Main problems each side needs to confront before start of series...

[Richard]

Take those two rules of thumb, throw in a highly conditional obsession with domestic cricket records and a preference for accurate bowlers over less accurate but effective ones, and you can pick your reaction to absolutely any cricketer.

And for another thing... what, exactly, is wrong with using the same criteria to assess every cricketer?
I'd say it's pretty stupid to assume that something is different for one and the same for another.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

And for another thing... what, exactly, is wrong with using the same criteria to assess every cricketer?
I'd say it's pretty stupid to assume that something is different for one and the same for another.

Nothing, but that's not what you do. Your "criteria" is simply about whether or not you happen to like their style of play. Hayden is 'lucky' because he is an aggressive batsman, plays risky shots, and generally takes on the bowling, while Fleming is a fine batsman because he's not. Using 'luck' to subjectively dismiss the achievements of batsmen you don't happen to like isn't using consistent criteria to judge players, it's making it up as you go along.

And as far as your judgements about players are concerned, when you never say a single good word about the likes of Hayden or Sehwag (except perhaps for saying they are good at smashing around crappy attacks) while you vigourously defend the likes of Ramprakash and Fleming, you are creating a situation in which people are going to believe you think one player is good and not the other.

I'll give an example. If you were to say "Lara is a flawed batsman, but still a great and better than Darren Ganga, who has the better technique", it's a very different thing from just saying "Lara is a flawed batsman and Darren Ganga is not".

In the latter case, you are effectively saying that Ganga is better than Lara, and getting indignant when people point out how stupid it is if pretty facetious.

 

[Richard]

Nothing, but that's not what you do. Your "criteria" is simply about whether or not you happen to like their style of play.

No, you incorrectly perceive it to be so.

Hayden is 'lucky' because he is an aggressive batsman, plays risky shots, and generally takes on the bowling, while Fleming is a fine batsman because he's not. Using 'luck' to subjectively dismiss the achievements of batsmen you don't happen to like isn't using consistent criteria to judge players, it's making it up as you go along.

No, Hayden is lucky because of dropped catches, which he had a good deal of in 2001\02 and 2002\03.
Fleming, incidentally, is far from a batsman who "does not" "play risky shots and take-on the bowling" - Fleming, like almost every batsman at the current time, is a strokeplayer".
Fleming is a good batsman because he has conquered a variety of conditions. Hayden is overrated because he has a very good average having batted almost invariably against poor bowling-attacks on very flat pitches. And because he had a lot of luck in some Tests in 2001\02 and 2002\03.
Those two things, though, don't have the slightest significance to one-another. Not once have I ever discussed Fleming and Hayden at the same time.

And as far as your judgements about players are concerned, when you never say a single good word about the likes of Hayden or Sehwag (except perhaps for saying they are good at smashing around crappy attacks) while you vigourously defend the likes of Ramprakash and Fleming, you are creating a situation in which people are going to believe you think one player is good and not the other.

I'll give an example. If you were to say "Lara is a flawed batsman, but still a great and better than Darren Ganga, who has the better technique", it's a very different thing from just saying "Lara is a flawed batsman and Darren Ganga is not".

In the latter case, you are effectively saying that Ganga is better than Lara, and getting indignant when people point out how stupid it is if pretty facetious.

Except that invariably you're drawing together totally unrelated discussions.
Just because in one thread I say "Stephen Fleming is a good player" doesn't mean a thing to another thread where I've said "Matthew Hayden is overrated".
You'd do well to discuss only what's in one thread, rather than bringing-in stuff from totally unrelated discussions.

 

[marc71178]

No, you incorrectly perceive it to be so.

How come it's always someone else's fault?

No matter how many people question it, you still maintain you're not at fault...

Maybe you need to get a grip on reality and accept that you're not right all the time and don't know more than everyone else.

