You're seriously counting Tests against New Zealand? You're aware that they're ranked below us, right? And New Zealand is a better team than West Indies, but has never been a heavy scoring batting lineup. If the bowlers failed against New Zealand I'd have reason to consider the attack poor, rather than just mediocre.
Nope get your facts right i was talking about the tests against South Africa, Australia and Sri Lank where the bowlers either won us a test (like against South Africa), got us very close to winning one only for the batsmen to let us down (against Australia) and saved us from defeat (against Sri Lanka) , nowhere did i mention this current New Zealand tour, and your point is void as Bravo is missing from the line-up
Daren Powell is capable of producing stunning spells of bowling. He's a poor Test bowler. Now you tell me how an attack that is often poor-to-average can be considered good. Jerome Taylor and (present day) Fidel Edwards are decent Test bowlers. They do not constitute an attack.
But again you fail to mention Bravo who is as effective as both Edwards and Taylor on his day, and you need to get your story right because one minuet you are saying "our bowlers are mediocre" and the next you're saying they are "decent test bowlers", what is it then?..
That's totally unrelated to the topic at hand.
No it isn't because on too many occasions the bowlers have done their job only for them to be let down by the batsmen and amateur fielding personified by the stats suggesting we are 2nd in the "dropped balls" tally
That's utter rubbish.
45-7-150-1
Those are Shane Warne's figures on debut.
55-18-142-3
Glenn McGrath.
30-4-127-0.
Michael Holding.
Even quality players need more than one game before they are written off.
Not hard to do considering that Jaggernauth hasn't had the opportunity to play cricket recently.
Are you really comparing those bowlers to Amit?..
, the difference is those guys were getting better and better after their first test games, Amit's form has declined of late and he's been over taken by Miller in the region now
Or you could pick players who have talent, have experience and have not been proven international failures? Did Australia become a powerhouse by just randomly picking any old player with "talent"?
And who are these "players" oh wise one?, care to name them?, it's easy to put down the youngster but it's a frivolous exercise if you can't put forth a solution yourself
And what if he has a poor debut? Is he then washed up and we should pick the next spin prodigy? Let's hear some consistency in your argument. Bishoo should be allowed the chance to get international experience, because he will be quality, but that's not the case with Jaggernauth. 20 overs against a powerful lineup in the worst conditions of the match for a spinner. That's cool.
Because Bishoo has more potential that's why, and one would expect him to only get better as he gains more experience, not go backwards like Amit has
At what point did I endorse Baker? And Chris Jordan is not an allrounder. At the moment he is just a bowler who can bat a bit. And his bowling isn't great.
I didn't say you endorsed Baker but seeing as you've failed to mention any other decent fast bowlers and he's the new kid on the block it's hard to see how you could be talking about anyone else really, and Chris is very much an all rounder, he's done very well with the bat aswell as bowling and is considered an all rounder by his county club.
Because it's worked in the past right? Dwight Washington, Ricardo Powell, Daren Ganga, Dwayne Smith and Denesh Ramdin are phenoms. Then that Fidel kid only took half a decade to get anywhere near Test class. You're acting as if the selectors have not been throwing unprepared youngsters into international cricket, with little to no success, for years now. Your idea is nothing new. It's a proven failure.
Judging people by the failure of others is futile in the extreme, are you suggesting that every young player will not make it just because Ramdin and co haven't fulfilled their potential yet?, come on that's a weak argument
So you're argument is this:
They're already picking substandard players, so why not try another?
No my argument is we are picking substandard players who are failing time and time again so why not try and blood some promising youngsters with big potential so they can gain experience and make us a force in the near future
Chris Jordan is no more ready for international cricket than Pollard and Findlay. And he has done nothing to suggest that he has more potential than Pollard, at the very least.
Is Pollard winning awards in county cricket?, nope and if anything he's gone backwards since he first burst onto the scene, you may not rate Chris but trying to claim "he's not more talented than Pollard and Findlay" is ridiculous imo
