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

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Hmm... I don't really see that I was doing that.
The point is, other sides are always likely to be less motivated in dead games. Therefore the

intensity is not on from both sides, even if it still means plenty to West Indies.

Bowlers care enough about their stats to not give away easy runs, far less to the West Indies,

and far less when they've got the opposition in trouble. Your first statement was that Sarwan

rarely scores runs in tough situations. I'm still waiting for your proof behind it. You're yet

to refute my proof except to STATE it's wrong.

In any case - it's only in the last 3 years at best that single Test victories

have become rare things.

And the quality of the bowling? Relative to the pitch?
I can't think I've ever seen Sarwan score a century against quality seam and swing and\or spin.
No, I'm aware Fleming hasn't scored many but he's scored more than Sarwan.

Fleming's hundreds:

129 v Cork/Gough/Tufnell/Mullally/White
Pitch: 39.96 runs per wicket

174* v Wickramasinghe/Bandaratilleke/Murali/Bandara/Kalpage/Jayasuriya
Pitch: 36.97

105 v McGrath/Lee/Gillespie/Warne
Pitch: 43.48

130 v Dillon/Collins/Powell/Sanford/Hooper/Gayle
Pitch: 23.90

274* v Vaas/Nissanka/Dharmasena/Murali/Lokuarachchi
Pitch: 52.68

192 v Sami/Shabbir/Gul/Kaneria/Razzaq
Pitch: 43.15

117 v Hoggard/Harmison/Flintoff/Giles/Saggers
Pitch: 33.46 runs per wicket

Sarwan's:

105 v McGrath/Gillespie/Lee/Bichel/MacGill
Pitch: 35.54 runs per wicket

114 v Pollock/Ntini/Nel/Hall/Kallis/Rudolph
Pitch: 43.13

119 v Pollock/Ntini/Nel/Kallis
Pitch: 49.96

139 v Harmison/Hoggard/Flintoff/Anderson/Giles
Pitch: 35.17

107* v Nel/Ntini/Zondeki/Boje/Kallis/Smith
Pitch: 33.90

Seems like both have scored their centuries on flat wickets...except Fleming's have been flatter

(bar one innings). I'm still struggling to see how Fleming is world class and Sarwan isn't. I don't think either are world class, but clearly you do - Fleming is according to you. Back your claim properly please.

When does who's fault it was made the blindest bit of difference? The batsman benefited from it, therefore it matters who's credit it was. It was not Sarwan's. The only way he could play that innings was for Umpiring error to allow him to.

So from the time a batsman gets a let-off, any further batting doesn't reflect skill?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Are they? Sorry, I must've missed that. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard people talk about "forget the last ball - concentrate on the next one".
It's what ALL the best batsmen do.

It's what they try to do. What they hope to do. Alas, they're clearly more human that you are. But I suppose you're speaking as certainly as you are when you school Jack on offspin bowling.

 

[Mister Wright]

I find it hard to credit that game a Test (and I find it impossible to credit the 3 one-dayers as ODIs).

Fair enough, but you cannot dismiss the quality of the innings, given the bowlers he was facing...

 

[Richard]

Well considering a lesser criticism of you was deemed "crucifying" I'd say that's a big deal.

Clearly typing 199 instead of 200 was made a big-deal.

 

[Richard]

Bowlers care enough about their stats to not give away easy runs, far less to the West Indies, and far less when they've got the opposition in trouble. Your first statement was that Sarwan rarely scores runs in tough situations. I'm still waiting for your proof behind it. You're yet to refute my proof except to STATE it's wrong.

I've done my best to do so.

