• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Udal looking forwards

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
Trescothick, Vaughan, S Jones, Flintoff.

Just 4 examples before you even look at other sides.
Vaughan doesn't have a poor First-Class average - since being picked for England he's averaged in the 50s.
Trescothick has only been anything resembling a Test success due to luck.
Simon Jones is still far from a good Test bowler yet, he's had 1 good series.
Flintoff, last I looked, has barely played any non-Test First-Class cricket since 2003.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
aussie said:
No its not because neither especially edwards is rubbish, they both have potential to be good fast bowlers they just need the right motivation or whatever else. Edwards was seemingly very impressive in NZ in both the test & ODI's in NZ are from what i've seen of him in test he can become a successful test bowler for WI.

Lawson 7/78 showed that he can do it, but he didn't seem like that down in Australia last november so may be he has lost something.
To say "lack motivation" is something of a copout - same way it is when people try to use it as an excuse for Harmison.
Quite simply, at the current time they lack ability. Whether they may have it in them to gain that ability is not something I or anyone else can accurately guess. They may - they may not. I'd guess it's less likely than more.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
aussie said:
lets just wait & see how he goes in the coming years before we judge him fully.
Might it have been an idea to wait before even selecting him internationally, when he's played a whole 1 full season domestically?
Might it, in fact, have been better to send him on an "A" tour?
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
No, I didn't.
Flintoff didn't start bowling remotely well until summer 2004 (regardless of his figures in Sri Lanka and West Indies), and didn't start bowling especially well until summer 2005.
Yes he did, but you refused to accept it.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
No, I preferred to listen to the man himself rather than some spotty teenager who claimed to know more about the man then he did himself.
 

Son Of Coco

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
Err, yes.
That was the point I'm making.
Tell me, please - how many players have I rubbished on Test debut (or before) that have turned-out to be anything remotely other than poor?
Pretty much every time I've said someone's been poor they've turned-out that way - usually for a long time.
I didn't see the debuts of Warne or McGrath, so you don't know what I'd have said about them.
You rubbish McGrath now, why would it have been any different way back on his debut?
 

PY

International Coach
Richard said:
Vaughan doesn't have a poor First-Class average - since being picked for England he's averaged in the 50s.
Trescothick has only been anything resembling a Test success due to luck.
Simon Jones is still far from a good Test bowler yet, he's had 1 good series.
Flintoff, last I looked, has barely played any non-Test First-Class cricket since 2003.
Jeepers, I hope I have a a run of luck like Trescos lasting the better part of six years....

I can't believe you sometimes mate.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
No, I preferred to listen to the man himself rather than some spotty teenager who claimed to know more about the man then he did himself.
Try getting your facts straight before throwing around wild baseless insults.
Otherwise we're on the familiar "resort to insults when losing" ground.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Son Of Coco said:
You rubbish McGrath now, why would it have been any different way back on his debut?
When on Earth do I do anything of the sort.
I've talked him down (in the past - and of late, when most have done so too) but I've certainly never rubbished him.
Reading from people who faced him, he wasn't actually much of a threat early on, though, no.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
PY said:
Jeepers, I hope I have a a run of luck like Trescos lasting the better part of six years....

I can't believe you sometimes mate.
It's, obviously, not been the entire course of 6 years - it returned in The Ashes, having been absent since 2003.
There's simply no denying that Trescothick in this period was poor, and it's no coincidence that it followed this period where he unquestionably was very lucky.
Trescothick did bat unexpectedly well in 2004 and 2004\05, but he you'd really be stretching it to suggest that he wasn't once again extremely fortunate in 2005.
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
Reading from people who faced him, he wasn't actually much of a threat early on, though, no.
Out of curiosity, why is the opinion of batsmen who faced a bowler good enough to say that a bowler was crap, but not good enough to say that a bowler was good? For instance, all those batsmen who claim that McGrath is the best bowler of his age, when you were claiming that he was just lucky?
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Because those who claim McGrath as the best of the era do not agree with Richard's opinion so therefore their opinion is worthless, whereas the others agree with him, so their opinion is obviously correct.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
FaaipDeOiad said:
Out of curiosity, why is the opinion of batsmen who faced a bowler good enough to say that a bowler was crap, but not good enough to say that a bowler was good? For instance, all those batsmen who claim that McGrath is the best bowler of his age, when you were claiming that he was just lucky?
Because batsmen praise bowlers loads - in any case, McGrath isn't a million miles from being the best bowler of his age. There are probably 4 or 5 at best who are better.
Batsmen don't often put down bowlers unless they were truly average. Especially when they're batsmen who happened to end-up being dismissed more times (19) by that bowler than any batsman has been dismissed by a bowler in history.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
Because those who claim McGrath as the best of the era do not agree with Richard's opinion so therefore their opinion is worthless, whereas the others agree with him, so their opinion is obviously correct.
Try the other way around, chum...
 

aussie

Hall of Fame Member
Richard said:
Because batsmen praise bowlers loads - in any case, McGrath isn't a million miles from being the best bowler of his age. There are probably 4 or 5 at best who are better.
4 or 5 huh, namely?
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
Because batsmen praise bowlers loads - in any case, McGrath isn't a million miles from being the best bowler of his age. There are probably 4 or 5 at best who are better.
Chaminda Vaas, Andre Nel, Craig White, Dominic Cork and who? 8-)
 

Top