Gillespie - All Rounder??

[Richard]

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...

Err - that would be because I didn't need to.
This is almost beyond belief - if something doesn't do the job you're seeking to do, you use something else, something more effective.
It's one of the basic rules of humanity and that you could try to make something sinister out of me using it really rather demonstrates your recent desperation to make everything of mine "redundant".

 

[Richard]

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.

Anyone who has done well at any level is quality at that level - simple as, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Richard]

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

Stats? I fail to see how stats can be used in an argument over phraseology.
If a poll were to be concocted, if you ask me the best way to phrase it - the way that would give the voters most information on what they were actually saying - would be to phrase it like I did not like how you would like.

 

[marc71178]

To call someone with an average of 13 at a level "quality"

The only level to define quality is at the highest.

 

[marc71178]

Err - that would be because I didn't need to.

So where does the phrase "utmost quality" get used in general public or when referring to quality players?

 

[indie2]

I *do* enjoy Richard's arguments.

Here, he seems to be saying that a discussion of a player's quality must not be confined to the international level. Yet on the 'Luckiest and Unluckiest Batsmen' thread he is saying that the international level is the only level that counts

(e.g., this from 10-01-2005: No, the fact that you can't do it with too much certainty for every player or pre 1960 or-so or at every level don't make it irrelevant, because the only time it matters is modern international cricket - certainly it doesn't matter much at any level below, because the only level often used to assess the standing of a player is the international.)

It's the total absense of any suspicion that these might be contradictory ideas that really distinguished the lad.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

nope they are simply saying that for a player to be quality he must be successful at the international level.

 

[tooextracool]

Anyone who has done well at any level is quality at that level - simple as, nothing more, nothing less.

yes but it doesnt make him quality OVERALL. it simply makes him relative quality, which is completely different.

 

[tooextracool]

Stats? I fail to see how stats can be used in an argument over phraseology.
If a poll were to be concocted, if you ask me the best way to phrase it - the way that would give the voters most information on what they were actually saying - would be to phrase it like I did not like how you would like.

and everything in the world, including players who you dont like should me made to suit yourself. therefore if you dont like sehwag, you automatically believe that hes not test class, no matter how many runs hes scored. i find it extremely amusing how you continue to not rate sehwag as an opener, despite the fact that he has a far better technique than chris gayle but then rate gayle as one simply because you like him, no matter how badly hes failed on seamer friendly wickets.

 

[Richard]

So where does the phrase "utmost quality" get used in general public or when referring to quality players?

Very often.

 

[Richard]

I *do* enjoy Richard's arguments.

Here, he seems to be saying that a discussion of a player's quality must not be confined to the international level. Yet on the 'Luckiest and Unluckiest Batsmen' thread he is saying that the international level is the only level that counts

(e.g., this from 10-01-2005: No, the fact that you can't do it with too much certainty for every player or pre 1960 or-so or at every level don't make it irrelevant, because the only time it matters is modern international cricket - certainly it doesn't matter much at any level below, because the only level often used to assess the standing of a player is the international.)

It's the total absense of any suspicion that these might be contradictory ideas that really distinguished the lad.

I *do* love to see these attempts at manufacturing contradictions.
Where did I say, anywhere, that the word quality cannot be used at different levels?

 

[Richard]

and everything in the world, including players who you dont like should me made to suit yourself. therefore if you dont like sehwag, you automatically believe that hes not test class, no matter how many runs hes scored. i find it extremely amusing how you continue to not rate sehwag as an opener, despite the fact that he has a far better technique than chris gayle but then rate gayle as one simply because you like him, no matter how badly hes failed on seamer friendly wickets.

No like or don't like about it.
I've seen Gayle score runs in difficult conditions, I've even seen Sehwag do it occasionally, and I rate Gayle higher because I feel he's got the more potential - I also feel that Sehwag is hugely overrated because Sehwag has had a whole stack of luck. Gayle isn't flattered by his stats.

 

[Richard]

yes but it doesnt make him quality OVERALL. it simply makes him relative quality, which is completely different.

All quality is relative to another, and it's also irrelevant to another.

 

[marc71178]

Very often.

Like when?

You yourself never even used it until it was obvious that you were wrong, so had to change your argument.

 

[Richard]

For that matter, how often do you hear people use the word at all?
How often, rather, do you hear Test and ODI cricket referred to as "the elite" or similar?
If you ask anyone going around, they'll tell you that the domestic level of cricket is of a standard extraordinarily high by most people's bar.
I never used the thing until it was obvious you could pick non-existent loopholes.

 

[Dizzy #4]

Resurrection time!

Now is he? No Bowler has ever done it!

 

[howardj]

How punishing is it, watching him at the crease!

I'd rather be beaten over the head with his bat.

 

[Slats4ever]

dunno it was only bangladesh

 

[Dizzy #4]

How punishing is it, watching him at the crease!

I'd rather be beaten over the head with his bat.

his last 50 came in 40 balls!

 

[Pedro Delgado]

He's an all-rounder in the same way that Ashley Giles is; so not really then, just a handy tail-ender. Ruddy fair play to him though even if it was against Bangladesh.