Best New Zealand line-up?

[Richard]

erm..I dont think Trescothick,Vaughan,Flintoff or Harmison have actually played in the Championship this year, Hussain played 3 innings,Strauss has batted twice,Geraint Jones has batted three times with an average of 10.50,Thorpe has scored 1 half century in his 5 CC innings,Giles has taken 4 wickets in the CC this year (only played one game)...and Butcher has scored a tad over 200 runs in 4 or 5 innings, 180 odd of them in one innings.

The one person who can claim to had any success at domestic level (not including one dayers,even then I doubt many of the above have played that much) is Key.

So Richard...could you explain what your point was again!!!!!

Long-term success, that was what my point was.
Not whether they've managed to take their very limited chances this season.

 

[Richard]

well then if you had have been a selector, you probably would never have picked David Gower,Bob Willis, maybe even Ian Botham,or Vaughan, or Flintoff, or Trescothick (how you dont consider Tresco a success is beyond me,4000 test runs in 50 ish tests, with 8 test centuries and an average in the mid 40's)...I would take a guess that the England players of the last 20 years would be consisting of the likes of Phil Newport, or Derek Pringle, or Vic Marks etc

No, not so, because they all failed at the Test level. I'd hardly call Vic Marks a domestic success, either, with an average of over 33.
As I've been through with you, Bob Willis' Test success was entirely predictable given his domestic record, whatever impressions any fans of certain counties might have made for themselves.
Ian Botham's domestic record wasn't exactly bad, either; with both bat and ball, it's marginally better than internationally.
Flintoff's county batting averages, certainly, have always been most impressive and he's yet to prove a consistent success with the ball.
And no, I don't rate Trescothick, because for the first 2 years of his career he barely made a half-century without some form of let-off, then from 2002\03 to this summer he basically had one good Test-match which, beyond all question, he would have been dropped had he scored 60 for twice out in.
This summer I'll not deny he's batted extremely well even against weak attacks, but one summer does not a career make.
And just because David Gower didn't value the game properly, sadly, it doesn't detract from his Test-record. Just like Viv Richards, though, it does make him a lesser player than if both had forged career First-Class averages in the 50s, which they were beyond question more than capable of.

 

[Richard]

now hold on a second here....i seem to remember you making these strange comments
"Failure cannot, like it or not, be absolutely judged on 5 innings.
Clearly? No, not clearly at all. For clarity, you need about 10 or 15 innings"

so lets take a look at how many of those players got to play those many innings shall we?
darren maddy got 4 innings,clearly below your requirments
anthony mcgrath got 5 innings once again not near the requirements.
paul collingwood got 4 innings
gareth batty got 8 innings once again not enough
chris schofield bowled 18 overs....quite a brilliant deduction that.
chris adams got 8 innings, again not enough
and warren hegg got 4 innings again far below your requirements

then in ODIs
mahmood- this is just stupid, how anyone can call someone a failure from 1 ODI is plain ridiculous
kabir ali never got to bowl in his only ODI so how you can call him a failure is beyond me.
troughton got just 5 ODIs once again far from enough
how you can call harmison and ODI failure already is beyond me, perhaps the same way you were calling him a test failure after his performances against SA.
batty got 5 odis again not enough
tudor bowled only 21 overs in his 3 games once again falling below your threshold
ryan sidebottom got 14 overs in his 2 ODIs, again not enough
jeremy snape with an economy of 4.57 is hardly a failure
james foster got 6 innings, not enough
vince wells got 7 chances, again not enough
darren maddy got 6 chances,not enough
chris adams who has a domestic ODI record of 41 should actually be used to contradict your argument that successful domestic players=successful international players

its amazing how you manage to get yourself in further trouble by twisting around your own comments. im afraid the argument is lost again richard.

Well just because you've tried to twist my comments, for the umpteenth time, doesn't mean I can't easily get myself out of the trouble you've tried to put me in. It just shows, for the umpteenth time, what you need to do to try.
To start with, Chris Adams should beyond question have got more chances in ODIs than he did (and I fail to see how someone can have a domestic one-day-international record - I seriously suggest you correct that one) and certainly his failure is not one that can have anything based upon it. I don't quite understand why on Earth I put him in there, nor Kabir Ali, so I'll correct that.
Like it or not, all these players are failures. So far in their careers. Some will almost certainly get more chances, some almost certainly won't.
However, these failures cannot be judged absolutely and with good domestic records they would merit another go. With poor domestic records I see no reason why more chances wouldn't result in more failure.
However, the fact in many cases these players were dropped very quickly just shows how much faith the public and Press had in them. Had they been retained for much longer, there would have been near outcry.
Oh, by the way, if someone averages in the teens for even 8 or 10 innings, unless there is major mitigation or an outstanding domestic record, I'd say that is conclusive enough failure. The 15-or-so innings really applies more for those who've done a bit better, ie averaged in the mid-20s.

