Piyush Chawla - ODI Standard?

[Jono]

See, the fact that you think Sarwan may not be test standard just makes me wonder what the hell that term means.

 

[Prince EWS]

See, the fact that you think Sarwan may not be test standard just makes me wonder what the hell that term means.

Yeah, Sarwan's definitely Test standard for mine. Just depends on how high you think that standard is, I suppose.

 

[Manee]

See, the fact that you think Sarwan may not be test standard just makes me wonder what the hell that term means.

What should I title the thread, then?

 

[Jono]

Relax Manee its not a pot shot at you. I just really don't get the term, with regards to how its used on the boards.

 

[Richard]

See, the fact that you think Sarwan may not be test standard just makes me wonder what the hell that term means.

Not a particularly good Test batsman. Simple as.

 

[Manee]

Relax Manee its not a pot shot at you. I just really don't get the term, with regards to how its used on the boards.

Twas a serious question, itbt.

 

[Jono]

Not a particularly good Test batsman. Simple as.

Its so vague.

Is Strauss test class?
Gayle?
Yuvraj?
Shane Watson?
Brad Hodge?
Styris?
Matthew Richardson?
Salman Butt?

 

[Jono]

Twas a serious question, itbt.

Does Chawla deserve to be in the Indian XI is a better question.

The answer can go either way, and the fact that the answer can go either way suggests that he is 'ODI standard' IMO. If you can make the XI as the main ODI spinner for the Indian cricket team, you are ODI standard.

 

[Manee]

Does Chawla deserve to be in the Indian XI is a better question.

Done.

 

[Richard]

Does Chawla deserve to be in the Indian XI is a better question.

The answer can go either way, and the fact that the answer can go either way suggests that he is 'ODI standard' IMO. If you can make the XI as the main ODI spinner for the Indian cricket team, you are ODI standard.

See, that's just silly. If you're going for 5-an-over and not threatening, you're not ODI-standard regardless of how often you get picked.

 

[Richard]

Its so vague.

Care to suggest an alternative?

Is Strauss test class?

Yes, of course.

Gayle?

No.

Yuvraj?

No currently, but he could be I think.

Shane Watson?

Probably.

Brad Hodge?

Yes, probably.

Styris?

A question I always asked. Overwhelmingly I've thought "no".

Matthew Richardson?

Obviously not.

Salman Butt?

No, not currently.

 

[honestbharani]

See, that's just silly. If you're going for 5-an-over and not threatening, you're not ODI-standard regardless of how often you get picked.

lol, Richard... If every bowler and batsman playing the game were upto the standards you keep (in order to call them ODI standard or Test standard).. Every batsman would average 40+ striking at 85+ and every bowler would average in the mid 20s and have an ER of 4.5.



The numbers just won't add up.

 

[Richard]

It goes without saying that the more good ODI bowlers there are, the more difficult it is to be a good ODI batsman.

Maybe under those circumstances the bar must be lowered. There is no absolute number to put on it.

 

[honestbharani]

It goes without saying that the more good ODI bowlers there are, the more difficult it is to be a good ODI batsman.

Maybe under those circumstances the bar must be lowered. There is no absolute number to put on it.

I get all that. I am just saying that you are keeping the bar way too high. There is always place for ordinariness in everything... There is a place for ordinary bowlers and ordinary batters in ODIs.


Whoa, getting all mixed up here. What I am trying to tell here is that ODI standard should not necessarily mean being a good ODI bowler/batsman. It should be possible for people like Chawla to be rated as ODI standard whilst they are not "good" ODI bowlers, at least going by the stats so far.

 

[Top_Cat]

I get all that. I am just saying that you are keeping the bar way too high. There is always place for ordinariness in everything... There is a place for ordinary bowlers and ordinary batters in ODIs.


Whoa, getting all mixed up here. What I am trying to tell here is that ODI standard should not necessarily mean being a good ODI bowler/batsman. It should be possible for people like Chawla to be rated as ODI standard whilst they are not "good" ODI bowlers, at least going by the stats so far.

No HB; you're either 'excellent' or 'worth less than Zimbabwe dollars' as an international cricketer.

 

[Richard]

I get all that. I am just saying that you are keeping the bar way too high. There is always place for ordinariness in everything... There is a place for ordinary bowlers and ordinary batters in ODIs.


Whoa, getting all mixed up here. What I am trying to tell here is that ODI standard should not necessarily mean being a good ODI bowler/batsman. It should be possible for people like Chawla to be rated as ODI standard whilst they are not "good" ODI bowlers, at least going by the stats so far.

Of course there is, but "ordinary" is ODI-standard.

For instance - Damien Martyn and Ricky Ponting were both Test-class batsmen. Martyn was merely ordinary; Ponting was rather more than that.