**Official** England in The West Indies

[Richard]

Never know.
It'd do him and any county he played for a big favour.

 

[Richard]

Best - you've never seen him. That said, a brilliant judgement yet again Richard! You just don't cease to amaze me.

And just how did you come to the conclusion that I've never seen Best? Have I ever told you so?
I saw him bowl around that disgraceful Lloyd incident, and I also saw (very) brief highlights of The Second (or was it Third???) Test against Australia.
Didn't think much of him and haven't read or heard much to change that.
Why does someone have to have been seen extensively to have judgement formed for you, Liam?
Do we have to have seen Bradman to know he was the best ever? Do we have to have seen Headley, Trumper, Pollock, Hammond and the like to know how good they were? I don't think so.

 

[marc71178]

Domestic FC cricket is of a lower standard than Test-cricket (in general).
It is an opportunity, therefore, for a batsman to do better than he does in Tests.
If he wastes that opportunity it's, IMO, a shame.

And if a player barely plays FC Cricket, how can he do that?

At the current level of Internationals, these players will never have a chance to to "fill their boots"

I personally say you can never read anything into quantity of runs in Domestic Cricket (a theory borne out by looking at English batmsen)

 

[marc71178]

Why does someone have to have been seen extensively to have judgement formed for you, Liam?

Probably not, but if one person has seen him play 10-15 matches and the other only 1 and a few highlights, I know who's view I'd listen to.

 

[raju]

Probably not, but if one person has seen him play 10-15 matches and the other only 1 and a few highlights, I know who's view I'd listen to.

I don't know about you but in terms of judging a player's merits, i'd rather trust the view of somebody who rarely (if ever) sees a player but reads a few reports and then distorts facts to suit their own spurious arguements.
Far more reliable than trusting the views of someone who might have actually seen a particular player perform.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Why does someone have to have been seen extensively to have judgement formed for you, Liam?

How can you judge someone on a few overs against Australia (in full force) in his first Test match in a struggling bowling attack on a flat pitch?

 

[Craig]

I have seen him, he didnt look that great. It was his action, run up that got to me.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I have seen him, he didnt look that great. It was his action, run up that got to me.

One match. A year ago.

 

[Richard]

And if a player barely plays FC Cricket, how can he do that?

At the current level of Internationals, these players will never have a chance to to "fill their boots"

Just because you hardly play doesn't mean you can't take advantage of the times you do.

I personally say you can never read anything into quantity of runs in Domestic Cricket (a theory borne out by looking at English batmsen)

No, a theory borne out out by looking at a few English batsmen and ignoring the vast majority of batsmen from all nations.

 

[marc71178]

Just because you hardly play doesn't mean you can't take advantage of the times you do.

But it makes it proportionally almost impossible because of such a hgh percentage of games being Tests.

No, a theory borne out out by looking at a few English batsmen and ignoring the vast majority of batsmen from all nations.

Like India and Australia you mean? 2 other countries where the highest averages don't seem to result in a Test place - wonder why that is?

 

[Craig]

One match. A year ago.

So he has fixed that problem?

If he hasnt then I would to know what is going on.

 

[Richard]

But it makes it proportionally almost impossible because of such a hgh percentage of games being Tests.

Why? Why, because you only play a little compared to something else, does it make your performance any less likely?

Like India and Australia you mean? 2 other countries where the highest averages don't seem to result in a Test place - wonder why that is?

As anywhere, in these countries Test averages are usually worse (lower for batsmen, higher for bowlers) than First-Class averages.
The main reason batsmen performing in domestic cricket don't get selected is because there are already established internationals. And the argument that someone should get a chance ahead of someone who's a proven pedigree at the top level just because they've performed at the next step down is a ludicrous one. You seem rather keen for me to perpetuate that argument. Sadly for you, I never have and never will.

 

[Richard]

How can you judge someone on a few overs against Australia (in full force) in his first Test match in a struggling bowling attack on a flat pitch?

I judged him on this and the WI "A" tour (which I saw bits of) in 2002.
He looked rubbish then and his First-Class economy-rate is very, very poor (no, it doesn't matter much if you're taking wickets, but he has never looked like doing that with good deliveries to me).
I also think he is rather a t*at, as demonstrated by the Lloyd spat. However, I cannot comment on whether the counselling stint has helped that. It certainly didn't help that idiot Morton.

 

[Richard]

I don't know about you but in terms of judging a player's merits, i'd rather trust the view of somebody who rarely (if ever) sees a player but reads a few reports and then distorts facts to suit their own spurious arguements.
Far more reliable than trusting the views of someone who might have actually seen a particular player perform.

Well, rest assured that no-one distorts facts to suit their own arguments.
Sane people base their arguments on their interpretation of facts. And facts are nothing without interpretation.
However, if you would do what you say in this hypothetical situation, I find you rather strange.
Have I ever, incidentally, said that I definately know better than Liam on these matters? If he turns-out to be right and I turn-out to be wrong I will not make any excuses; he will have seen what I have not.
Time alone will tell.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

I judged him on this and the WI "A" tour (which I saw bits of) in 2002.
He looked rubbish then and his First-Class economy-rate is very, very poor (no, it doesn't matter much if you're taking wickets, but he has never looked like doing that with good deliveries to me).

Why is economy rate so important to you in Tests? If a bowler takes 5 wickets in 5 overs for 35 runs, I'd be far more pleased than if he took 1 wickets in 5 overs for 10 runs.

Wickets are far more important than economy in Tests, especially since you seem to think that a bowler creating pressure is no credit to the bowler.

I am in now way saying that he will be a success, but I am saying that it is only a fool who would write off a player who he has really not seen in almost two years.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Have I ever, incidentally, said that I definately know better than Liam on these matters? If he turns-out to be right and I turn-out to be wrong I will not make any excuses; he will have seen what I have not.
Time alone will tell.

I agree with this. But as I clarified above, I'm not guaranteeing that Best will be a success. Of course I would love it if he is, but I'm just pushing the "innocent until proven otherwise" mentality. He may well have improved as well as he may not have.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I must admit, he didn't look great, but time will tell.

 

[Richard]

I agree with this. But as I clarified above, I'm not guaranteeing that Best will be a success. Of course I would love it if he is, but I'm just pushing the "innocent until proven otherwise" mentality. He may well have improved as well as he may not have.

I wasn't neccesarily talking about Best - I was talking about the like of Lawson, Taylor, any other seamer you tell me you think has potential.
From what I have seen Taylor doesn't seem that good yet. If he turns-out good then I will be perfectly happy to say that you had the opportunity to see what I did not and that your superior knowledge earnt you a correct prediction.
Of course you can never gurantee anyone will be a success, but you certainly rate Lawson, Taylor, Edwards as potentially good Test bowlers, yes?

 

[marc71178]

Why? Why, because you only play a little compared to something else, does it make your performance any less likely?

Because when a player is performing so well in Tests, the figures he'd need (to raise his FC above his Test average) in his extremely limited FC appearances are impossible.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

but you certainly rate Lawson, Taylor, Edwards as potentially good Test bowlers, yes?

Potentially. Edwards must be carefully handled and I don't think Taylor is ready yet. I also think that Lawson will never be the bowler he could have been (due injury etc.), The same could be true of Taylor.