Gillespie - All Rounder??

[Richard]

which is precisely the point. everyone judges players by their performances at the international level. therefore to be quality, you must be able to perform at the test match level

No, everyone judges players at the level they play at.
There can be different judgements formed for different levels.

 

[C_C]

I disagree with Richard here.
THe highest quality is international cricket. it is of superior quality to domestic cricket. Thus, i would rate relatively successful international batsmen with inferior domestic record(eg: Ganguly, Chanderpaul,Slater, Thorpe etc.) to be superior in quality than players of less success in the international arena but far better success in the domestic leagues ( eg: Ramprakash, Hick, Hooper, etc).

 

[Richard]

Err - obviously.
Who the hell would think Slater, Ganguly, Chanderpaul or Thorpe's domestic records poor, though?

 

[C_C]

Err - obviously.
Who the hell would think Slater, Ganguly, Chanderpaul or Thorpe's domestic records poor, though?

its not exactly poor but its inferior to that of Hooper,Hick, Ramprakash etc.

 

[marc71178]

No, to be of the UTMOST quality you have to have succeeded at the international level.

And that phrase is used so often isn't it?

"Utmost quality" (!)

 

[Richard]

I've heard it used before. Not that it matters extrovertly, of course.

 

[Richard]

its not exactly poor but its inferior to that of Hooper,Hick, Ramprakash etc.

So? In each case it's more than good enough to suggest international calibre. In the odd case, like those 3, it doesn't translate.

 

[tooextracool]

No, everyone judges players at the level they play at.
There can be different judgements formed for different levels.

no everyone judges 'quality' by peformances at the international level.

 

[tooextracool]

No, to be of the UTMOST quality you have to have succeeded at the international level.
Any of the three or four levels below you are still extremely high quality compared to almost everyone else.

yes compared to all the rubbish players below you. you can only be a quality player compared to the players at the international level, because those players actually are quality.

 

[tooextracool]

No, you can be rubbish by international standards.
If Ramprakash was rubbish, then you're basically insulting almost every cricketer ever to pick-up a bat or ball.

nope im simply saying that they were not quality players, they were relatively rubbish. and you are insulting virtually every quality player that went on to score runs against quality test match opposition by calling players like ramprakash quality.

 

[tooextracool]

Except for almost everyone who doesn't play at the international level.
The words high quality are used to judge you at your own level; the words poor quality are used to judge you at the level above yours..

when people say that someone is 'quality' they mean high quality of course.
and no one can say that someone is high quality unless he performs at the test match level.

It's my attempt to have everything shown the way I see it.
To show, in other words, what I see to be the case.
Which is what everyone does, all the time.

except it usually doesnt prove anything because there are 100 other stats backing the contrary.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I don't think an all-rounder has to be equally good at batting and bowling, or selectable on either alone. An all-rounder is a player who is selected for a side based on BOTH his batting and bowling. A bowler who bats a bit (like say Vettori) is not an all-rounder, and neither is Gillespie. The likes of Pathan, Boje, Warne, Wasim, Giles etc from recent times also fall into this group. Most all-rounders are noticably better at one discipline than the other, but the fact that they are considered acceptable practitioners of both is what makes them an all-rounder.

Sobers, Watson, Kallis etc are examples of batting all-rounders, while Pollock, Miller, Hadlee, Imran Khan etc are bowling all-rounders. Only a select few all-rounders like Kapil Dev are genuinely about equal at both batting and bowling, and even fewer (Miller, Sobers and Imran are the only ones that spring to mind) could actually make a test side on either discipline alone.

 

[marc71178]

I've heard it used before. Not that it matters extrovertly, of course.

It's the whole crux of the matter, so no it doesn't matter - you're adding in phrases seldom, if ever used, to try and make your case appear correct.

Funnily you didn't use these phrases when the discussion started...

 

[thierry henry]

This discussion is ridiculous. What Richard is saying is so obviously correct that it's almost redundant.

There's a guy who plays in my indoor cricket team who is an Auckland under-19 rep. In all likelihood, he'll never even reach first-class standard. Nevertheless, you will never convince me that he is not a terrific cricketer. International players exist in a place that the ordinary man cannot, and it offends me that some of you don't see this.

 

[twctopcat]

This discussion is ridiculous. What Richard is saying is so obviously correct that it's almost redundant.

There's a guy who plays in my indoor cricket team who is an Auckland under-19 rep. In all likelihood, he'll never even reach first-class standard. Nevertheless, you will never convince me that he is not a terrific cricketer. International players exist in a place that the ordinary man cannot, and it offends me that some of you don't see this.

But natural talent doesn't create a great cricketer, it is as much the mental side that matters, which is where so many of these "great" fc cricketers falter. And just because you believe someone to be a terrific cricketer, doesn't necessarily make them so.

 

[thierry henry]

But natural talent doesn't create a great cricketer, it is as much the mental side that matters, which is where so many of these "great" fc cricketers falter. And just because you believe someone to be a terrific cricketer, doesn't necessarily make them so.

I wasn't talking about natural talent. I would say that this guy will not reach FC level precisely because he doesn't quite have enough natural talent. I know a heck of a lot of cricketers, and this guy is quite clearly one of the best. You must be a real elitist to say that 99.9% of the worlds cricket population are crap, and that only successful international players are any good. All Richard is trying to say, imo, is that 99% of cricketers never reach even first-class level, therefore anyone who does must be pretty bloody good.

 

[twctopcat]

I wasn't talking about natural talent. I would say that this guy will not reach FC level precisely because he doesn't quite have enough natural talent. I know a heck of a lot of cricketers, and this guy is quite clearly one of the best. You must be a real elitist to say that 99.9% of the worlds cricket population are crap, and that only successful international players are any good. All Richard is trying to say, imo, is that 99% of cricketers never reach even first-class level, therefore anyone who does must be pretty bloody good.

Fair enough, i thought richard was trying to refer that many fc cricketers are as good if not better than many test match batsmen.

 

[apartheid smash]

i like to think so

burn the falg, warm your hands on the flames

 

[tooextracool]

I wasn't talking about natural talent. I would say that this guy will not reach FC level precisely because he doesn't quite have enough natural talent. I know a heck of a lot of cricketers, and this guy is quite clearly one of the best. You must be a real elitist to say that 99.9% of the worlds cricket population are crap, and that only successful international players are any good. All Richard is trying to say, imo, is that 99% of cricketers never reach even first-class level, therefore anyone who does must be pretty bloody good.

its pretty bloody good by our standards, by international standards it isnt. the whole point ive been trying to make is that when someone says that so and so player is 'quality' they usually are talking about his performances at the internation level

 

[Richard]

Or rather that they're simply talking about the level that their description best suits.
To call someone with an average of 13 at a level "quality" would be stupid, so if they were dubbed as such it'd be far more likely that they were referring to a level at which the same player averaged 49.