Gillespie - All Rounder??

[sledger]

Mr Casson got what i was trying to say.
And ability is irrelevant because the only relevant guage is performance. Not ability.
One might argue that Mark Waugh had much more ability than Steve Waugh or Doug Walters had more ability than Allan Border, but its the performance that counts.

get your point there, but would you ever get the performance without the ability?

 

[marc71178]

Nicky Boje?

Test Avg = 23.13 (2 fifties)
ODI Avg = 27.32 (4 fifties and 2 centuries)

Talksport were talking about the strength of the SA tail, and someone (I think it was loony JacK Bannister who really needs to be put out to pasture) said that Boje would be good enough to bat at 6 for any other Test side!

 

[marc71178]

only people like Maybe Kallis and maybe (on a good day) Chris Cairns could be picked soley on either one...

Kallis is more than debateable.

 

[Peanutbutterbar]

Talksport were talking about the strength of the SA tail, and someone (I think it was loony JacK Bannister who really needs to be put out to pasture) said that Boje would be good enough to bat at 6 for any other Test side!

Boje couldn't bat at no 6 for the Aussie side, or even the English side.

 

[Peanutbutterbar]

Kallis is more than debateable.

Kallis is a better batter then Cairnes and Cairnes a better bowler, so it's a hard choice. But Kallis' batting is world class, and Cairnes' bowling not so much.

 

[marc71178]

But picking Kallis on his bowling alone?

 

[Peanutbutterbar]

But picking Kallis on his bowling alone?

No, I wouldn't do that. But I might pick Cairnes on his batting, I don't know, it's a tricky one.

 

[The Baconator]

i would pick cairns as a batsman in an ODI but not a test

and boje would be a good number 6 for bangladesh

 

[Peanutbutterbar]

i would pick cairns as a batsman in an ODI but not a test

and boje would be a good number 6 for bangladesh

Or even no 5 for Zimbabwe.

 

[sledger]

Or even no 5 for Zimbabwe.

pushing it a bit there mate...

 

[tooextracool]

He said his figures could have been, but his ability is.

but ability is such a objective term, one person could think that pollock has ability with the bat, while another doesnt.

 

[tooextracool]

No, I've said the potential was about equal and the outcomes were different.

and potential again is something that varies from person to person. you may believe that he had the potential to be better, while someone else may not. what hes achieved at the intl level is far more indicative of how he should be rated.

 

[tooextracool]

Without ability you cannot perform.
Ability seems pretty relevant to me.

again we come back to the same thing. ramprakash had ability but he didnt perform. should he be counted as a quality player then?
similarly someone like akram had ability, but because he didnt perform with the bat hes not an all rounder.

 

[Richard]

and potential again is something that varies from person to person. you may believe that he had the potential to be better, while someone else may not. what hes achieved at the intl level is far more indicative of how he should be rated.

I know - I was the one who told you that, remember?
Plenty of people have also said that they think Pollock would have been a far more prolific batsman if he weren't such a good bowler.

 

[Richard]

again we come back to the same thing. ramprakash had ability but he didnt perform. should he be counted as a quality player then?

Thing is, of course, Ramprakash's non-performance was at Test-level only - at the next level down and all below, he'd shown he was an incredibly good batsman.
Just didn't have the right temperament for Tests in his early career.

similarly someone like akram had ability, but because he didnt perform with the bat hes not an all rounder.

And I never actually said he was - he was a magnificent bowler who batted exceptionally on occasions and not on others.

 

[Richard]

Mr Casson got what i was trying to say.
And ability is irrelevant because the only relevant guage is performance. Not ability.
One might argue that Mark Waugh had much more ability than Steve Waugh or Doug Walters had more ability than Allan Border, but its the performance that counts.

Personally I'd argue that Stephen had more ability than Mark - overall. Of course Mark's abilities were better in some departments, but overall Stephen was by far the better player so it wasn't any real surprise his Test-record was better.
As for Walters and Border, never known much about the former but the latter was another whose abilities are massively underestimated.

 

[tooextracool]

I know - I was the one who told you that, remember?
Plenty of people have also said that they think Pollock would have been a far more prolific batsman if he weren't such a good bowler.

yes and therefore you must rate him on how hes performed at the intl level. and since hes performed nowhere near as well with the bat as he has with the ball, by your counts he isnt an all rounder.

 

[tooextracool]

Thing is, of course, Ramprakash's non-performance was at Test-level only - at the next level down and all below, he'd shown he was an incredibly good batsman.
Just didn't have the right temperament for Tests in his early career..

thank you for telling me about something i already knew about.
the fact that he didnt perform as well as his ability suggested he could means that by your definition he should be rated as a quality batsman, when the fact is he was disgraceful.

And I never actually said he was - he was a magnificent bowler who batted exceptionally on occasions and not on others.

yes i never said that you did, but your definition of an all rounder re: based on ability, suggests that he was an all rounder, just like it does for pollock.

 

[Craig]

No, he's not an all-rounder - shows how desperate the Aussies are for an all-rounder since Miller and to a lesser extent Davidson, doesn't it?

*cough*Shane Watson*cough*

 

[marc71178]

Thing is, of course, Ramprakash's non-performance was at Test-level only - at the next level down and all below, he'd shown he was an incredibly good batsman.

And that means absolutley nothing if he wasn't good enough for the true Test of a player.