It was Richard's idea to split his career up, genius.I would go for splitting it into 40705 parts.
Remarkably, so for someone who was supposedly an all time great, he only took at wicket in 708 of those segments, talk about inconsistancy.
so for 39997 of those parts, his averages was...well he was so bad he didnt even have an average, basically if you took all those 39997, his strike rate and average were infinity.
For 98.26% of his career he couldnt take a wicket.
I merely played ball, as I could see why he was doing it.
I was just teasingIt was Richard's idea to split his career up, genius.
Blimey, been far too long.
Albeit impossible, comparing a fantastic Test wicket taker and underperformed ODI bowler to a poor Test bowler and superb ODI wicket taker would be strange and difficult.
BTSOT, he will be again before too long.
Why? Well:
1) When he performs at his best, he's gonna be spectacular...when he doesn't, he's already shown himself to be a liability
2) A lot of the time, he isn't gonna be at his best, making the task of selecting him difficult
3) He's useless with the bat and in the field (a relatively minor point in general, but noteworthy in his case)
4) The amount of hype which is attached onto him (not his fault, I know), may be detrimental both to his performances and by extension, Australia's prospects
5) He gets injured quite often...I know that Mitchell Johnson's past injury record has been horrendous, but at least he has held up OK for the past one-and-a-half years...in contrast, Tait hasn't
6) The combination of Tait's unreliability and injury-prone body will lead to him drifting in and out of the side regularly, which could unsettle the side
I know this may seem like hyperbole, but I'm genuinely worried about Shaun Tait as a Test cricketer. As an ODI cricketer, he is very good, even if his economy rate is far too high, because he's less likely to be exposed with the bat and won't be worn down as quickly in the field.
For now (and maybe a little due to QLD-bias), I'm going Johnson>Tait. Also, Steyn>>>Tait in Tests and Tait>>Steyn in ODI's. Comparing 'em right now would be akin to putting fire and ice together.
But then again, this concern of mine about Tait is hardly relevant to this thread, so I'll shut up now.
Tait will be yes, although he's far from awesome in Test matches and not quite at that level in ODI's (economy rate too high you see).
Hmm looking at the injury thing, is there any chance Australia will be joining NZ, Pakistan and England in the "awesome bowlers but constantly injured" catagory?
Thread evolution is a wonderful thing, half the most interesting posts on CW wouldn't have happened if the poster had thought "this isn't strictly relevant to the thread title so I'd best not post it".
Why? Well:
1) When he performs at his best, he's gonna be spectacular...when he doesn't, he's already shown himself to be a liability
2) A lot of the time, he isn't gonna be at his best, making the task of selecting him difficult
3) He's useless with the bat and in the field (a relatively minor point in general, but noteworthy in his case)
4) The amount of hype which is attached onto him (not his fault, I know), may be detrimental both to his performances and by extension, Australia's prospects
5) He gets injured quite often...I know that Mitchell Johnson's past injury record has been horrendous, but at least he has held up OK for the past one-and-a-half years...in contrast, Tait hasn't
6) The combination of Tait's unreliability and injury-prone body will lead to him drifting in and out of the side regularly, which could unsettle the side
I know this may seem like hyperbole, but I'm genuinely worried about Shaun Tait as a Test cricketer. As an ODI cricketer, he is very good, even if his economy rate is far too high, because he's less likely to be exposed with the bat and won't be worn down as quickly in the field.
For now (and maybe a little due to QLD-bias), I'm going Johnson>Tait. Also, Steyn>>>Tait in Tests and Tait>>Steyn in ODI's. Comparing 'em right now would be akin to putting fire and ice together.
But then again, this concern of mine about Tait is hardly relevant to this thread, so I'll shut up now.
I'm so glad we have an Aussie that is realistic about Tait. I seem to remember likening him to Ian Butler in that all he has is pace, swing but no accuracy therefore he is a captains nightmare. I'm going to cop it from all the Aussies nowThread evolution is a wonderful thing, half the most interesting posts on CW wouldn't have happened if the poster had thought "this isn't strictly relevant to the thread title so I'd best not post it".
Agree with all of that BTW. Far from convinced about Tait as a Test (or ODI) cricketer, but naturally hope he's injured as little as possible so we can find-out for sure.
As long as his economy rate isn't ridiculous, I think it matters very little when he is fulfulling his role as a strike bowler absolutely perfectly. What's he average, 2 and a half wickets every 10 overs? That's outstanding.
Of course, he's Australian, they can't have flaws, thats impossible!
Yeah and Grant Elliot is the next Garfield SobersHey. Ian Butler broke down due to injury. Otherwise, he would have been better than Bondy.
Hmm...quite a few Australians on different forums are cynical about Shaun Tait.I'm so glad we have an Aussie that is realistic about Tait. I seem to remember likening him to Ian Butler in that all he has is pace, swing but no accuracy therefore he is a captains nightmare. I'm going to cop it from all the Aussies now
nature?