No, I don't mean 4/4 of his spells must be consistent. I mean, he should be consistent over a period of (example) 15 tests, bowling good spells in most of those games. A few bad spells are ok, if they are made up by other great spells, but you need to keep it up for a lot more than 2 test matches.
Emergence doesn't imply becoming a world-class bowler. Monty is still far from being world-class, but he and Sreesanth have both shown plenty of promise throughout the year. Sreesanth has lost it in a few matches but still managed to have several bright moments this year: 1st test vs England, two-match series vs Pakistan, final test vs WI, DLF ODI vs Australia, first two tests vs SA. More than enough for an "emergence", really. Sreesanth, Panesar, Munaf, Taylor and Clark are five bowlers who have emerged this year, but none of them are world-class yet.
Patel was quite impressive, but I was taking their origins into account as well. Patel has been highly touted for the last 3-4 years now, while Sreesanth came out of nowhere, was spotted by the management, impressed in the Challenger matches and now he really looks to belong at the highest level.
Didn't he say he was talking about Amla but referring to someTHING else?
What does a player emerge to? Surely it's emergence to world class. Therefore yes, emergence is becoming a world class bowler.
Nope. Are you telling me that all but 25-30 international cricketers (who are world-class) haven't emerged at all? Very often, a player emerges when he shows that he belongs.
You're aware of the meaning of "becoming", right? Go revise your tenses.
You must have different meaning of emergence than, mostly when someone syas he's emerged as bowler.. i usually think of it as he's showing that he belongs to this level. It doesn't mean he'll be world class but showing signs that he belongs at this level.
Well said
That's Aussie Gold my friend and don't you forget it!
