Gillespie - All Rounder??

[Craig]

it will be interesting to see how daniel vettori's batting record turns out come the end of his career, personally i can only see him going from strength to strength which has been the pattern of his batting in his career to date

At the rate our middle order is going, then yes.

 

[Neil Pickup]

*cough*Shane Watson*cough*

*Panics*

 

[Richard]

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

No, it doesn't mean absolutely nothing - it means less than it would if he hadn't played Test-cricket, but the top level is not the only thing of any importance.
Your constant nothing-but-Test-cricket-has-any-relevance crusade is often naive and sometimes dangerous.

 

[Richard]

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.

Ramprakash is a quality batsman - who in his early career performed terribly at the international level thanks to poor temperament.
He was a much better batsman than bowler at any given time.

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.

On performance neither are all-rounders - they're both top-class bowlers who also happen to bat pretty well. Not as well as they bowl, though.
Both of them could IMO have been equally good, though, were they not as good at bowling.

 

[Richard]

*Panics*

Why? Because Watson has genuine promise as a batsman at the First-Class-level?

 

[marc71178]

Your constant nothing-but-Test-cricket-has-any-relevance crusade is often naive and sometimes dangerous.

If a player doesn't perform in International Cricket then they cannot be called anything other than a decent player.

Domestic success means absolutely nothing if they don't do it in the real thing.

 

[tooextracool]

Ramprakash is a quality batsman - who in his early career performed terribly at the international level thanks to poor temperament.
He was a much better batsman than bowler at any given time..

ramprakash was a rubbish batsman who performed below his ability for every year bar 1 at the international level. if ramprakash were test class let alone quality hed still be in the side.

On performance neither are all-rounders - they're both top-class bowlers who also happen to bat pretty well. Not as well as they bowl, though.
Both of them could IMO have been equally good, though, were they not as good at bowling.

so pollock who averages more with the bat than kapil dev is a bowler who can bat a bit......

 

[tooextracool]

No, it doesn't mean absolutely nothing - it means less than it would if he hadn't played Test-cricket, but the top level is not the only thing of any importance.
Your constant nothing-but-Test-cricket-has-any-relevance crusade is often naive and sometimes dangerous.

err it is, theres no point in performing for your county except than to get a place in the test side. what you do in test cricket is what determines how good a player you are otherwise players like hick and chopra would be quality players.

 

[Richard]

They are quality players - at the domestic level.
Failing at the international level doesn't stop someone from being a quality player at the level they've proven themselves quality at.

 

[Richard]

ramprakash was a rubbish batsman who performed below his ability for every year bar 1 at the international level. if ramprakash were test class let alone quality hed still be in the side.

He wasn't Test-class - but that had nothing to do with his basic ability, it was exclusively down to his poor temperament.

so pollock who averages more with the bat than kapil dev is a bowler who can bat a bit......

No, he's a top-class bowler who can also bat very well - in case you didn't read properly.

 

[Richard]

If a player doesn't perform in International Cricket then they cannot be called anything other than a decent player.

Domestic success means absolutely nothing if they don't do it in the real thing.

This sums you up perfectly.
Calling Test-cricket "the real thing" is totally ridiculous, it's a completely false expectation.
Test-cricket is the top level of cricket played. Being good at it is something a tiny fraction of the population will ever be.
There is a level for everyone and being good enough for a certain level is the same no matter whether or not they're not good enough for the next level up.

 

[tooextracool]

They are quality players - at the domestic level.
Failing at the international level doesn't stop someone from being a quality player at the level they've proven themselves quality at.

yes but who asked whether he was a quality player at the domestic level?
the point was that hes not a quality player at the international level, which is by all means as purposes what you use to judge quality.

 

[tooextracool]

He wasn't Test-class - but that had nothing to do with his basic ability, it was exclusively down to his poor temperament..

yes which is prceisely what ive been saying all along.hence he doesnt deserve to be called 'quality'.

No, he's a top-class bowler who can also bat very well - in case you didn't read properly.

so kapil dev is not an all rounder either?

 

[Richard]

yes but who asked whether he was a quality player at the domestic level?
the point was that hes not a quality player at the international level, which is by all means as purposes what you use to judge quality.

No, it's the means to judge the ultimate quality.
That Ramprakash wasn't good enough (purely because of temperament) for Test-cricket doesn't mean he wasn't exceptional at the domestic level, nor does it devalue that exception.

 

[Richard]

yes which is prceisely what ive been saying all along.hence he doesnt deserve to be called 'quality'.

At the domestic level (and all levels below) he most certainly does.

so kapil dev is not an all rounder either?

Yes, of course he is (or was).
He genuinely was as good a batsman as bowler - he might have taken wickets but he took them at a poor strike-rate.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it's the means to judge the ultimate quality.
That Ramprakash wasn't good enough (purely because of temperament) for Test-cricket doesn't mean he wasn't exceptional at the domestic level, nor does it devalue that exception.

if he wasnt good enough at the test level then he wasnt 'quality', whatever he did at the domestic level doesnt make him a quality player because quite frankly its an insult to every other quality player theres been.

 

[Richard]

You have to get away from the idea that Test-cricket is the only definition of quality.
There are all sorts of levels of quality - which different players manage to conquer to different heights.

 

[tooextracool]

At the domestic level (and all levels below) he most certainly does..

will you stop with the domestic level garbage?
only a fool calls someone quality when hes failed at the international level. the point is that overall he was average, and thats how he shall be rated.

Yes, of course he is (or was).
He genuinely was as good a batsman as bowler - he might have taken wickets but he took them at a poor strike-rate.

so pollock being a better bowler and having a better batting average than dev means that pollock is not an all rounder.

 

[tooextracool]

You have to get away from the idea that Test-cricket is the only definition of quality.
There are all sorts of levels of quality - which different players manage to conquer to different heights.

no i dont, you have to get the idea that anyone who wasnt good enough at the international level is not quality. whatever he did in domestic cricket is irrelevant.

 

[Richard]

will you stop with the domestic level garbage?
only a fool calls someone quality when hes failed at the international level. the point is that overall he was average, and thats how he shall be rated.

Will you stop with the international-level garbage?
Only a fool says that the top level is the only one that matters.
You've simply got to treat them as different - because, for Ramprakash, they were. Totally different ball-games.

so pollock being a better bowler and having a better batting average than dev means that pollock is not an all rounder.

No, because Pollock is so much a better bowler than Kapil.