All the evidence says he was right up there but a number of back injuries put paid to that
So an average of 22 and strike-rate of 28 is not good enough 4 you?
He averages 24 again this year. He's clearly had more than one good game.
That's why you have to consider how little cricket he's played - he is basically learning how to bowl by playing international cricket and I think that the selectors should be delighted with his progress.
Richard, even u can admit that there's a big difference between knowing how to get the ball from one end of the pitch to the other and getting it there in a threatening and economical fashion
That's a travesty.
There is.
You've forgiven me, then?
Players learn the basics through practice, obviously, and can hone techniques and skills through practice, but there are many things that can only be learned through experience, which is why many (read: most) players don't have immediate success at international level, and more or less all players improve as they mature. Just because you don't learn how to bowl an outswinger in an international match doesn't mean the experience of playing high level competitive cricket isn't a crucial tool in the development of any player.
If you seriously don't realise why extensive experience at the highest level is a valuable tool in improving a cricketer's performance, I really don't know how I could explain it. It's simply a blatantly obvious element of cricket which anyone who watches the game should be aware of. In fact, it's true of every sport, not just cricket. An experienced player will have been through most sorts of situations an international cricketer will face many times before. They will know how to cope with pressure, what sort of tactics are needed in changing situations, they will have faced particular players or those similar to them before and know how to approach them, and they will have the confidence of having been through it all before. Also, international experience will sometimes expose a weakness in a player's game that wasn't necessarily evident beforehand, which can then be improved, on or off the field.
You don't need to have played international cricket to understand the tactics, just "be around" the thing and see people using said tactics. That's why watching the stuff before trying to play it is generally a good idea.
Oh, I've seen players who've improved after their first international fling (have seen every single player with an international career of any length improve constantly throughout it, at that), make no mistake about that. Playing international cricket cannot simply be blindly given credit for those improvements, though.
Why?