tooextracool said:
so half those players on the SL side have done brilliantly home and away then? as i said earlier, strauss may have some weakness in playing spin bowling,or they might find weakness in his technique just like they did with trescothick. players like ian ward, adam hollioake all had succesful starts to their international career, and for whatever reasons failed to continue with it.
So Ian Ward's 39 in his 1st innings now counts as a successful start, does it?
Ward was never going to be a success because he's an opener and he was picked to bat at number-seven and six. Regardless of the playing-across-the-line tendancy, which didn't actually result in his wicket all that often.
Trescothick's weaknesses has always been blatantly obvious - he doesn't move his feet, he hits the ball in the air far too often, he can't leave balls way outside off for very long, and he struggles with deciding whether to drive or leave fullish balls just outside off. Just because they've not been exploited, and because he benefited from a massive amount of luck in the first 2 years of his career, doesn't mean the weaknesses weren't very obvious, it just means the bowlers weren't good enough to exploit them or were unlucky with dropped catches and bad decisions in the batsman's favour.
so someone like gough who averages 27 and went on to be a success would once again prove you wrong then?
And you'd classify Gough a success, would you? I don't have any question in my mind that he'll be disappointed with his eventual Test record, and anyone who watched him bowl very much would share that. He could have done much, much better but for injuries and occasional losses of form against South Africa especially.
While he wasn't a failure, by any stretch of the imagination, just like Fraser, his record could have been so much better than it was.
thats not much of a point given that hes averaging 25 in first class cricket ATM.
Yes, it is - because I wouldn't have picked him for England, and he failed in his only Test-match (not that you can say for certain that he's not Test-class on one game, but I wouldn't guess he is anyway).
they were both given more chances than someone like troughton and far more than mahmood, yet you classify the both of them as failures!
Oh, so Troughton was given less chances (5 innings) than Smith (5 innings) and James (4 innings). Not that either were given a wholly fair chance, 5 innings isn't much, but regardless, all of them failed.
Just because they failed, though, doesn't mean their failures are absolute. And nor did I say Mahmood's was, because it would be wholly stupid to say so on one game and 7 overs, however abysmal they were.
so averaging in the 25s in domestic cricket makes his record not exceptional then? and kirtleys record has been a failure, if you look at his performances outside th up and down trent bridge wicket where anyone could have taken wickets on, his average would be in the high 30s
and how many times do i have to say it.....if intl cricket is a step up from domestic cricket then its quite likely that there will be successful domestic players who fail at the intl level, and we've seen that on several occasions.
Yes, and equally we've seen bowlers and batsmen who've been very very successful at the domestic level and very successful at the international - or very successful at the domestic level and successful at the international. Plenty of them.
Yes, Kirtley's Test average is in the high 30s from that match onwards, but the fact is, he's played on types of wickets like both the types he's played his international career on, and thus far his international career hasn't been an out-and-out failure. In fact, it's taken a similar pattern to his domestic. Which, incidentally, shows an average of just about 26, not early 25s.