A place for Corky?

[Goughy]

... were Harmison and Cork's ages to be reversed, I can pretty much assure you you'd all be talking up Cork and down Harmison.

Maybe, but they are not reversed therefore whats your point? We were talking reality rather than hypotheticals.

Richard, serious question (but desending into the realms of the hypothetical). Yes or No answer

There is a Test match tomorrow and if England win you get 1 000 000 pounds.

Do you pick Cork ahead of Harmison?
(I know this may be a silly question given everyone knows you thoughts on Stevie, but worth asking anyway)

 

[Richard]

Seriously, I think it will make little difference.
Cork is obviously not the bowler he once was - and I see it pointless to suggest "tomorrow".
I want to see how he starts the season first. He bowled pretty well last year, after being poor in 2004 and 2003 (though in 2003 he had a chipped bone in his ankle for much of the season).
The point I was making when I mentioned age is that age doesn't relate to ability, people are just far more keen to criticise older players than younger ones.
People saying Harmison is better than Cork are most likely to be saying it because of their ages, not due to genuine judgement on their ability.

 

[Richard]

i thought you wouldnt like Cork much Richard as the majority of his wickets come from pretty poor deliveries

Err, sorry? Which period are you judging on? In 2001, maybe, because he bowled very poorly in 2001. In 2002, maybe too, becuase there were times in 2002 where he bowled poorly, but equally he was handled dreadfully that season. And, sadly, (as predicted at the time by yours-truly) a ball that was only bowled due to Umpiring error meant his last ball in Test cricket went for four.
But I assure you - before that, he bowled well in Test cricket on many occasions.

 

[open365]

Err, Cork is clearly a better bowler than Harmison.

Why is Cork clearly better?

 

[Richard]

Because, even now, Cork actually has the ability to swing the ball, and can get batsmen out rather than just waiting for the odd occasion that batsmen play a fusillade of poor strokes to gift the odd bagful of wickets to him.

 

[open365]

Because, even now, Cork actually has the ability to swing the ball, and can get batsmen out rather than just waiting for the odd occasion that batsmen play a fusillade of poor strokes to gift the odd bagful of wickets to him.

Then howcome their stats are about the same? Are you saying that batsmen have some sort of disease which makes them play bad shots against Harmison but not against Cork?

 

[Richard]

Err, no.
Harmison has had the benefit of playing against substandard sides. Cork did not. Remove substandard sides and Cork's basic average is better.
In any case - their actual stats are pretty similar. Both have had short periods where they were very, very useful (in Cork's case his first 11 Tests) and other periods where they had the odd good game and a few poor ones.

 

[luckyeddie]

Why is Cork clearly better?

Because Richard says so, silly.

 

[Richard]

And because Richard then provides clear reasoning as to why he says so.

 

[SJS]

but really... were Harmison and Cork's ages to be reversed, I can pretty much assure you you'd all be talking up Cork and down Harmison.

Yes indeed.

And if SF Barnes wasnt dead and Corky was, we wouldnt even be discussing this...right ?

 

[Richard]

What, really, does that have to do with anything?
In Cork and Harmison's case we have 2 bowlers who have clearly not achieved that much of particular note in Test-cricket.
SF Barnes achieved about more than any other bowler ever did.

 

[SJS]

What, really, does that have to do with anything?
In Cork and Harmison's case we have 2 bowlers who have clearly not achieved that much of particular note in Test-cricket.
SF Barnes achieved about more than any other bowler ever did.

Forget it Richard. I am not up to it this early

Just pretend my post didnt exist. Difficult but try please.

 

[Richard]

Easy solution there, then.
But really - why even post it ITFP if you're not up to arguing this early?

 

[SJS]

Easy solution there, then.
But really - why even post it ITFP if you're not up to arguing this early?

I find it impossible to argue with someone with as little sense of humour as you seem to posess or at least display here Richard.

My sincere apologies for making a personal remark Richard. Its something I normally detest and advise everyone against but since you insist.

The time of day reference was my way of stopping it getting into one in as polite a way possible without getting irritated. AND THAT I dont want at 5.40 am

 

[SJS]

Easy solution there, then.
But really - why even post it ITFP if you're not up to arguing this early?

And another minor point Richard.

I do not post here on CW - morning, afternoon or evening - to argue. I do it to discuss and debate and to share my thoughts and to learn from others. I am not here for any negative reasons Richard and I consider arguing a negative one.

Now please dont ask me the difference between arguing and discussing and debating for its still only 5.50 am

 

[Richard]

Arguing, debating, largely the same thing.
If you did not wish to discuss, IMO you'd be better served waiting to post until you did.

 

[Richard]

I find it impossible to argue with someone with as little sense of humour as you seem to posess or at least display here Richard.

That comment didn't seem, to me, to be particularly laced with humour, though.
I think I show far more humour than most realise - just, with typed things, there's no tone. Some people on here have the misconceived notion that I can't tell whether someone's being serious or jokey. Quite simply - I can. I see that you didn't mean the Barnes comment absolutely literally, but it also seemed that you used a pretty common tack for many people - making a comment which had an element of jokeyness in it in order to get across something that actually meant something.
If you were intending purely to be funny, I truly apologise for failing to spot it.

 

[SJS]

Arguing, debating, largely the same thing.
If you did not wish to discuss, IMO you'd be better served waiting to post until you did.

Goodbye Richard.

 

[Richard]

Bye.

 

[marc71178]

And because Richard then provides clear reasoning as to why he says so.

However Richard conveniently overlooks the massive help from the pitches Cork had in the one WI series.