Fleming's hundreds:

129 v Cork/Gough/Tufnell/Mullally/White
Pitch: 39.96 runs per wicket

174* v Wickramasinghe/Bandaratilleke/Murali/Bandara/Kalpage/Jayasuriya
Pitch: 36.97

105 v McGrath/Lee/Gillespie/Warne
Pitch: 43.48

130 v Dillon/Collins/Powell/Sanford/Hooper/Gayle
Pitch: 23.90

274* v Vaas/Nissanka/Dharmasena/Murali/Lokuarachchi
Pitch: 52.68

192 v Sami/Shabbir/Gul/Kaneria/Razzaq
Pitch: 43.15

117 v Hoggard/Harmison/Flintoff/Giles/Saggers
Pitch: 33.46 runs per wicket

Sarwan's:

105 v McGrath/Gillespie/Lee/Bichel/MacGill
Pitch: 35.54 runs per wicket

114 v Pollock/Ntini/Nel/Hall/Kallis/Rudolph
Pitch: 43.13

119 v Pollock/Ntini/Nel/Kallis
Pitch: 49.96

139 v Harmison/Hoggard/Flintoff/Anderson/Giles
Pitch: 35.17

107* v Nel/Ntini/Zondeki/Boje/Kallis/Smith
Pitch: 33.90

Seems like both have scored their centuries on flat wickets...except Fleming's have been flatter (bar one innings). I'm still struggling to see how Fleming is world class and Sarwan isn't. I don't think either are world class, but clearly you do - Fleming is according to you. Back your claim properly please.

I don't really think I'd call Fleming "World-class", just better than Sarwan.
Sarwan has played almost all his cricket in the post-2001 era (and before that he'd done little); Fleming had played plenty before that.
As I've said - I haven't acutely studied the situation, it's just a vague impression I've always got. I've never really rated Sarwan; I've always thought Fleming was pretty good, even if that was perhaps a bit exaggerated by the fact that there've sometimes been some crap players around him.

So from the time a batsman gets a let-off, any further batting doesn't reflect skill?

No. But it wouldn't have happened but for the let-off.

 

[Richard]

It's what they try to do. What they hope to do. Alas, they're clearly more human that you are.

Clearly.
I think their humanity doesn't stop them from doing that.
It'd be pointless even talking about it if you couldn't\didn't do it.

But I suppose you're speaking as certainly as you are when you school Jack on offspin bowling.

Err, when do I do that?

 

[Richard]

Fair enough, but you cannot dismiss the quality of the innings, given the bowlers he was facing...

If the bowlers were really that high-quality - rather than decidedly under-motivated.

 

[marc71178]

Clearly typing 199 instead of 200 was made a big-deal.

Since it meant nobody could understand what you meant then yes, it's a far bigger typo than Clark(e)

 

[Richard]

I'd say it was possible to understand.
Anyway - both are now in the past and, really, would be best left there.

 

[sideshowtim]

Fleming a world-class batsman? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

 

[Richard]

Err, he's really not that far from it.

 

[sideshowtim]

Err, he's really not that far from it.

If he wasn't captain, or played for any other of the Top 6 test sides he would've been dropped by now. 8 centuries after 100 tests and an average in the 30's....That's not world-class mate.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Err, he's really not that far from it.

Amazing how you can criticise the likes of Hayden and Trescothick, and praise batsmen like Hussein and Fleming as class acts.

It really shows the obvious bias you have in every single judgement you make about cricket. Those who score their runs quickly, play risky shots and generally take on the bowling rather than waiting for runs to come are universally considered to be lucky, overrated or just downright poor. See Hayden, Trescothick, Sehwag, Gilchrist, Langer, and pretty much every other attacking batsman in the world. Even those who you give grudging respect to such as Ponting recieve the overrated tag by default. Batsmen who play defensive cricket and avoid risk in the name of attritional cricket recieve the utmost praise from you, regardless of whether they are great batsmen like Dravid and Kallis, or mediocre hacks like Fleming and Hussein.

A similar pattern can be seen with bowling. The bowlers you rate are universally those who specialise in huge lateral movement, regardless of how one dimensional they might be as bowlers. Total failures who managed to be successful in county cricket because of the poor standard and seam-friendly conditions like Cork and Ealham are great bowlers, while McGrath and Pollock are lucky. Finger spinners can't possibly be any good because they don't turn the ball two feet, and you can't get wickets with bouncers or with accuracy because they don't get people out, only one in a million balls that can only be bowled in particular conditions and swing two feet do.

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.

 

[howardj]

^ Yeah, but other than that, he comes to the forum with an open mind!

 

[luckyeddie]

If he wasn't captain, or played for any other of the Top 6 test sides he would've been dropped by now. 8 centuries after 100 tests and an average in the 30's....That's not world-class mate.