 

[Richard]

Oh it must be as it's more than 4.50 and we all know that anything over that is absolutely woeful!

oh yes i forget....the same .07 difference that makes ealham as good a bowler as caddick also makes jeremy snape a totally useless failure.

Like it or not over 4.5-an-over is not up to ODI standard.
Just because there are so many sub-par bowlers around ATM doesn't change that.
Anyhow, before the very lucky final phrase of his career, which saw two slow turners in his last 2 games, followed by lots of well-timed injuries, his economy-rate was 4.86-an-over, a much better reflection.

 

[marc71178]

Like it or not, in the current climate, 4.5 an over is not a cut-off.

If scores are regularly topping 300 (6 an over), then 5 an over is a good effort.

 

[Richard]

In spite of the fact that the best bowlers are still going for less than 4-an-over?
The reasons for scores rising is because the overall quality of bowling has got worse, and possibly that the newer bowlers are being encouraged to accept such mediocrity.

 

[tooextracool]

In spite of the fact that the best bowlers are still going for less than 4-an-over?
The reasons for scores rising is because the overall quality of bowling has got worse, and possibly that the newer bowlers are being encouraged to accept such mediocrity.

where have i said that jeremy snape was amongst the best bowlers in the world? anybody who has a 4.57 after a limited number of games is bound to improve and get better.

 

[tooextracool]

Like it or not over 4.5-an-over is not up to ODI standard.
Just because there are so many sub-par bowlers around ATM doesn't change that.
Anyhow, before the very lucky final phrase of his career, which saw two slow turners in his last 2 games, followed by lots of well-timed injuries, his economy-rate was 4.86-an-over, a much better reflection.

handpicking again? this is bordering on the point of lunacy....you cannot pick all players successful performances and look solely at their poor performances. quite frankly i could do the same with vaas by handpicking his performances on seaming wickets and against the useless attacks and hed come out with an ER of around 4.5

 

[tooextracool]

Well just because you've tried to twist my comments, for the umpteenth time, doesn't mean I can't easily get myself out of the trouble you've tried to put me in. It just shows, for the umpteenth time, what you need to do to try.
To start with, Chris Adams should beyond question have got more chances in ODIs than he did (and I fail to see how someone can have a domestic one-day-international record - I seriously suggest you correct that one) and certainly his failure is not one that can have anything based upon it. I don't quite understand why on Earth I put him in there, nor Kabir Ali, so I'll correct that.
Like it or not, all these players are failures. So far in their careers. Some will almost certainly get more chances, some almost certainly won't.
However, these failures cannot be judged absolutely and with good domestic records they would merit another go. With poor domestic records I see no reason why more chances wouldn't result in more failure.
However, the fact in many cases these players were dropped very quickly just shows how much faith the public and Press had in them. Had they been retained for much longer, there would have been near outcry.
Oh, by the way, if someone averages in the teens for even 8 or 10 innings, unless there is major mitigation or an outstanding domestic record, I'd say that is conclusive enough failure. The 15-or-so innings really applies more for those who've done a bit better, ie averaged in the mid-20s.

its just amazing how you keep twisting around your own arguments. just because you believe that some of those players werent good enough it doesnt mean its true! you cannot just say that players like ed smith,steve james etc all deserved more chances while players like mahmood, troughton,batty etc didnt because they all failed just about as badly as each other. there are several people who believe that some of those in the latter set had potential and several other who believe that players in the former set didnt. you yourself said that failure cannot be judge from 5 innings, yet when more than half that players on that list didnt get that many innings you say that they were failures in their limited chances and would have been an outcry had they got more. quite frankly i could say the same thing about chris adams,bicknell,steve james,matthe maynard and ed smith

 

[marc71178]

In spite of the fact that the best bowlers are still going for less than 4-an-over?

Right, there's been approximately 50 bowlers under 4 as a career eco rate.

