up and down trent bridge wicket where anyone could have taken wickets on, his average would be in the high 30s
and how many times do i have to say it.....if intl cricket is a step up from domestic cricket then its quite likely that there will be successful domestic players who fail at the intl level, and we've seen that on several occasions.

Yes, and equally we've seen bowlers and batsmen who've been very very successful at the domestic level and very successful at the international - or very successful at the domestic level and successful at the international. Plenty of them.
Yes, Kirtley's Test average is in the high 30s from that match onwards, but the fact is, he's played on types of wickets like both the types he's played his international career on, and thus far his international career hasn't been an out-and-out failure. In fact, it's taken a similar pattern to his domestic. Which, incidentally, shows an average of just about 26, not early 25s.

 

[tooextracool]

So Ian Ward's 39 in his 1st innings now counts as a successful start, does it?
Ward was never going to be a success because he's an opener and he was picked to bat at number-seven and six. Regardless of the playing-across-the-line tendancy, which didn't actually result in his wicket all that often.

yes it does because in that innings he showed absolutely no weakness in his technique.

Trescothick's weaknesses has always been blatantly obvious - he doesn't move his feet, he hits the ball in the air far too often, he can't leave balls way outside off for very long, and he struggles with deciding whether to drive or leave fullish balls just outside off. Just because they've not been exploited, and because he benefited from a massive amount of luck in the first 2 years of his career, doesn't mean the weaknesses weren't very obvious, it just means the bowlers weren't good enough to exploit them or were unlucky with dropped catches and bad decisions in the batsman's favour.

and if you had been observing strauss closely enough you will see that when the ball is directed away from him he has the tendency to play a shot without moving his feet(the headingly dismissal). no its not half as bad as trescothicks foot movement because in tresco's entire career ive never seen him move his feet an inch to play a drive but the fact is that it might just be a minor weakness that some of the quality bowlers might explore.

And you'd classify Gough a success, would you? I don't have any question in my mind that he'll be disappointed with his eventual Test record, and anyone who watched him bowl very much would share that. He could have done much, much better but for injuries and occasional losses of form against South Africa especially.
While he wasn't a failure, by any stretch of the imagination, just like Fraser, his record could have been so much better than it was.

of course he was a success, whats wrong with you?whether or not he achieved as much as he could have is irrelevant because the fact is that he went on to become a world class bowler despite having similar averages to someone like silverwood who achieved nothing.

Yes, it is - because I wouldn't have picked him for England, and he failed in his only Test-match (not that you can say for certain that he's not Test-class on one game, but I wouldn't guess he is anyway)..

no you said that successful domestic career = successful international career and i think his domestic career has been quite successful. all of a sudden now your picking only players who you like?

Oh, so Troughton was given less chances (5 innings) than Smith (5 innings) and James (4 innings). Not that either were given a wholly fair chance, 5 innings isn't much, but regardless, all of them failed.

no if you could in fact read you would see clearly that troughton was only dismissed 4 times.

Just because they failed, though, doesn't mean their failures are absolute. And nor did I say Mahmood's was, because it would be wholly stupid to say so on one game and 7 overs, however abysmal they were.

yet you've gone on to call mahmood and everyone else bar smith and james as failures in the other thread!

Yes, and equally we've seen bowlers and batsmen who've been very very successful at the domestic level and very successful at the international - or very successful at the domestic level and successful at the international. Plenty of them.

and we've seen several players who've been just as successful domestically yet have failed internationally. and we've also seen players who've had poor domestic records when picked to play for england yet eventually ended up being domestic and international successes

Yes, Kirtley's Test average is in the high 30s from that match onwards, but the fact is, he's played on types of wickets like both the types he's played his international career on, and thus far his international career hasn't been an out-and-out failure. In fact, it's taken a similar pattern to his domestic. Which, incidentally, shows an average of just about 26, not early 25s.

and you are going to show me proof of this then? the fact is that if you remove that one match on a wicket where really anyone could have taken wickets on hes been abysmal, and from his domestic record that cannot be predicted, just like it cannot from all the other successful domestic bowlers

 

[Richard]

yes it does because in that innings he showed absolutely no weakness in his technique.

But he didn't make a substantial score - therefore he didn't succeed in his 1st innings. The fact that you saw no weakness in his technique doesn't matter.

and if you had been observing strauss closely enough you will see that when the ball is directed away from him he has the tendency to play a shot without moving his feet(the headingly dismissal). no its not half as bad as trescothicks foot movement because in tresco's entire career ive never seen him move his feet an inch to play a drive but the fact is that it might just be a minor weakness that some of the quality bowlers might explore.

