Gillespie - All Rounder??

[tooextracool]

Except there is no "overall".
There are different levels, and you've got to prove yourself quality at each one.
The international is the ultimate, and the ultimate only.

yes and only after you succeed at the ultimate level can you be quality.

 

[Richard]

and a player can only be quality overall if he succeeds in tests, hence he wasnt.

No, he can only be quality in Tests if he suceeds in Tests.

 

[Richard]

yes and the word 'quality' is reserved for those players who were good enough. otherwise players like salisbury and ramprakash would simply disgrace the likes of bradman, richards, sobers, marshall etc if they were both quality.

Or rather if they were Test-quality.

 

[Richard]

yes because all the quality is at the international level, not the domestic level, which is of rubbish quality.

Rubbish compared to the international.
Exceptional compared to the club.

and basically anyone who has half a brain. carry out a poll asking people if players like salisbury were quality and lets see if you get them agreeing with you.

A better option, of course, would be to carry-out a poll asking whether people realise that there are different levels of quality.

 

[Richard]

yes and only after you succeed at the ultimate level can you be quality.

Or rather only when you succeed there can you be of the ultimate quality.
You can still be of quality at lower levels.

 

[tooextracool]

Or rather only when you succeed there can you be of the ultimate quality.
You can still be of quality at lower levels.

yes of mediocre quality.
the point is that to be of good quality you must have succeeded at the international level.

 

[tooextracool]

No, he can only be quality in Tests if he suceeds in Tests.

and to be a quality batsman you must have succeeded in tests, hence he wasnt.

 

[tooextracool]

Or rather if they were Test-quality.

nope they would disgrace them if they were called quality when they werent.

 

[tooextracool]

Rubbish compared to the international.
Exceptional compared to the club..

yes precisely the point, since it is rubbish compared to the intl level, so is anyone who can succeed against them and not at the intl level.

A better option, of course, would be to carry-out a poll asking whether people realise that there are different levels of quality.

why because it makes you look better?

 

[Richard]

yes of mediocre quality.
the point is that to be of good quality you must have succeeded at the international level.

No, to be of the absolute utmost quality you must have succeeded at the international level.
To have succeeded at the domestic level you simply have to be exceptionally good.
The domestic level is mediocre only compared to the international - compared to everything else, it's high quality.

 

[Richard]

and to be a quality batsman you must have succeeded in tests, hence he wasnt.

Or to be a quality TEST BATSMAN you must have succeeded in Tests.
To be a quality domestic batsman you don't need to have succeeded in Tests.

 

[Richard]

yes precisely the point, since it is rubbish compared to the intl level, so is anyone who can succeed against them and not at the intl level.

No, they're simply not international standard.
Being successful at the domestic level, for almost anyone, would be a dream come true. Most of us will never come close to being that good.

why because it makes you look better?

No, because it proves the point I seek to prove.

 

[Richard]

nope they would disgrace them if they were called quality when they werent.

No, they would disgrace them if they were called Test-quality when they weren't.
They would not disgrace them by being called quality at the domestic level - because no-one judges any of Bradman, Sobers etc. by their deeds at domestic level.

 

[tooextracool]

No, to be of the absolute utmost quality you must have succeeded at the international level.
To have succeeded at the domestic level you simply have to be exceptionally good.
The domestic level is mediocre only compared to the international - compared to everything else, it's high quality.

its RELATIVELY high quality. compared to international level it is poor quality. hence to be a good quality player you have to succeed at the international level.

 

[tooextracool]

Or to be a quality TEST BATSMAN you must have succeeded in Tests.
To be a quality domestic batsman you don't need to have succeeded in Tests.

to be a quality test batsman, you must be quality ITFP. to be a quality domestic batsman you can be rubbish aka ramprakash

 

[tooextracool]

No, they're simply not international standard.
Being successful at the domestic level, for almost anyone, would be a dream come true. Most of us will never come close to being that good.

compared to a normal person yes, but the word quality is used to judge people by their performances at the international level.

No, because it proves the point I seek to prove.

no it doesnt, its simply you're attempt to have everything suit yourself.

 

[tooextracool]

No, they would disgrace them if they were called Test-quality when they weren't.
They would not disgrace them by being called quality at the domestic level - because no-one judges any of Bradman, Sobers etc. by their deeds at domestic level.

which is precisely the point. everyone judges players by their performances at the international level. therefore to be quality, you must be able to perform at the test match level

 

[Richard]

its RELATIVELY high quality. compared to international level it is poor quality. hence to be a good quality player you have to succeed at the international level.

No, to be of the UTMOST quality you have to have succeeded at the international level.
Any of the three or four levels below you are still extremely high quality compared to almost everyone else.

 

[Richard]

to be a quality test batsman, you must be quality ITFP. to be a quality domestic batsman you can be rubbish aka ramprakash

No, you can be rubbish by international standards.
If Ramprakash was rubbish, then you're basically insulting almost every cricketer ever to pick-up a bat or ball.

 

[Richard]

compared to a normal person yes, but the word quality is used to judge people by their performances at the international level.

Except for almost everyone who doesn't play at the international level.
The words high quality are used to judge you at your own level; the words poor quality are used to judge you at the level above yours.

no it doesnt, its simply you're attempt to have everything suit yourself.

It's my attempt to have everything shown the way I see it.
To show, in other words, what I see to be the case.
Which is what everyone does, all the time.