He's obviously very very very very very unlucky indeed, surely?

 

[Richard]

If he wasn't captain, or played for any other of the Top 6 test sides he would've been dropped by now. 8 centuries after 100 tests and an average in the 30's....That's not world-class mate.

No, an average in the HIGH 30s sure is being-dropped material... especially when you've got virtually no-one averaging in the 40s until the last 3 or 4 years.
Fleming who wasn't captain would almost certainly never have been dropped.
Centuries is a poor way to judge a batsman.

 

[Richard]

Amazing how you can criticise the likes of Hayden and Trescothick, and praise batsmen like Hussein and Fleming as class acts.

It really shows the obvious bias you have in every single judgement you make about cricket. Those who score their runs quickly, play risky shots and generally take on the bowling rather than waiting for runs to come are universally considered to be lucky, overrated or just downright poor. See Hayden, Trescothick, Sehwag, Gilchrist, Langer, and pretty much every other attacking batsman in the world. Even those who you give grudging respect to such as Ponting recieve the overrated tag by default. Batsmen who play defensive cricket and avoid risk in the name of attritional cricket recieve the utmost praise from you, regardless of whether they are great batsmen like Dravid and Kallis, or mediocre hacks like Fleming and Hussein.

A similar pattern can be seen with bowling. The bowlers you rate are universally those who specialise in huge lateral movement, regardless of how one dimensional they might be as bowlers. Total failures who managed to be successful in county cricket because of the poor standard and seam-friendly conditions like Cork and Ealham are great bowlers, while McGrath and Pollock are lucky. Finger spinners can't possibly be any good because they don't turn the ball two feet, and you can't get wickets with bouncers or with accuracy because they don't get people out, only one in a million balls that can only be bowled in particular conditions and swing two feet do.

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.

You really are pretty one-dimensional in your assessment of me, aren't you?
You also do need to get your head sorted - I've lost count of the times you've said of me "you praise X and talk down Y", thereby COMPLETELY ASSUMING that I rate X as better than Y.
And you also need to stop making stupid comments like "Total failures who managed to be successful in county cricket because of the poor standard and seam-friendly conditions like Cork and Ealham are great bowlers" and "mediocre hacks like Fleming and Hussein", which couldn't really contain more incorrect information if you tried to put it in there.
You're incredibly lucky that the current time allows you to even make stupid calls like that ITFP - because at pretty much any other point in history, you'd not even have the case-studies to make the calls on.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

You also do need to get your head sorted - I've lost count of the times you've said of me "you praise X and talk down Y", thereby COMPLETELY ASSUMING that I rate X as better than Y.

You certainly judge cricketers more forthrightly than any member of this forum.

And you also need to stop making stupid comments like "Total failures who managed to be successful in county cricket because of the poor standard and seam-friendly conditions like Cork and Ealham are great bowlers" and "mediocre hacks like Fleming and Hussein", which couldn't really contain more incorrect information if you tried to put it in there.

There are countless players with infinitely better Test records whom you've seen fit to roundly criticise, while heaping praise on the aforementioned. Why?

You're incredibly lucky that the current time allows you to even make stupid calls like that ITFP - because at pretty much any other point in history, you'd not even have the case-studies to make the calls on.

What - that you'd be able to provide hard evidence to prove your claims in any other era?

I'm not impressed.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

If we all stop arguing with him he may melt/explode.

 

[Richard]

You certainly judge cricketers more forthrightly than any member of this forum.

Err, yes - so? It's stupid to say "you praise X in one context and talk down Y in another, so you must think X is better than Y" and that's what Sean has done. Several times.

There are countless players with infinitely better Test records whom you've seen fit to roundly criticise, while heaping praise on the aforementioned. Why?

Err, because they actually achieved something in their Test and ODI careers respectively, and weren't "total failures"?
Nor were either exactly sensationally good domestic players, either.
In any case - I don't judge players simply on the face-value of a single statistic - Test batting or bowling career average.
There's far, far more to it than that.

What - that you'd be able to provide hard evidence to prove your claims in any other era?

I'm not impressed.

In any other era there has never been this abundance of fast-scoring batsmen and rubbish bowlers.
So people'd not be able to make that claim about me.