Of those, 3 are still playing.

So you're trying to tell us that the likes of Max Walker, Chris Old, Simon Davis, Mike Whitney, Adam Dale, Vic Marks and John Lever are all better bowlers than ANY current bowler?

Or could it be that they played when the game was a more even match between bat and ball?

 

[stevo22]

And no, I don't rate Trescothick, because for the first 2 years of his career he barely made a half-century without some form of let-off, then from 2002\03 to this summer he basically had one good Test-match which, beyond all question, he would have been dropped had he scored 60 for twice out in.
This summer I'll not deny he's batted extremely well even against weak attacks, but one summer does not a career make.

Don't think so. An average of nearly 44 is very good. You can't get away with being lucky forever. They say an average of over 40 is the benchmark in test cricket, well nearly 44 is pretty good if you ask me. So Tescothick gives the of chance - he's an attacking player. And as one good test match since 2002 - see below from cricinfo :

overall 52 3936 219 43.73 8 24 1 1/34 144.00 0 55 0

13 76 DNB 4 0 D 1st Test v SL in Eng 2002 at Lord's [1603]
161 - DNB 1 0 W 2nd Test v SL in Eng 2002 at Birmingham [1605]
81 23* DNB 0 0 W 3rd Test v SL in Eng 2002 at Manchester 1606]
57 58* DNB 0 0 D 4th Test v Ind in Eng 2002 at The Oval [1614]
72 1 DNB 3 0 L 1st Test v Aus in Aus 2002/03 at Brisbane [1623]

59 4 DNB 0 0 L 4th Test v SA in Eng 2003 at Leeds [1656]
219 69* DNB 1 0 W 5th Test v SA in Eng 2003 at The Oval [1659]
113 32 DNB 4 0 W 1st Test v BD in BD 2003/04 at Dhaka [1665]
60 1* DNB 0 0 W 2nd Test v BD in BD 2003/04 at Chittagong [1667]

 

[Swervy]

Don't think so. An average of nearly 44 is very good. You can't get away with being lucky forever. They say an average of over 40 is the benchmark in test cricket, well nearly 44 is pretty good if you ask me. So Tescothick gives the of chance - he's an attacking player. And as one good test match since 2002 - see below from cricinfo :

overall 52 3936 219 43.73 8 24 1 1/34 144.00 0 55 0

13 76 DNB 4 0 D 1st Test v SL in Eng 2002 at Lord's [1603]
161 - DNB 1 0 W 2nd Test v SL in Eng 2002 at Birmingham [1605]
81 23* DNB 0 0 W 3rd Test v SL in Eng 2002 at Manchester 1606]
57 58* DNB 0 0 D 4th Test v Ind in Eng 2002 at The Oval [1614]
72 1 DNB 3 0 L 1st Test v Aus in Aus 2002/03 at Brisbane [1623]

59 4 DNB 0 0 L 4th Test v SA in Eng 2003 at Leeds [1656]
219 69* DNB 1 0 W 5th Test v SA in Eng 2003 at The Oval [1659]
113 32 DNB 4 0 W 1st Test v BD in BD 2003/04 at Dhaka [1665]
60 1* DNB 0 0 W 2nd Test v BD in BD 2003/04 at Chittagong [1667]

ooooh Stevo..what have you let yourself in for-o

You may well be caught up in a whirlwind of massive proportions if Richard (and for the matter TEC,as he doesnt like Tresco either) get hold of this,...its a downward spiral you will never get out of...endless bickering etc

I agree with you though..Trescothick does give the opposition a chance because he is a very aggressive opening batsman(all attacking opening batsman give chances)...it is up to the opposition to take the chances, and if they dont early on, Trescothick has the talent to make them pay big time .

Some players are just like that (have a look at Bothams 149* in 81, it was lucky but he still deserved every single run in that innings...his 118 at Old Trafford was a better innings,and yet he was dropped early on by Mike Whitney,but he still derserved the hundred)

 

[Swervy]

of course all of this is unrelated to the topic of the thread, but it is interesting to see how these evolve

 

[marc71178]

overall 52 3936 219 43.73 8 24 1 1/34 144.00 0 55 0
[1667]

Not to mention his most recent Test Match - 2 tons in a game - hardly a poor effort.

