Gillespie - All Rounder??

[Richard]

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.

No, it's not irrelevant.
It's irrelevant as to whether he was quality at the international level, yes, but there are different definitions of quality - it is not a uniform thing.
You have to get that through your head.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

and therefore everyone in this world is a fool except you i presume? because everyone considers the top level as the only thing that determines whether a player is quality or not. scoring runs against rubbish bowling attacks does not make anyone quality.

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

and therefore it is a crime to him that since hes a better bowler he cant be called an all rounder!!

 

[tooextracool]

No, it's not irrelevant.
It's irrelevant as to whether he was quality at the international level, yes, but there are different definitions of quality - it is not a uniform thing.
You have to get that through your head.

and given that whenever anyone asks if someone is quality, hes usually talking about the international level you need to get it through your head that scoring runs against rubbish bowling attacks doesnt prove anything to anyone.

 

[marc71178]

Test-cricket is the top level of cricket played. Being good at it is something a tiny fraction of the population will ever be.

Yes, and those are the quality players throughout time - if someone can't do it at that level then they're not of the quality to be talked about as anything other than an average player.

 

[marc71178]

You've simply got to treat them as different - because, for Ramprakash, they were. Totally different ball-games.

Therefore Ramprakash is nothing more than an average professional.

It amazes me that you go on so much about how Zim and Ban are playing Tests and making players look better than they are, yet you now think we can call players quality based on what they do in domestic Cricket, regardless of whether they fail Internationally...

 

[sledger]

Therefore Ramprakash is nothing more than an average professional.QUOTE]


lol no way dude ramps was great

 

[Link]

lol no way dude ramps was great [/QUOTE]

really, maybe he was in counties.

 

[sledger]

he did make 2 test centuries but yes im afraid he was a bit similar to graham hick in the way that he never really converted his county form into the test arena,

still one of my favourite players though.

 

[Richard]

and therefore everyone in this world is a fool except you i presume? because everyone considers the top level as the only thing that determines whether a player is quality or not. scoring runs against rubbish bowling attacks does not make anyone quality.

And rubbish bowling-attacks are too a matter of relativity.
For almost everyone, a county\state\province\franchise(etc) attack is far from rubbish and in fact incredibly high quality.
To reach international level is the very pinnacle of everything, and judging everyone by international standards would denote just over one ten-billionth of people a failure.
A claim that strikes me as more than a little unfair.
The top level determines those good enough for the top level. For the rest, it doesn't matter in the slightest!

and therefore it is a crime to him that since hes a better bowler he cant be called an all rounder!!

No, he can be called something near one.

 

[Richard]

and given that whenever anyone asks if someone is quality, hes usually talking about the international level you need to get it through your head that scoring runs against rubbish bowling attacks doesnt prove anything to anyone.

And you need to get it through your head that rubbish\quality\ETC are relative terms.

 

[Richard]

Yes, and those are the quality players throughout time - if someone can't do it at that level then they're not of the quality to be talked about as anything other than an average player.

So hence everyone who hasn't made it at the top level is average?
What rubbish.
You, too, need to understand that the terms rubbish\average\quality are relative terms.

 

[Richard]

Therefore Ramprakash is nothing more than an average professional.

It amazes me that you go on so much about how Zim and Ban are playing Tests and making players look better than they are, yet you now think we can call players quality based on what they do in domestic Cricket, regardless of whether they fail Internationally...

Most Zimbabweans are average by domestic standards anyway.
We can call players who do well at domestic level quality domestic players. We can call those who don't poor domestic players.
We can do the same for club players and those at EVERY OTHER LEVEL of the game.

 

[marc71178]

Which still doesn't make them quality players.

 

[Richard]

If someone averages 60 in club-cricket it makes them a quality player.

At that level.

If they go on to County Second XI cricket and average 20, it makes them poor at that level.

And the same applies to anything else.

 

[bryce]

If someone averages 60 in club-cricket it makes them a quality player.

At that level.

If they go on to County Second XI cricket and average 20, it makes them poor at that level.

And the same applies to anything else.

stating the obvious ???

 

[Behlol]

Gillespie is an all-rounder to me.

 

[Mr Casson]

And you need to get it through your head that rubbish\quality\ETC are relative terms.

Given what tooextracool said I don't understand your hissyfit. He said scoring against a rubbish attack doesn't prove anything, and if 'rubbish' is a relative term, then they are rubbish at that level, which means it really doesn't prove anything.

 

[Richard]

stating the obvious ???

If you read all the posts you might see that I most certainly need to!

 

[Richard]

Given what tooextracool said I don't understand your hissyfit. He said scoring against a rubbish attack doesn't prove anything, and if 'rubbish' is a relative term, then they are rubbish at that level, which means it really doesn't prove anything.

And you know perfectly well that he meant that "domestic bowling is rubbish".

 

[tooextracool]

And rubbish bowling-attacks are too a matter of relativity.
For almost everyone, a county\state\province\franchise(etc) attack is far from rubbish and in fact incredibly high quality.
To reach international level is the very pinnacle of everything, and judging everyone by international standards would denote just over one ten-billionth of people a failure.
A claim that strikes me as more than a little unfair.
The top level determines those good enough for the top level. For the rest, it doesn't matter in the slightest!

look this is getting really annoying. you really are trying everything to try and put ramprakash in that 'quality' category. the fact is that when people judge quality they look at performances at the international level, on which he was rubbish, and therefore not 'quality'. whatever he did at all levels below made him quality for those levels, but those are all irrelevant when we refer to the international career, which incidentally is what every sane person does.

No, he can be called something near one.

this is ridiculous, how can someone who is a better batsman and bowler than kapil dev not be an all rounder?