Michael Clarke signs for Hampshire

[Richard]

Name them, and how "poor" these records are.

And the reason Mascarenhas has never been selected is because he sucks.

Richard Johnson - domestic-one-day economy-rate in excess of 4.8-an-over (and average over 30 for those who value that).
Ashley Giles - ODI economy-rate (and average) very poor.
Stephen Harmison - domestic-one-day economy-rate all but 5-an-over (and average over 35, over 38 when picked).
Matthew Hoggard - ODI record excluding games against Zimbabwe absolutely abysmal.
Craig White - ODI record, pre-WC2003, poor.
Ian Blackwell - domestic-one-day economy-rate in excess of 4.8-an-over (and average over 33).
Rikki Clarke (don't tell me his bowling wasn't considered) - domestic-one-day economy-rate over 5.5-an-over (average over 40), ODI record somehow better (Bangladesh games helped).
Gareth Batty - don't actually know his record, but it ain't flash. Was very good last season, but not before that (and that's the season he was picked after).
Alex Tudor - domestic-one-day economy-rate very poor.
Jeremy Snape - barely bowled 9 overs for Gloucs the season before he was picked, record not exactly brilliant (eco over 4.5).
Paul Grayson - yes, he was apparently picked as a bowler.
Ryan Sidebottom - not even in Yorkshire best-XI.
James Kirtley - domestic-one-day economy-rate over 4.6-an-over.
Paul Franks and Graeme Swann - thankfully only played one game apiece. Can't remember their records off the top of my head.
And Mascarenhas "sucks", eh? Maybe you should look at his one-day record over the last few seasons?

 

[marc71178]

No-one is going to deserve every wicket they get and I don't hold-out for that.

If people followed your ridiculous notions, about 1 wicket in every match would be credited to the batsman.

I only thank God that you're the only person who makes these claims (and persists in them despite the obvious flaws being pointed out)

 

[Rik]

Paul Grayson - yes, he was apparently picked as a bowler.

To be fair to Grayson I feel quite sorry for him, 3-40 in his only OD and hasn't been considered since.

Another victim of the selectors. "Oh he performed, let's go and find someone else instead."

 

[age_master]

Back to talk of Michael Clarke, I found this little quote from David Hookes:
"He's a fast-scoring player, he bowls, he fields like a bloody leopard - get him in the (Australian) system,".
Now most people will know that Hookes is most definitely not a fan of New South Welschmen. He makes a living out of routinely making snide comments about everything from NSW. In fact, that raving comment came right after some of his *other comments* about NSW. I think that is a big compliment.

hookes may say alot of stupid things but i agree with that, i also agree with him naming Cam White captain for the ING cup team this season, it seems to have worked with him as well as he has been playing better so far this year.

 

[Craig]

If people followed your ridiculous notions, about 1 wicket in every match would be credited to the batsman.

I only thank God that you're the only person who makes these claims (and persists in them despite the obvious flaws being pointed out)

But didnt you once say in a thread about 3 or 4 months ago during the Eng-Saf series that one of the ways you judge bowlers is the wickets they take and the wickets that get them?

You said something else but that isnt relevant.

 

[marc71178]

One of the ways.

I personally don't remember saying something like that, but then again, I can't be expected to remember EVERY single post I make!

 

[Rik]

One of the ways.

I personally don't remember saying something like that, but then again, I can't be expected to remember EVERY single post I make!

You did say it, because that was one of the reasons you gave for Kirtley and Saggers never getting into the England Test Team...which they ended up doing anyway.

 

[marc71178]

Sorry, when Craig said "During the Eng SA series" I thought he was talking about Test Cricket.

I have held that view that wickets in CC don't tell you a great deal about a bowler's ability to cut it at Test level because the standards are so poor.

 

[Richard]

And you talk about ridiculous notions - the rules are the same in CC and Test cricket. Surely, no matter how low the standards, a good bowler (or batsman) will still do better than a bad one?

 

[Neil Pickup]

And you talk about ridiculous notions - the rules are the same in CC and Test cricket. Surely, no matter how low the standards, a good bowler (or batsman) will still do better than a bad one?

History suggests that the correlation is by no means perfect.

 

[Richard]

To be fair to Grayson I feel quite sorry for him, 3-40 in his only OD and hasn't been considered since.

Another victim of the selectors. "Oh he performed, let's go and find someone else instead."

Silly, ain't it?
It wasn't actually his ODI debut (5 overs for 20 and out 1st ball against the mighty SA) but his last ODI yielded 3-40 off 10 and, as you say, not hide nor hair seen since.
If you try to find justification, you just need to look at circumstances conspiring in Giles, Snape and Blackwell's favour - none have been counted-out on their recent ODI figures.