Almost any player will have some sort of flaw in their game, whether or not it gets him out cheaply often is the thing that matters.
So far Strauss' flaws haven't got him out cheaply, until they do we don't need to worry about them.

of course he was a success, whats wrong with you?whether or not he achieved as much as he could have is irrelevant because the fact is that he went on to become a world class bowler despite having similar averages to someone like silverwood who achieved nothing.

Gough was not a big success - he was just a success by English standards.
Anyone can tell you that Gough could have achieved a lot more in both First-Class and Test cricket, therefore he was a relative failure.

no you said that successful domestic career = successful international career and i think his domestic career has been quite successful. all of a sudden now your picking only players who you like?

No, not like, I've got nothing against Sidebottom. I just thought there were better bowlers in Yorkshire at the time of his Test and ODI debuts.

no if you could in fact read you would see clearly that troughton was only dismissed 4 times.

Well, 4 times then, forgot to look, not couldn't read.
And even so, it's still no less than James so you were still wrong.

yet you've gone on to call mahmood and everyone else bar smith and james as failures in the other thread!

No, I've never said Smith and James weren't failures. I've just said their failures don't mean much.
Nor, whatever you may try to make-out, did I say Mahmood's failure means much. But I do think it will continue.

and we've seen several players who've been just as successful domestically yet have failed internationally. and we've also seen players who've had poor domestic records when picked to play for england yet eventually ended up being domestic and international successes

And they are outnumbered.
Don't you think it's a bit of a coincidence that someone's international form (I might remind you that Vaughan, however much promise he showed to me, only averaged in the 20s for his 1st year in Test-cricket) took an upturn just after his domestic?

and you are going to show me proof of this then? the fact is that if you remove that one match on a wicket where really anyone could have taken wickets on hes been abysmal, and from his domestic record that cannot be predicted, just like it cannot from all the other successful domestic bowlers

And if you remove the matches on similar wickets in domestic cricket his record will be similarly unimpressive.

 

[tooextracool]

But he didn't make a substantial score - therefore he didn't succeed in his 1st innings. The fact that you saw no weakness in his technique doesn't matter.

why does it not matter?in that innings he looked good technically and impressed a lot of people. and then just a while later we saw him struggling against australia.

Almost any player will have some sort of flaw in their game, whether or not it gets him out cheaply often is the thing that matters.
So far Strauss' flaws haven't got him out cheaply, until they do we don't need to worry about them.

2 things....
1) if you look at his career outside lords you'll see that he hasnt been anything phenomenal
2) they havent got him out cheaply yet, in much the same way that trescothick wasnt getting out cheaply early on in his career. the fact is that sometimes it takes a while for a player to be found it
note- im not saying strauss will fail im just saying that he isnt a proven success yet.

Gough was not a big success - he was just a success by English standards.
Anyone can tell you that Gough could have achieved a lot more in both First-Class and Test cricket, therefore he was a relative failure.

you yourself said that almost every player tends to average slightly worse than his domestic record, the fact is that gough was an international success, whether or not he succeeded as much as he should have is irrelevant because the fact is that there have been several other players as successful at the domestic level that have been embarassing at the intl level.

No, not like, I've got nothing against Sidebottom. I just thought there were better bowlers in Yorkshire at the time of his Test and ODI debuts.

whats your point though?he had a good domestic record which by your methods should mean that he should have a good international career too.

Well, 4 times then, forgot to look, not couldn't read.
And even so, it's still no less than James so you were still wrong.

and if 1 cant be termed a failure then neither can the other.

No, I've never said Smith and James weren't failures. I've just said their failures don't mean much.
Nor, whatever you may try to make-out, did I say Mahmood's failure means much. But I do think it will continue.

no when i included a bunch of failures with successful domestic careers you said that they didnt get enough games to be classified as failures, yet you come up with players who got just about as many games and put them on your list of failures....putting mahmood and kabir on that list was just plain stupid.
and whether or not you think he wouldnt have succeeded is irrelevant, the fact is the same can be said about smith and james so it all comes down to personal opinion.

And they are outnumbered.
Don't you think it's a bit of a coincidence that someone's international form (I might remind you that Vaughan, however much promise he showed to me, only averaged in the 20s for his 1st year in Test-cricket) took an upturn just after his domestic?

no its not surprisng because you would expect anyone who does well internationally to also transfer that form domestically. the point im making is that to expect everyone with a good domestic record to transfer it internationally is just plain stupid.

