How did this bloke play for aus a??

[FaaipDeOiad]

An attitude of trying to see the best in everything.

For a start, suggesting either Tait or Cullen is worth keeping an eye on is hardly "trying to see the best in everything", as there is already a hell of a lot of good to see. Anyway, "seeing the best in everything" is a hell of a lot better than seeing no good in anything, which is where you seem to stand. I think the point vic_orthodox made in another thread recently shows it best - that it is genuinely difficult to imagine you picking a side, as you seem to dislike practically every player in the world, and it is therefore difficult picking 11 you don't have anything against.

I mean, look at the current Australian team... which is clearly one of (actually, probably THE) most successful teams in the history of test cricket, based on what you have said about them...

Langer - varies between excellent and poor
Hayden - poor on any wicket which isn't flat
Ponting - can't play spin
Martyn - inconsistent
Katich - couldn't play spin, now decent, I think
Clarke - overhyped
Gilchrist - can't play spin
Warne - good, I believe
Gillespie - good
Kasprowicz - good
McGrath - green-top bully
and 12th man is Lee, who is of course terrible

So, the best team in the world and one of the best teams ever, has three or four good players, and a heap of overrated trash. One would have to question the rest of the teams in the world!

 

[Richard]

I've made it clear that I wasn't comparing you to either of those things but the difference in opinion between those two polar opposites strongly resembles yours and TEC's differences. You, by saying I was directly comparing you to those two things and continuing to do so in spite of my further clarification which I didnt think should have been necessary, are being dishonest. Disagree with my analogy but don't keep making these accusations when I've taken the trouble to clarify that what you're asserting wasn't the case.

I'm not - I'm trying to assert that I'm not making accusations since you've clarified. I'm simply reiterating what I said and saying that I don't see how it can be compared to the two examples you gave below - which interestingly you haven't provided an answer to why they're comparable.

Freak != freakish.

Y-y-y-e-e-e-s-s-s-s, sorry?

No, he wasn't being optimistic or pessimistic; he was just saying it's too early to judge either way.

He was being optimisitic by saying he'd done well given that it was his first season; my view is that plenty of people have a good first season and until someone does more it's not appropriate to assume they're going to break a trend few have ever broken.

 

[vic_orthdox]

One would have to question the rest of the teams in the world!

Chances are that this is his reason why they're all overrated.

 

[Richard]

For a start, suggesting either Tait or Cullen is worth keeping an eye on is hardly "trying to see the best in everything", as there is already a hell of a lot of good to see. Anyway, "seeing the best in everything" is a hell of a lot better than seeing no good in anything, which is where you seem to stand. I think the point vic_orthodox made in another thread recently shows it best - that it is genuinely difficult to imagine you picking a side, as you seem to dislike practically every player in the world, and it is therefore difficult picking 11 you don't have anything against.

I mean, look at the current Australian team... which is clearly one of (actually, probably THE) most successful teams in the history of test cricket, based on what you have said about them...

Langer - varies between excellent and poor
Hayden - poor on any wicket which isn't flat
Ponting - can't play spin
Martyn - inconsistent
Katich - couldn't play spin, now decent, I think
Clarke - overhyped
Gilchrist - can't play spin
Warne - good, I believe
Gillespie - good
Kasprowicz - good
McGrath - green-top bully
and 12th man is Lee, who is of course terrible

So, the best team in the world and one of the best teams ever, has three or four good players, and a heap of overrated trash. One would have to question the rest of the teams in the world!

The fact that I point-out that players have various faults doesn't mean I think they're no good. For instance...
That Katich used to be a poor player of spin doesn't relate to his quality of the current time. Right now he's more than decent, he's extremely good.
That McGrath could only, between last winter (summer for you) and summer 2001, bowl wicket-taking deliveries on seaming or uneven pitches DOES NOT make him a "green-top bully" and it's typical exaggeration to suggest that I have, because that phrase has NEVER crossed my keyboard in relation to him. For one thing I'm near enough convinced that just because he never did in 2001-2004 doesn't mean he didn't before and certainly doesn't mean he hasn't done since; for another just because he couldn't take wickets with good bowling on flat pitches DOES NOT make him a poor bowler, at all, on even, grassless wickets. Very few bowlers have ever been able to bowl wicket-taking balls on non-seaming, even-bounce wickets, and while I feel McGrath has received more praise than he's deserved I've never, ever said he's not still a very, very good bowler.
Hayden, I find it hard to believe you'd describe my ascertation of him as "poor on any wicket that isn't flat" because I've said several times that I've never seen a better player of spin. I do, however, find Hayden incapable of playing the nip-backer and that's been demonstrated time and again, and as such he's exceptionally lucky that, being an opener, he's not faced much of it in 2001\02-2003\04.
That you'd say I feel Warne is merely "good", too, is another mishap - Warne is certainly in the top 10, possibly the top 5, bowlers EVER.
Gillespie, too, is another Langer - capable of being exceptionally good or relatively poor.
In short, the only Australian players I find genuinely overrated by a large degree are Hayden and Clarke. Because they're amongst the favourite sons and because I point-out faults in other players, when very few have no faults, I somehow seem to have given the impression, to you especially, that I feel the team is a useless one.
I ask you - please control your emotions and look at what I've actually said, rather than assuming that because I prefer to point-out faults than see the best in everything that I must be being ultra-negative about everything.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'm not - I'm trying to assert that I'm not making accusations since you've clarified. I'm simply reiterating what I said and saying that I don't see how it can be compared to the two examples you gave below - which interestingly you haven't provided an answer to why they're comparable.