 

[Richard]

History suggests that the correlation is by no means perfect.

Not many are.
Of course there are anomalies - really, you get them everywhere.
The correlation is, if you look, unquestionably in existence. Most good Test players have also done well for their counties, in the last 10 years and throughout the century.
I don't think there are enough anomalies to discount the correlation.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Most good Test players have also done well for their counties, in the last 10 years and throughout the century.

That is not the way round that it needs looking at, though, is it?

 

[Richard]

No, but those of the opposite angle are also anomalies - the like of Fairbrother, Hick and Knight, who have done well in domestic-First-Class-cricket and failed in Tests (and Hick did have a period of a couple of years, sort of 1992-4, where he did consistently well in Test-cricket). And it mustn't be forgotten that these three are, without doubt in my mind, the three best ODI batsmen for England in the modern era (1992-2004).
How many players have done consistently well in domestic-First-Class-cricket and been definate Test failures (or, indeed, done consistently well in domestic-one-day-cricket and failed in ODIs)? There have been many who have failed in the last decade, in both game-forms, but not very many of these had the domestic records to suggest to me that they would be successes. Two such examples are Chris Adams and Darren Maddy - picked after (in Adams' case) and during (in Maddy's case) moderate seasons, 1999 in both cases.
The basic pattern is that a good Test player will have had success in domestic-First-Class-cricket. Even if it was 50\50 with those who were domestic successes who suceeded and failed in internationals, it would still be better to pick someone (for a debut, remember - not if he had already played 20 Tests) who had a good domestic record over someone who didn't.
And there are a few more examples of the latter trend (domestic success, international failure) than the former (international success, domestic failure): Maynard, Key, plus Hick and Knight. However these are offset by Butcher, Atherton, Hussain, Stewart, Thorpe, Ramprakash, Crawley, Vaughan increasingly (his First-Class average has been rising fast since he was picked for Tests), and while the numbers of bowlers are alarmingly short Caddick, Gough, Cork, White and even Tudor have all played parts in the winning of plenty of matches, even if they've played their part in an equal number of losses.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Looking at it as a straight Product Moment Correlation between Test Average and FC Average for the 35 batsmen (FC average > 30) who have debuted for England since Winter 1989/90:

Product Moment Correlation Coefficient = 0.238.

This translates as "no use whatsoever" because...

Once I do a regression analysis of the two stats, using the FC Average as the independent variable and Test Average as the dependent variable...

We get an R-squared value of 5.8%

This means, literally, that 5.8% of the causality of these players' Test averages can be attributed to their FC average, and the other 94.2% comes down to something entirely different.

 

[Neil Pickup]

In Graphical Form...

 

[PY]

Do a proper degree Neil......:rolleyes:

 

[luckyeddie]

<quack> It's an elephant... no, an armadillo

 

[Richard]

Ok, Neil:
1, I'm no great shakes at maths, I only got an A in GCSE (yes, some would be greatful to "only" get an A but how I got it I'll never know) and I never considered it for A-level because I hate it with a passion.
So, basically what I'm saying is none of that textual analysis means much to me and the graph needs more looking at than I've got time for.
Anyway, what you seem to me to be doing has one major fault: it counts those who have played a Test or 3, which frankly doesn't make sense, as most would agree you can't fairly judge someone conclusively on 6 innings or less and you can hardly judge at all on 3.
Another thing is for me it's not a case of exact averages, just a simple one of "success" or "failure". The only problem is there is no definate denominator but someone averaging 30-35 is fortunately quite rare in the last 14 years. Hick is one.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

A couple of West Indian examples to prove that domestic stats mean little:

SC Williams
104 FC games (minus Tests)
7221 FC runs
(He's scored buckets in the last two seasons)
22 hundreds
28 fifties
Avge: 44.57
HS - 252*

31 Tests
1183 Test runs
1 hundred
3 fifties
Avge - 24.14
HS - 128
---------------------
PA Wallace
100 FC games (minus Tests)
6391 FC runs
12 hundreds
38 fifties
Avge: 37.37
HS - 142

7 Tests
279 Test runs
0 hundred
2 fifties
Avge - 21.46
HS - 92
---------------------
MV Nagamootoo
70 FC games (minus Tests)
266 FC wickets
8 5W
2 10W
Avge: 27.84
BB - 7/76

5 Tests
12 Test wickets
0 5W
0 10W
Avge - 53.08
BB - 3/119