And if you remove the matches on similar wickets in domestic cricket his record will be similarly unimpressive.

and if you do the same for bowlers like caddick,bicknell etc you will see the same results.

 

[Richard]

why does it not matter?in that innings he looked good technically and impressed a lot of people. and then just a while later we saw him struggling against australia.

And we saw him struggle against Pakistan the match before that, too.
Not many of his dismissals were due to the flaw in his technique, and I'm pretty confident he'd have succeeded had he had the chance to open the batting.

2 things....
1) if you look at his career outside lords you'll see that he hasnt been anything phenomenal
2) they havent got him out cheaply yet, in much the same way that trescothick wasnt getting out cheaply early on in his career. the fact is that sometimes it takes a while for a player to be found it
note- im not saying strauss will fail im just saying that he isnt a proven success yet.

No, of course he's not a proven success, but I sure as hell hope he scores a lot at The Oval, 160 or so, just to dispel that first bit. You can't be a proven success having played just 10 innings, but I'm very confident he will be before all that long.

you yourself said that almost every player tends to average slightly worse than his domestic record, the fact is that gough was an international success, whether or not he succeeded as much as he should have is irrelevant because the fact is that there have been several other players as successful at the domestic level that have been embarassing at the intl level.

It's not irrelevant at all - had Gough's success at the domestic level been as good as I reckon it should have been (ie averaging 23-4 - perfectly within the realms of possibility given his ability and his home ground's typical wicket) then it's far more likely his Test average would have been the 25-6 that I reckon it could have been.

whats your point though?he had a good domestic record which by your methods should mean that he should have a good international career too.

And he might have done had he played more than 1 Test-match and 2 ODIs.
But the fact is, I wouldn't have picked him for England because I wouldn't have picked him for Yorkshire.

and if 1 cant be termed a failure then neither can the other.

Yes, they can all be termed failures. But there is mitigation in big terms for Smith and James, a little less for Troughton, and in any case none are conclusive failures, meaning that they couldn't possibly be international-standard players.
However, I don't believe Troughton should have been picked when he was, and I do believe James and Smith had earnt their chance.

no when i included a bunch of failures with successful domestic careers you said that they didnt get enough games to be classified as failures, yet you come up with players who got just about as many games and put them on your list of failures....putting mahmood and kabir on that list was just plain stupid.
and whether or not you think he wouldnt have succeeded is irrelevant, the fact is the same can be said about smith and james so it all comes down to personal opinion.

Exactly. I'm glad you've finally realised that.

no its not surprisng because you would expect anyone who does well internationally to also transfer that form domestically. the point im making is that to expect everyone with a good domestic record to transfer it internationally is just plain stupid.

And the point I'm making is it's not.
Of course every trend will have it's anomalies, but if someone has an excellent domestic record you'd expect them to be a good international player. Most will, a few won't.

and if you do the same for bowlers like caddick,bicknell etc you will see the same results.

Generally, yes.
Point being?
I've always said Caddick is a good bowler on seamers or up-and-downers, Bicknell likewise to an extent, though Caddick is an outswing bowler, Bicknell can make it go both ways and can also bowl a bit of reverse, so he's not quite so definitive.

 

[tooextracool]

And we saw him struggle against Pakistan the match before that, too.
Not many of his dismissals were due to the flaw in his technique, and I'm pretty confident he'd have succeeded had he had the chance to open the batting.

err he didnt play a game before that....
and im pretty confident he wouldnt have succeeded even if he had opened the batting

No, of course he's not a proven success, but I sure as hell hope he scores a lot at The Oval, 160 or so, just to dispel that first bit. You can't be a proven success having played just 10 innings, but I'm very confident he will be before all that long.

id like to see him do so too, i personally like his attitude and mental toughness, although as of late hes tended to flash at wide deliveries with the new ball. and if he isnt a proven success yet then why include him on your list off successful players?

It's not irrelevant at all - had Gough's success at the domestic level been as good as I reckon it should have been (ie averaging 23-4 - perfectly within the realms of possibility given his ability and his home ground's typical wicket) then it's far more likely his Test average would have been the 25-6 that I reckon it could have been.

whats your point though? he was succeessful at the international arena despite not having as good an average as you would have liked. yet there have been other players who have had similar domestic averages and been an embarassment

And he might have done had he played more than 1 Test-match and 2 ODIs.
But the fact is, I wouldn't have picked him for England because I wouldn't have picked him for Yorkshire.

which all boils down to whether you think someone is good enough rather than looking at stats. which is what the selectors have been doing for quite a while now.