 

[Craig]

Equally, look at the number of "hunches" who have failed thus far, even though those failures have not always been from fair chances: McGrath, Foster, Collingwood, Batty, Jones thus far, Dawson, Schofield, Adams, Maddy, Read, Hegg, the examples from 1998 onward, in Test-matches. In ODIs there are plenty more: Mahmood, Key, Troughton, McGrath, Clarke, Harmison, Batty, Blackwell, Tudor, Sidebottom, Snape, Kirtley, Foster, Shah, Vaughan, Solanki, Wells, Maddy.
The examples often quoted as successful hunches are Trescothick (lucky, I don't consider him a success), Vaughan (whose First-Class average has gone up and up from his Test-debut onwards) and Harmison (6 good matches doesn't yet prove anything, especially given the two most recent games). These are in Test-matches; in ODIs recently there have been two that, so far in their careers, have been successes despite average domestic records, Strauss and Johnson, neither who have played a compelling number of ODIs.
So really you can see why I prefer to judge an international selection on domestic success.

So Richard, a batsman plays 65 Tests and has an average of 54 with a highest score of 263* but has a domestic record (or County record) of 34 does that make him a useless Test batsman?

Most (if not all) would be tripping up over themselves to have somebody like that in their team (Test success).

Of course th is a hypothethitcal (sp) situation.

 

[tooextracool]

No, not so, because they all failed at the Test level..

yet they all had successful domestic records! another contradiction here?

Ian Botham's domestic record wasn't exactly bad, either; with both bat and ball, it's marginally better than internationally..

strange that....derek pringle had a similar domestic record and he went on to achieve greatness didnt he?

Flintoff's county batting averages, certainly, have always been most impressive and he's yet to prove a consistent success with the ball.

yes with a brilliant first class average of 36.21 and limited overs record of 30. incidentally rikki clarke also averages 36 in first class cricket and of course you predicted failure for him didnt you?

 

[tooextracool]

Don't think so. An average of nearly 44 is very good. You can't get away with being lucky forever. They say an average of over 40 is the benchmark in test cricket, well nearly 44 is pretty good if you ask me. So Tescothick gives the of chance - he's an attacking player. And as one good test match since 2002 - see below from cricinfo

if theres been one person who has benefitted from the poor quality bowling today and the flatness of the wickets its been trescothick. his record against australia and SA(pre oval) exemplify that. its amazing how most of his runs have come from 80 mph merchants.

13 76 DNB 4 0 D 1st Test v SL in Eng 2002 at Lord's [1603]
161 - DNB 1 0 W 2nd Test v SL in Eng 2002 at Birmingham [1605]
81 23* DNB 0 0 W 3rd Test v SL in Eng 2002 at Manchester 1606]

all these performances were against a very poor quality pace attack, vaas being as incapable as always in england and the rest of the bowlers bowling rubbish in the 2nd and 3rd test.

72 1 DNB 3 0 L 1st Test v Aus in Aus 2002/03 at Brisbane [1623]

how you can include this performance, i'll never know considering what he did in the rest of that series.

219 69* DNB 1 0 W 5th Test v SA in Eng 2003 at The Oval [1659]

the oval....why does that not surprise me. look at his average after the first 4 tests in that series and you'll see what i mean.

113 32 DNB 4 0 W 1st Test v BD in BD 2003/04 at Dhaka [1665]
60 1* DNB 0 0 W 2nd Test v BD in BD 2003/04 at Chittagong [1667]

would have taken him a mammoth effort to come up with that........

just to add to my point about trescothick and his problems against the highest pace, gillespies had him out 7 times,ntini 5 times, lee 4 times and tino best 4 times(its hardly surprisng that both those centuries came against a WI attack minus tino best either)

 

[tooextracool]

I agree with you though..Trescothick does give the opposition a chance because he is a very aggressive opening batsman(all attacking opening batsman give chances)...it is up to the opposition to take the chances, and if they dont early on, Trescothick has the talent to make them pay big time

which is why IMO he would be better off batting at 6. unfortunately with his current performances against ordinary bowling attacks and with flintoff doing brilliantly in that position its not going to happen.

 

[Craig]

So you prefer Vaughan opening then at 4 TEC?

 

[tooextracool]

no i think vaughan is batting in the right position, i suggested that he move down to 4 sometime during the WI series because it was quite obvious from the number of times he was caught behind and caught at slip in the previous year. Nonetheless the fact that he is a strokemaker rather than a grafter suggests that hed be better off batting at 4.