His strike rate is hardly high. His average is very good and the only reason he doesn't average more wickets per test is because he only bowled on average 31 overs, which is even less than Sobers. I'd say it's a stretch to have him purely as a bowler, but if I had to pick a bowler with even 5 balls faster but a much weaker bat, I'd pick Miller.
I already discussed this - in fact I've discussed it 3 or 4 times TBH - and the result's always been the same: the person I've been arguing against has stopped posting and then sometime later despite being proven conclusively wrong (and admitting such by stopping posting) has gone back to saying what they've always been saying.
By saying "if our test side was selected purely on merit quite few gentlemen would've joined the players" you are saying exactly what I am: that amateurs and gents were both capable of making the best teams.Where? I though it was pretty obvious that I was saying not all of our amateurs were selected on merit. At no point did I say absolutely every one wasn't deserving.
Absolutely. Michael Holding > Miller as a bowler, but I'd have the latter for an all-time Test XI anyday.
Jesus Christ, English is your first language, isn't it? That being so you really should get a stronger grasp of the basics. You said:
I'm saying that some amateus who were selected didn't deserve to be in the side; you're saying if they were so poor they'd not have gotten in the side, which is the contrary position. Some amateurs who were selected were so poor that they shouldn't have been selected. I can't be clearer than that.
You do know that when someone stops replying to your posts it doesn't mean you've "proved them conclusively wrong" or that you've "won", right? That was "in jest"? This isn't a pissing contest in an infants' playground. In my experience of your style of "arguing" people (myself included) generally just give up because of your pig-headedness.
Don't want to get into a whole thing here, but looking at the commentary of the match in question he didn't actually slow down after his ton, but continued at the same pace.
Thats exactly it.
There were undoutedly some (far more common in touring squads than at home) but these were a fairly small minority. Mostly, and certainly from the 1930s onwards, virtually all players were picked because they were the best going around.
It means that they've run-out of arguments, simple as. AFAIC, if you wish to maintain your point-of-view against someone who counters it (as I have, several times) you've no right to stop arguing one time then just bring it up as if nothing had ever happened before 5 months later.
There was even a thread (made by Lang to make the search easier) about Kallis in the most recent example; there was also some other time (think it was someone else rather than you that time, a long-gone n00b) back in about Feb-March 2006 when I said the same thing.
I can see why it exists, of course I can, and it's because people like to believe that sort of thing, and people also love to hate guys like Kallis.
No, it doesn't. It means people can't be bothered to argue the toss with you anymore. Your obssession with having the last word means the other fellow has to stop because you won't. It doesn't mean you've effectively countered their argument, it just means they cbf anymore.
Quod erat demonstrandum, as they say in Rome.
What happens is that it ends up being 10s of pages of repetetive crap that is pointless from all sides.
Richard is demonstrated by four hairy rodents?
And in exam-papers The World over, too. Lose marks for not doing.
TBH, I wouldn't deny this.
