It was posted at the start of 2004 just after they had played the pakistan series and within a month he took over the gloves for the test matches from Robbie Hart.. He has always showed glimpses right from the beginning of his career that he is going to be a special player for NZmarc71178 said:Because at the time he posted it it was true?
Which are mostly exaggerated stories.Son Of Coco said:Part of the reason why Grace might have had a better batting average is his refusal to leave the crease when out.
He has still shown nothing to suggest he's going to be a special player - good, possibly, yes.Richard Rash said:It was posted at the start of 2004 just after they had played the pakistan series and within a month he took over the gloves for the test matches from Robbie Hart.. He has always showed glimpses right from the beginning of his career that he is going to be a special player for NZ
I think the NZ selectors do more than guess. He has excelled through all the grade cricket.. and yes you can know he has talent. Probably why you are not a selector Richo.. are you suggesting that you agree with Langevedt that McCullum at the start of January this year was the worst NZ player? He was not terrible in 2002 either he was just finding his feet after beeing thrust in to the big time at such a young age.Richard said:No, they did not know anything - you can't know someone has talent.
They did, however, make the right guess - it turned-out he was capable of improving from the terrible player of 2002.
I think you very definitely can know that someone has talent.Richard said:No, they did not know anything - you can't know someone has talent.
They did, however, make the right guess - it turned-out he was capable of improving from the terrible player of 2002.
If I'd disagreed you might have noticed me saying "nah, Rich, you're having a laugh!"Richard Rash said:I think the NZ selectors do more than guess. He has excelled through all the grade cricket.. and yes you can know he has talent. Probably why you are not a selector Richo.. are you suggesting that you agree with Langevedt that McCullum at the start of January this year was the worst NZ player?
He was terrible - there is no two ways about that.He was not terrible in 2002 either he was just finding his feet after beeing thrust in to the big time at such a young age.
Under-19 cricket certainly doesn't mean much, I'll assure you of that one.bryce said:before he was picked in the national side he hit 142 opening the batting against a full strength canterbury bowling attack as a 20 year old after averaging almost 100 in the under 19 series against south africa the year before, i'd say they knew he had talent - you might not and i'm not going to argue with you