Best and worse of 2006?

[PhoenixFire]

Who claimed Sreesanth was a world class bowler?

A fool?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Who claimed Sreesanth was a world class bowler?

No one. And that's the point.

Why would you then bring up bowlers who similarly aren't world class as a means of justifying Sreesanth's occasional lack of accuracy?

 

[Jono]

No one. And that's the point.

Why would you then bring up bowlers who similarly aren't world class as a means of justifying Sreesanth's occasional lack of accuracy?

Because all those bowlers have emerged, have they not? They're all test class.

Unless you have some sort of different definition of emerging, as in being a world class 300+ wicket bowler with sub 25 average or something.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Sreesanth is clearly Test-Class though.

 

[silentstriker]

Sreesanth is clearly Test-Class though.

We'll see.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Well define Test-Class. If that means that you can cope and take wickets then yes, but anything more than say getting 5 fors, he might be struggling.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Because all those bowlers have emerged, have they not? They're all test class.

Unless you have some sort of different definition of emerging, as in being a world class 300+ wicket bowler with sub 25 average or something.

A world class bowler is a bowler who is not only capable of taking Test wickets consistently, but actually takes the wickets. Sreesanth has had two really good Tests and other decent spells scattered over his other Tests. Not sure how he can as yet be confirmed as Test class even.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Sreesanth is clearly Test-Class though.

Sreesanth is as clearly Test class as Jerome Taylor is.

In that neither is proven to be Test class.

 

[silentstriker]

A world class bowler is a bowler who is not only capable of taking Test wickets consistently, but actually takes the wickets. Sreesanth has had two really good Tests and other decent spells scattered over his other Tests. Not sure how he can as yet be confirmed as Test class even.

Ding ding. And even in the two really good tests, he's had excellent spells followed by average ones.

Too early. In another ten tests, we'll have a better idea.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well define Test-Class. If that means that you can cope and take wickets then yes, but anything more than say getting 5 fors, he might be struggling.

It's more than just taking wickets. It's about taking wickets consistently. Adam Sanford has 30 Test wickets, but yikes.

 

[Jono]

A world class bowler is a bowler who is not only capable of taking Test wickets consistently, but actually takes the wickets. Sreesanth has had two really good Tests and other decent spells scattered over his other Tests. Not sure how he can as yet be confirmed as Test class even.

Yes, but SS's reasons for Sreesanth not being test class yet is that he's had the wayward spell here and there, even during this SA test series.

Yet test class bowlers such as Nel, Lee and Harmison (when bowling well) have the wayward spell too. Its as if you have to bowl every spell perfectly, otherwise you're not test class.

What those 3 have over Sreesanth is a larger range of tests behind them, but if Sree did exactly what he's doing now for say 2 more years, he'd still be a test class bowler, even if he was wayward here and there.

If he stopped ripping through the top order and only bowled wayward spells, then he wouldn't be test class. But Nel, Lee and Harmison don't do that, they do both. Even if Sree didn't improve much from here, he'd still be test class in 2 years time IMO.

Ding ding. And even in the two really good tests, he's had excellent spells followed by average ones.

Too early. In another ten tests, we'll have a better idea.

Refer to above.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, but SS's reasons for Sreesanth not being test class yet is that he's had the wayward spell here and there, even during this SA test series.

Wrong. My reason for Sreesanth being not test class is that he has yet to bowl consistently, and as an example, even in the current series, where he's having a great time he still has had inconsistent spells.

If he bowls like he did in SA test over, say the next ten tests and his average hasn't ballooned, then he'll be test class.

 

[Pratters]

 

[silentstriker]

If he stopped ripping through the top order and only bowled wayward spells, then he wouldn't be test class. But Nel, Lee and Harmison don't do that, they do both. Even if Sree didn't improve much from here, he'd still be test class in 2 years time IMO.

Problem is not improving, its actually going downward, as we've seen for the longest time with other bowlers. How many players have explosive starts and then quickly taper off? Soon they are revealed as not being test class because they do not have the class to do the job day in and day out.

Test class = doing at the very least, a consistent job, over a period of time.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The best moment was India being spun to defeat by that genius amongst spin bowlers Shaun Udal, who could forget the way he teased Dhoni into submission? The worst moment was of course the final day at Adelaide.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Yes, but SS's reasons for Sreesanth not being test class yet is that he's had the wayward spell here and there, even during this SA test series.

Yet test class bowlers such as Nel, Lee and Harmison (when bowling well) have the wayward spell too. Its as if you have to bowl every spell perfectly, otherwise you're not test class.

Nel is the only one of that bunch that I would call Test class, and only barely. Harmison averages 37.11 in his last 26 Tests with 3.39 economy. I'd hesitate to call him Test class. Potentially, yes. But in reality, meh. Lee is definitely not Test class in my mind.

But then I have a very strict definition of Test class because I have a strict definition of what I believe Test cricket should be. It should be a battle of the best players in the world. And within my semi-idealistic consideration of Test cricket, Harmison and Lee are not Test class. In fact, over the course of this post I've changed my mind on Nel too.

 

[Jono]

Wrong. My reason for Sreesanth being not test class is that he has yet to bowl consistently, and as an example, even in the current series, where he's having a great time he still has had inconsistent spells.

If he bowls like he did in SA test over, say the next ten tests and his average hasn't ballooned, then he'll be test class.

So in modern day cricket, to be test class you have to bowl consistent spells? No, that makes you a very good bowler, it doesn't necessarily make you a test class bowler.

Lee may take 2-20 in his first 8 over spell with the new ball, then in his second spell have 0-35 from 4, then come back and snag a wicket just before the end of play in his last spell of 1-12 off 5. The next day he finishes off the tail with a short spell but leaked a few runs, with figures of 1-25 from 4.

He didn't necessarily bowl consistently, but his performance is that of a test class bowler. Maybe not a very good bowler, maybe not a great test bowler ala McGrath or Pollock, but he's test class.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Test class = doing at the very least, a consistent job, over a period of time.

* consistently good job

 

[silentstriker]

The best moment was India being spun to defeat by that genius amongst spin bowlers Shaun Udal, who could forget the way he teased Dhoni into submission? The worst moment was of course the final day at Adelaide.

I still cannot comprehend that Shaun Udal took 4/14 in the second innings. 4/14. I see it, its right there on paper, I watched it live...so I know it happened. But my brain is too feeble to wrap itself around that.

 

[Jono]

But then I have a very strict definition of Test class because I have a strict definition of what I believe Test cricket should be. It should be a battle of the best players in the world. And within my semi-idealistic consideration of Test cricket, Harmison and Lee are not Test class. In fact, over the course of this post I've changed my mind on Nel too.

Well there you go, its just miscommunication with different definitions. As I referred to above, I've adjusted my definitions specifically to modern-day cricket as I see it.

Just different definitions/standards I guess, or a different way of looking at cricket or what not.

Still good discussion.