 

[Swervy]

No, you incorrectly perceive it to be so.

surely the point of going onto a forum such as this is to relay your thoughts on an issue/player etc to others. Is it not a problem YOU have that you don't communicate those ideas of yours in a way that allows others perceive those ideas in the way you want them to. If it was only one person on here who perceived it all incorrectly, then fair enough, but it seems to be the bulk of of the people on these forums that do....your posts appear to be rife with inconsistancies, maybe its because you dont communicate your ideas in an effective manner

Those two things, though, don't have the slightest significance to one-another. Not once have I ever discussed Fleming and Hayden at the same time.

Its irelevent whether you have spoken about two players in the same thread. You have previously said that Harmison is a failure at test level...but you have now said that Ealham wasnt a total failure. I think it is fair of us to assume that you therefore see Ealham to be more of a success at test level than Harmison. If you don't think that, then the reason why people will think you think that is because of how you communicate on these forums.
If you actually do think that Ealham is more of a test success than Harmison, you have completely lost your marbles...

Most of us on here are pretty intelligent I think, and unfortunately for you, we are not limited to dealing with one post at a time, we draw from other posts you have made to build up an idea of how you think about the game. Just because player A hasnt been mentioned in a thread with player B, doesnt mean people arent allowed to use basic logic to build up an idea of how you perceive player A compared to player B

 

[Richard]

How come it's always someone else's fault?

No matter how many people question it, you still maintain you're not at fault...

Maybe you need to get a grip on reality and accept that you're not right all the time and don't know more than everyone else.

Except I do know more about myself than everyone else...
At least everyone else on here.

 

[Richard]

surely the point of going onto a forum such as this is to relay your thoughts on an issue/player etc to others. Is it not a problem YOU have that you don't communicate those ideas of yours in a way that allows others perceive those ideas in the way you want them to. If it was only one person on here who perceived it all incorrectly, then fair enough, but it seems to be the bulk of of the people on these forums that do....your posts appear to be rife with inconsistancies, maybe its because you dont communicate your ideas in an effective manner

Actually no-one has ever made that incorrect and utterly ludicrous perception before.
Go on - have a look.
No-one has ever said totally stupid things like "you don't like attacking batsmen just because they're attacking batsmen" before. Never.

Its irelevent whether you have spoken about two players in the same thread. You have previously said that Harmison is a failure at test level...but you have now said that Ealham wasnt a total failure. I think it is fair of us to assume that you therefore see Ealham to be more of a success at test level than Harmison. If you don't think that, then the reason why people will think you think that is because of how you communicate on these forums.
If you actually do think that Ealham is more of a test success than Harmison, you have completely lost your marbles...

Total and utter nonsense - I've rarely even spoken of Ealham at Test level and that's the precise point I'm making.
I've praised Ealham as far as ONE-DAY-INTERNATIONALS are concerned. I've also talked down Harmison as far as TESTS are concerned. The two are not remotely interlinked.
(I have, at other times, also talked down Harmison in ODIs, of course, and if Harmison never played another ODI I would indeed consider Ealham much the more successful bowler - but that's not the point here).

Most of us on here are pretty intelligent I think, and unfortunately for you, we are not limited to dealing with one post at a time, we draw from other posts you have made to build up an idea of how you think about the game. Just because player A hasnt been mentioned in a thread with player B, doesnt mean people arent allowed to use basic logic to build up an idea of how you perceive player A compared to player B

Except in many cases there is NO basic logic applied.
As I've said many times - just saying "Hayden is overrated" in one thread doesn't mean that, because I've said "Fleming is good" in another, I am comparing the two.
It shows a lack of basic logic to bring together 2 different discussions where the whole criteria has nothing in common.

 

[Swervy]

Actually no-one has ever made that incorrect and utterly ludicrous perception before.
Go on - have a look.
No-one has ever said totally stupid things like "you don't like attacking batsmen just because they're attacking batsmen" before. Never.