Gun-nut vs left-wing hippie = vast difference in opinion

You vs TEC = vast difference in opinion

Clear?

Y-y-y-e-e-e-s-s-s-s, sorry?

Freak has man negative connotations literally and colloquially whereas the term 'freakish' is colloquially generally used positively hence why they're not the same.

He was being optimisitic by saying he'd done well given that it was his first season; my view is that plenty of people have a good first season and until someone does more it's not appropriate to assume they're going to break a trend few have ever broken.

Which he never asserted they would or attempted to contradict your view. He's allowing for both; subsequent success and/or subsequent failure whereas your view, without directly pointing towards it, suggests a higher probability of failure. Yours asserts a slight negative whereas his asserts neither negativity or positivity (the conslusion, not the premiss). If anything, he's not being positive, you are being slightly negative. Nothing wrong with it, just characterising the difference between what you said and what he said.

 

[Richard]

Gun-nut vs left-wing hippie = vast difference in opinion

You vs TEC = vast difference in opinion

Clear?

Yes - as I say, it never hasn't been. I just don't like either extreme and when I thought there was a remote possibility of being compared to either I wanted to stamp on it at the first hurdle.
Clear?

Freak has man negative connotations literally and colloquially whereas the term 'freakish' is colloquially generally used positively hence why they're not the same.

Hmm - I've never, ever thought of freak as a negative-connotation word. It's neutral - and certainly I wasn't saying Miller was in any way bad by his freakish

Which he never asserted they would or attempted to contradict your view. He's allowing for both; subsequent success and/or subsequent failure whereas your view, without directly pointing towards it, suggests a higher probability of failure. Yours asserts a slight negative whereas his asserts neither negativity or positivity (the conslusion, not the premiss). If anything, he's not being positive, you are being slightly negative. Nothing wrong with it, just characterising the difference between what you said and what he said.

Yes, I'll willingly admit to being slightly negative. (As long as we're clear I'm referring to Cullen not Tait) I think it exceptionally unlikely that Cullen will have long-term success, because virtually no fingerspinners have ever done so in Australia. I don't make an apology for my unoptimistic attitude, because I don't find anything wrong with erring on the side of negative.

 

[marc71178]

I wasn't exactly bitching and moaning, just saying I don't take kindly to being compared to something.

But you don't see anything wrong in having a go at others on here, and it's more than one person that you've not just compared to something, but called them it directly.

 

[marc71178]

I'm not - I'm trying to assert that I'm not making accusations since you've clarified. I'm simply reiterating what I said and saying that I don't see how it can be compared to the two examples you gave below - which interestingly you haven't provided an answer to why they're comparable.

He didn't need to - it is obvious the point he was trying to make, and he made it rather well I thought.

 

[Richard]

But you don't see anything wrong in having a go at others on here, and it's more than one person that you've not just compared to something, but called them it directly.

And he's quite free to respond if he wishes.

 

[Richard]

He didn't need to - it is obvious the point he was trying to make, and he made it rather well I thought.

No, it was obvious, given later posts, that there were two misunderstandings.
In the mistaken connotations of "freak" and the mistaken identity of the player in question.

 

[tooextracool]

And Martyn has never averaged 70, he just did from the very start of his comeback.

and since we're looking at his career since his return, thats the one that counts.
seriously, martyn has since the last ashes series averaged over 40 in every series.
the only period where he was inconsistent for was this one: http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype
and he still averaged 44 with 3 100s in that period.
and if you think that inzy has been the hallmark of consistency, maybe you should look at this: http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype
a 1.5 year period where he averaged 16.60. his test average as a result fell from 49 to 40 odd. you call that consistency?

 

[Richard]

and since we're looking at his career since his return, thats the one that counts.

Exactly, and that's why I only gave that part and excluded his early career.

seriously, martyn has since the last ashes series averaged over 40 in every series.
the only period where he was inconsistent for was this one: http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype
and he still averaged 44 with 3 100s in that period.

