I'm saying that their long-term domestic records are far more important than the fact I might have once or twice seen them bowl well. Because though I happened to catch 2 occasions when they bowled well, the majority of time things have been different.
Not even close. If he did, he'd get slapped round the park and wouldn't be in such a side for very long. It's not like van der Wath only got hit by Australia - he went around the park against everyone he bowled at.
Maybe he wasn't, but he should've been if van der Wath was - he's always been a far better cricketer than van der Wath in the one-day game and that remains the case even now. I can't believe anyone can suggest van der Wath is fit to lace Klusener's boots as a batsman and while Klusener's bowling has been disappointing for years, it's not like van der Wath's has ever been much better.
So you're saying that it's preferable to hope that things click into place rather than giving maximum chance for them to be put into place?
![Wacko :wacko: :wacko:](/forum/images/smilies/original/wacko.gif)
No, I prefer to play percentages myself.
Stewart, BTW, always felt himself capable of playing to 2003 - and sure enough, he did. However, after that one he abdicated himself, because this time he knew that his time was done in ODIs.