Total and utter nonsense - I've rarely even spoken of Ealham at Test level and that's the precise point I'm making.
I've praised Ealham as far as ONE-DAY-INTERNATIONALS are concerned. I've also talked down Harmison as far as TESTS are concerned. The two are not remotely interlinked.
(I have, at other times, also talked down Harmison in ODIs, of course, and if Harmison never played another ODI I would indeed consider Ealham much the more successful bowler - but that's not the point here).

Except in many cases there is NO basic logic applied.
As I've said many times - just saying "Hayden is overrated" in one thread doesn't mean that, because I've said "Fleming is good" in another, I am comparing the two.
It shows a lack of basic logic to bring together 2 different discussions where the whole criteria has nothing in common.

ok..but its all down to perception then isnt it, it is perceived that you have these views, and if it was just one person who was misreading or misinterpreting what you say then I would be with you on that...but it isnt, it seems to be everyone who questions what you say, because of the perceived inconsistancies in what you say.

My feeling is that you arent too good at actually communicating what you intend on communicating to people on here.Maybe it is something for you to ponder on

 

[Richard]

I'm not always brilliant at communicating the exactness of my feelings, no, it's something I've said plenty of times.
Nor do I really feel there's a terribly large amount I can do to change it.

 

[Hero_Don]

i think the Aussie middle order will be much the same as it is now -

Langer
Hayden
Ponting
Martyn
Hussey
Clarke
Gilchrist
Warne
Lee
Gillespie
McGrath

Clark

Gillespie to sub out for Macgill for Adelaide and Sydney

Well I certainly hope that you are wrong. Would hate to have Martyn in there. Would much rather have Jaques or Cosgrove playing. Not sure on Clarke aswell.

Clark/MacGill in for Gillespie.

 

[aussie]

Would hate to have Martyn in there. Would much rather have Jaques or Cosgrove playing.

Why?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Australia

• Middle Order
• Fourth bowler
• McGrath

England

• Injuries
• Middle Order
• Make up of attack

Pretty much still the same.

 

[luckyeddie]

Why?

Martyn = Yesterday's Man
Jaques / Cosgrove = Brave New World

(just a guess)

 

[aussie]

Martyn = Yesterday's Man
Jaques / Cosgrove = Brave New World

(just a guess)

Martyo may be yesterday's man but he showed in SA that he still has what i takes & i expect him to at least start. If he fails intially i have no problems with either Jaques or Cosgrove coming in to replace him.

 

[Hero_Don]

Why?

Why do you reakon?

He was a good player, but he is not good enough anymore. Sure he got a century in SA, but he just does not make enough runs. Surely Cosgroves 233 in the English County Comp shows he is a better option than Martyn?

 

[aussie]

Why do you reakon?

He was a good player, but he is not good enough anymore. Sure he got a century in SA, but he just does not make enough runs.?

Come on how can you say Martyn is not good anymore. Yea we know he didn't make runs in the ashes but one has to remember unlike Hayden & Gilchrist he wasn't worked out by the England bowlers, his dismissals was more of a mixture of rough decisions & poor shots than England getting on top of him.

He then was stupidly dropped from the test side & then kept in the OD side & clearly between the VB series & ODI series in SA he wasn't sure what was his position in the team & thus was playing naturally. When he was recalled the SA series he started to bat more fluently & showed that he still can make runs at test level even if it may not be as good as his prolific year in 2004.

Surely Cosgroves 233 in the English County Comp shows he is a better option than Martyn?

lol, just because Cosgrove score one big double century doesn't make him suddenly better than Martyn.

 

[luckyeddie]

Why do you reakon?

He was a good player, but he is not good enough anymore. Sure he got a century in SA, but he just does not make enough runs. Surely Cosgroves 233 in the English County Comp shows he is a better option than Martyn?

Even I wouldn't rate that highly a double hundred against my beloved Derbyshire.

We might be better than we were, but it's still relative