Howz dinesh karthik?

[biased indian]

so any chance of a gilchrist karthik comparison???

 

[marc71178]

Even though low averages supposedly don't mean much in the case of people who are considered specialist batsmen, then?

There's low and there's low.

Although I stand by it's how rather than how many, that obviously has it's limits (and sub-20 in Domestic definitely falls in that category for someone who is supposedly a really good batsman worthy of batting in the top 6)

 

[Richard]

Like Vusimuza Sibanda, for instance!
Does "it's how not how many" also apply at international level, then?

 

[marc71178]

No, because it's talking about picking players for Internationals based on domestic performances.

 

[Richard]

So someone who can look good at domestic level but can't produce the goods can produce them at international?

 

[marc71178]

It's a different set of circumstances - if they don't make runs at International level, then they're not going to make runs at International level.

However if they average 30-35 in domestic cricket, but show the technique and temprement then that is worth more than someone who averages 50 in domestic cricket, but doesn't.

 

[Richard]

Presuming that first "International" is supposed to be "domestic"...
Under normal circumstances, the player with the better technique and shot-selection will average 50, the one with the inferior technique and shot-selection will average 30-35.
Clearly, someone who averages less than 30 in domestic cricket can never make an international standard player, but that hasn't stopped the odd one being selected.

 

[marc71178]

No, it is meant to be International, since you were asking if the same principle applied for a low International average,

And it hasn't stopped them succeeding - the better technique and shot-selection may mean that the player doesn't take on risky shots which occasionally pay off (thus increasing the score) but also get them out - those same shots in International Cricket usually bring about wickets as the bowling is that much better and the 50 averaging domestic player cannot adjust.

 

[Richard]

Well, I think I just about understand all that.
So it all explains why most successful international cricketers have had domestic success, too, then?

 

[marc71178]

Looking at the current England side, which I think you could say is successful, there's a lot who haven't.

 

[Richard]

Harmison (who has not been a consistent success).
Trescothick (who has certainly not been a consistent success).
Who else, then?

 

[tooextracool]

Harmison (who has not been a consistent success).

how is averaging 24 not a consistent success?

 

[luckyeddie]

how is averaging 24 not a consistent success?

I think he means 'not a consistent success in the CC' - but I could be wrong.

 

[tooextracool]

I think he means 'not a consistent success in the CC' - but I could be wrong.

yes my mistake that is probably what he meant.....in any case both vaughan and flintoff havent been particularly successful domestic players

 

[marc71178]

yes my mistake that is probably what he meant.....in any case both vaughan and flintoff havent been particularly successful domestic players

My point exactly - so that's 4 of the 11 - and there's others who've not been as good in it as their Test record would suggest.

 

[tooextracool]

coughanomaliescough

 

[Richard]

how is averaging 24 not a consistent success?

Because before 2004 he'd only had success against against the substandard sides.
He's still got a hell of a lot to prove.

 

[Richard]

My point exactly - so that's 4 of the 11 - and there's others who've not been as good in it as their Test record would suggest.

No, of course, so Flintoff's First-Class average of 38.44 isn't remotely successful, is it?
Nor is Vaughan's since 1999 of 54.32.
Like it or not, that's 2 out of 11 - Trescothick who has never remotely convinced me he's a Test-class player and Harmison who has had a good 2004 and before that was a weak-team bully and nothing else.

 

[marc71178]

And how much are those averages improved by the non-domestic game?

Vaughan and Flintoff have not been the most successful when they've played domestically.

 

[Richard]

Vaughan's Championship average is 50.something.
Flintoff in the last 3 years has averaged over 100 in the little Championship cricket he's played.
Of course it's made a little better by tour games, but what's wrong with that? It's still First-Class level, the level below Test-matches.