Yes, they can all be termed failures. But there is mitigation in big terms for Smith and James, a little less for Troughton, and in any case none are conclusive failures, meaning that they couldn't possibly be international-standard players.
However, I don't believe Troughton should have been picked when he was, and I do believe James and Smith had earnt their chance.

therefore if james and smith are not on the list of failures then neither is troughton

Exactly. I'm glad you've finally realised that.

i realised that a long time ago....

And the point I'm making is it's not.
Of course every trend will have it's anomalies, but if someone has an excellent domestic record you'd expect them to be a good international player. Most will, a few won't.

and the fact is that ive shown far too many of those anomalies for them to be termed as such.

Generally, yes.
Point being?
I've always said Caddick is a good bowler on seamers or up-and-downers, Bicknell likewise to an extent, though Caddick is an outswing bowler, Bicknell can make it go both ways and can also bowl a bit of reverse, so he's not quite so definitive.

point is that kirtley had a similar record to caddick and yet went on to become a useless intl cricketer.

 

[Richard]

err he didnt play a game before that....

You clearly don't realise that I'm saying he did play a game in between The Ashes and his resonable debut-innings.
Either that or yet again you're stating that things happened in a way they didn't.

and im pretty confident he wouldnt have succeeded even if he had opened the batting

I'm pretty confident he would. So are many other good judges of the game.

id like to see him do so too, i personally like his attitude and mental toughness, although as of late hes tended to flash at wide deliveries with the new ball. and if he isnt a proven success yet then why include him on your list off successful players?

Because he's been a success thus far and I think most people expect him to continue to be so.
Still, of course, we saw one shot demonstrating that flaw in shot-execution. Fortunately, it didn't get him out this time.

whats your point though? he was succeessful at the international arena despite not having as good an average as you would have liked. yet there have been other players who have had similar domestic averages and been an embarassment

He wasn't successful - he was reasonable. Do you really think he'd even have held-down a place in an Australian side with a record like his? Let alone been considered a success?

which all boils down to whether you think someone is good enough rather than looking at stats. which is what the selectors have been doing for quite a while now.

And they thought Sidebottom was good enough, while I didn't think he was good enough for Yorkshire.
And if you looked at the relatively limited amount of cricket that excellent average has come from you'd see why.

therefore if james and smith are not on the list of failures then neither is troughton

They all are - I just think Troughton should never have been picked for ODIs and I think James and Smith had earnt their chance in Tests.

i realised that a long time ago....

Yeah! Right! That's a good-'un!

and the fact is that ive shown far too many of those anomalies for them to be termed as such.

No, you haven't - you've shown lots of them, yes, but over such a long period that there are plenty of examples to the contrary, some of whom I have named.

point is that kirtley had a similar record to caddick and yet went on to become a useless intl cricketer.

No, he didn't - I don't think you'll find many who would describe Kirtley's Test career (to date, and I'll be ver surprised if it's over) as useless. If anyone did, they would have to say the same about Caddick.
Personally I wouldn't call Caddick a failure, but he's certainly been a huge disappointment.

 

[marc71178]

I'm pretty confident he would. So are many other good judges of the game.

The same good judges of the game that know nothing when they disagree with your opinion?

 

[Richard]

Oh, no, you're not going to get away with that.
I've never once said they know nothing.
I have said I think I know better, but that should be obvious.
You think you know better whenever you disagree with them, too.

 

[marc71178]

Where have I disagreed with the majority of the circketing public?

And how does that change the fact that you've often written them off as you claim that you know more than them, but all of a sudden have decided that they do know something after all?

 

[Richard]

I've written-off some stuff, sometimes.
The vast majority of stuff to do with cricket is so obvious that anyone who knows as much as you, me or Bob Willis will agree on it.
There are plenty and plenty of observations that me and commentators have made without needing to converse with each-other.
I don't know when you've disagreed with the majority of the cricketing public, but if you're saying you've not done so quite a few times, you're kidding yourself.
Giles and Harmison for two examples. Whatever it may seem now, there were thousands who were questioning Harmison's place after the first-innings at The Oval last year and it truly astounds me how few otherwise-knowledgable people notice that Giles is a World-beater on turning pitches, as good as any fingerspinner who's played the game, and no more useless than any others on non-turners.