Gillespie - All Rounder??

[tooextracool]

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

and given that quality is an assessment of players at the international level you have to accept the fact that ramprakash was not quality. otherwise every player to play international cricket would be quality, and that would simply insult the likes of bradman etc.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

YES, where have you been?
and average/quality etc are not relative terms. when you average 28 from 52 tests then its quite clear that you are rubbish.

 

[tooextracool]

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

no i mean its relatively rubbish, compared to the international level that is. hence scoring against those attacks dont prove anything.

 

[Dizzy #4]

.............................


Well, it's true that Dizzy will never be consirded as an all-rounder, what does that make Shane Warne?

Oh Well, According to the PWC ratings, it seems as Dizzy is ranked #9 and Warne #11, so many times Warne has entered top 5. If Dizzy can make better bowling and batting for the 2nd innings, we can see a raise in postion

 

[Richard]

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.

It is not irrelevant - I'll just have to keep repeating myself - whatever might be standard, out-of-hand practice, the fact is all terms are relative, and no, it's nothing to do with Ramprakash or anyone else, it's simply me attempting to see logic prevail.
It is perfectly possible to be of high quality at one level and not at another. For Ramprakash, this is the case, and for many, many others.
I can't remember who brought-up Ramprakash; if it was me it was simply because he was the best example.

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

Better batsman? Highly disputable.

 

[Richard]

and given that quality is an assessment of players at the international level you have to accept the fact that ramprakash was not quality. otherwise every player to play international cricket would be quality, and that would simply insult the likes of bradman etc.

Jesus Christ, how many times?
NO, RAMPRAKASH WAS NOT QUALITY AT INTERNATIONAL LEVEL.
What is it that you're trying to achieve by continually repeating that when no-one is disputing it?

 

[Richard]

YES, where have you been?
and average/quality etc are not relative terms. when you average 28 from 52 tests then its quite clear that you are rubbish.

It is (or rather, it's not quite as simple as that - but of course we've done that one before).
But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was quality at the domestic level - it is equally clear that Ramprakash was.

 

[Richard]

no i mean its relatively rubbish, compared to the international level that is. hence scoring against those attacks dont prove anything.

It does prove something - it proves that, at domestic level, he is a very, very good player indeed.
It does not prove anything as to his ability at the international level, and contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, I'm not saying the domestic record has any bearing on that.

 

[tooextracool]

It is not irrelevant - I'll just have to keep repeating myself - whatever might be standard, out-of-hand practice, the fact is all terms are relative, and no, it's nothing to do with Ramprakash or anyone else, it's simply me attempting to see logic prevail.
It is perfectly possible to be of high quality at one level and not at another. For Ramprakash, this is the case, and for many, many others.
I can't remember who brought-up Ramprakash; if it was me it was simply because he was the best example..

how many times do i have to say it. only a fool would judge quality based on performances other than at the international level because a quality batsman can only be such if he can perform against quality attacks. did ramprakash do that? hell no
end of story.

Better batsman? Highly disputable.

well whatever, how can a far better bowler and an equally good batsman not be ann all rounder while the other person can?

 

[tooextracool]

Jesus Christ, how many times?
NO, RAMPRAKASH WAS NOT QUALITY AT INTERNATIONAL LEVEL.
What is it that you're trying to achieve by continually repeating that when no-one is disputing it?

AND WHAT PART OF QUALITY IS JUDGED ONLY BY PERFORMANCES AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

 

[tooextracool]

It is (or rather, it's not quite as simple as that - but of course we've done that one before).
But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he was quality at the domestic level - it is equally clear that Ramprakash was.

seriously do you read at all? WHAT KIND OF FOOL ASSESSES A PLAYER'S OVERALL CAREER BY LOOKING AT WHETHER HE WAS QUALITY AT THE DOMESTIC LEVEL OR NOT? whether or not he was quality at the domestic level is irrelevent and something that ive never disputed.

 

[tooextracool]

It does prove something - it proves that, at domestic level, he is a very, very good player indeed.
It does not prove anything as to his ability at the international level, and contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, I'm not saying the domestic record has any bearing on that.

OMG, where have i disputed ramprakash's ability at the domestic level?????
ive simply said that he was rubbish at the international level and since quality is judged based on performances at the international level ramprakash wasnt quality.

 

[Dizzy #4]

.................

War of Words here!

 

[Richard]

You may learn it is commonplace.
You may not.

 

[Richard]

AND WHAT PART OF QUALITY IS JUDGED ONLY BY PERFORMANCES AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

I understand the lot - and the only quality judged by performances at the international level is international quality.

 

[Richard]

how many times do i have to say it. only a fool would judge quality based on performances other than at the international level because a quality batsman can only be such if he can perform against quality attacks. did ramprakash do that? hell no
end of story.

No, not at all - because some of the bowlers at domestic level are quality - by domestic standards.
Hence Ramprakash was quality - by domestic standards.
Only a fool would say quality has only one level.

well whatever, how can a far better bowler and an equally good batsman not be ann all rounder while the other person can?

Because one is equally good - the other is better at one trait.

 

[Richard]

OMG, where have i disputed ramprakash's ability at the domestic level?????
ive simply said that he was rubbish at the international level and since quality is judged based on performances at the international level ramprakash wasnt quality.

And since quality has many different levels he was quality at some and not at others.

 

[Richard]

seriously do you read at all? WHAT KIND OF FOOL ASSESSES A PLAYER'S OVERALL CAREER BY LOOKING AT WHETHER HE WAS QUALITY AT THE DOMESTIC LEVEL OR NOT? whether or not he was quality at the domestic level is irrelevent and something that ive never disputed.

OK, finally we seem to be getting somewhere.
No-one assesses a player by their performance at the domestic level if they've played a reasonable amount at the international.
All I've been trying to do here is make people realise that the terms being used have different levels.
I can't even remember what started the thing now.

 

[thierry henry]

Back on something resembling the original topic....New Zealand has several players with interesting claims to the 'allrounder' tag. Scott Styris first played international cricket as a bowler who could bat a bit, and now plays as a batter who can bowl a bit. Does this make him an all-rounder? I don't mind Styris as a player, but I suspect he would fall into the Ian Harvey "bad all-rounder" category in a lot of people's minds.

Jacob Oram made the NZ team on the strength of his batting ability and was immediately and very perplexingly turned into a bowler who batted. He grew into the role admirably, but his bowling seems to have peaked and now he is getting back to his strength, which imo is his batting. His bowling seems to have suffered slightly as a result, but I still feel that he can keep developing into a genuine all-rounder.

Kyle Mills has always been selected for NZ as a bowler, yet incredibly has only taken 2 5-WICKET BAGS IN HIS ENTIRE FIRST CLASS CAREER. To be fair, his career has been stalled since about 2001, due to him being constantly selected in NZ touring parties and international squads, but only actually appearing sporadically. His initial foray into FC cricket saw him cast very much as a batting all-rounder, until his very puzzling Oram-esque transformation into a specialist bowler by the NZ selectors. I'm not sure about this, but believe that he only really started bowling regularly in his late teens? IMO Mills is a competent first class standard middle-order batsman who could achieve a test average near 30, if he was allowed to bat about 8 and his bowling merited selection.

 

[marc71178]

.................

War of Words here!

UNfortunately a fair few threads end up this way.

Once they've taken over a thread you'll soon learn to leave it alone as even if you try to comment it'll be ignored.