Averaged 44 because of 3 centuries (1 unbeaten) - if you remove the centuries it's 22, which is exactly what I mean - he was all-or-nothing in that period, and there have been other similar and polar-opposite periods since.

and if you think that inzy has been the hallmark of consistency, maybe you should look at this: http://statserver.cricket.org/guru?...edhigh=;csearch=;submit=1;.cgifields=viewtype
a 1.5 year period where he averaged 16.60. his test average as a result fell from 49 to 40 odd. you call that consistency?

Where have I said he's the hallmark of consistency? Simply that I'll be utterly amazed if Martyn ends his career with a higher average than him.

 

[Swervy]

Averaged 44 because of 3 centuries (1 unbeaten) - if you remove the centuries it's 22, which is exactly what I mean - he was all-or-nothing in that period, and there have been other similar and polar-opposite periods since.

so he scored 3 100's,3 50's, and 2 30's and a 20..its hardly all or nothing..it seems like a perfectly reasonable return to be honest

Runs arent everything...his 30 in the second innings of the third test vs NZ..he came in with Australia not in the best position, and hung around for a while and helped Australia get a draw

his 20 vs Pakistan..he batted for almost a session whilst wickets were tumbling around him,he was last man out..out of a score of 127 its not too bad

 

[Richard]

Runs arent everything...his 30 in the second innings of the third test vs NZ..he came in with Australia not in the best position, and hung around for a while and helped Australia get a draw

And he'd probably not have helped get the draw if that idiot Robinson had given NZ the wickets they should have had.
Would you say what you said if NZ had won the match?

his 20 vs Pakistan..he batted for almost a session whilst wickets were tumbling around him,he was last man out..out of a score of 127 its not too bad

It's simply slightly better than the terrible that the rest of the team were.
A good 20 is exceptionally rare. Just because everyone else totally f*cks-up doesn't mean you deserve much credit for f*cking-up slightly less poorly.

 

[Swervy]

.
Would you say what you said if NZ had won the match?

but the fact is it was a draw.....

 

[Richard]

And the fact is that's not relevant to how Martyn performed.
Cricket analysis is not just about assumptions.

 

[Swervy]

And the fact is that's not relevant to how Martyn performed.
Cricket analysis is not just about assumptions.

a match winning or match saving 25 is more valuable to a team than a 60 in a losing cause.

i am reminded of the test England vs India when Sehwag scored 80 odd in no time, but got out just before the close of play to a complete bone head shot...

In Englands second innings, Stewert scored a quick fire 30, which enabled England to declare and have more time to bowl out India (ok the lead was huge but still...)

What innings do you think was more valuable?

 

[marc71178]

And the fact is that's not relevant to how Martyn performed.
Cricket analysis is not just about assumptions.

Says the master of all assumptions and generalisms.

 

[tooextracool]

Exactly, and that's why I only gave that part and excluded his early career..

so why mention it later on again?

Averaged 44 because of 3 centuries (1 unbeaten) - if you remove the centuries it's 22, which is exactly what I mean - he was all-or-nothing in that period, and there have been other similar and polar-opposite periods since...

and if you remove all of lara's 100s he averages 32. clearly all or nothing.
and you're going to love this one.....if you remove all of bradman's 100s he averaged a meagre 34.10. i always need bradman was inconsistent.
you really gotta stop making yourself being a joke, the fact of the matter was that even during the worst period of his career he managed to average 44, and score 3 100s and 3 50s in the period of a year.

Where have I said he's the hallmark of consistency? Simply that I'll be utterly amazed if Martyn ends his career with a higher average than him.

well done sherlock in ignoring the crux of the argument. the fact that inzy has been more inconsistent than martyn, and still ended up averaging 50.

 

[Richard]

a match winning or match saving 25 is more valuable to a team than a 60 in a losing cause.

i am reminded of the test England vs India when Sehwag scored 80 odd in no time, but got out just before the close of play to a complete bone head shot...

In Englands second innings, Stewert scored a quick fire 30, which enabled England to declare and have more time to bowl out India (ok the lead was huge but still...)

What innings do you think was more valuable?

Stewart's innings wasn't actually that valuable - it didn't affect the outcome of the game at all.
And certainly even if Stewart's innings had proven the difference between the sides, Sehwag's innings would still have been the better one, even if he did play an injudicious stroke to get himself out (as so many so often do).
You only had to watch Sehwag bat that day to see he'd batted extremely well.
And with regards to 60 in a losing cause... if you get out off the last ball to a poor stroke, maybe... but if you get a 60* in a losing cause you've still played well and you don't deserve any discredit just because the rest weren't good enough to help you save the match.
Very rarely is "match-winning" or "match-saving" a particularly good gauge, because as I've said countless times, no one player can win or save a match on his own except in the most obscure of circumstances. Nor is it at all fair to penalise someone for the paucity of his teammates.