**Official** England in Namibia and Zimbabwe

[tooextracool]

And basically the situation is that more domestic successes will be international successes than domestic successes will be international failures.
And certainly domestic-success-international-failure is far, far more common than domestic-failure-international-success, which is why you should pick someone who has done well at the domestic level ahead of someone who hasn't.
And no, that doesn't affect the tried-and-failed-at-international-level - if you believe someone's a proven failure at international level (regardless of his domestic record) you don't pick him - which is why Hick (post-1996) and Knight played far too many Tests.

look at the many test debutants in the english side in the 90s with successful domestic records, and tell me how many of them succeeded.
tufnell, morris, reeve, munton, such , ilott, mccague, bicknell, martin, irani, mullally, croft, silverwood, tudor, habib, kirtley, saggers etc have proven themseleves to be completely useless despite their flattering ODI domestic records.

 

[tooextracool]

Plenty of whom weren't given sufficient chances - Brown, for example, and Bicknell.
Most of the players who've been picked on "hunches" have failed - most of the players who've done well have got good domestic records. It works both ways - just depends on which way you want to see it.

they werent given enough chances because they were rubbish in the chances that they got.....

 

[tooextracool]

Why should trescothick get his scores vs bangladesh not counted when everyone else should? i think you're just bias against him and nothing will change your mind

because when someone prospers against poor bowling on flat wickets all the time, it certainly makes sense to look beyond that and decide how good he really is.

 

[Richard]

look at the many test debutants in the english side in the 90s with successful domestic records, and tell me how many of them succeeded.
tufnell, morris, reeve, munton, such , ilott, mccague, bicknell, martin, irani, mullally, croft, silverwood, tudor, habib, kirtley, saggers etc have proven themseleves to be completely useless despite their flattering ODI domestic records.

Tufnell - didn't have a good domestic record, except on turning pitches - and his Test record on turners wasn't bad either. Like Giles, he could be a real handful on a turner, but because of his volatile nature I rate Giles as much the better bowler.
John Morris - played 5 Test innings, while his performance was poor that is not enough to say conclusively that he proves much. His First-Class record, while better than most, was not exceptional anyway - he didn't even average 40.
Hugh Morris - he, too, played only 6 innings, not something which can be conclusive enough to show anything in this pattern.
Reeve - 3 Test-matches; while his record doesn't set The World alight, it certainly isn't the worst and had he been picked for his debut at a younger age than 28 I'm pretty confident he'd have played more than he did.
Tim Munton - 2 Test-matches proves nothing.
Such - fantastic domestic record he had, didn't he? First-Class average over 30.
Ilott - should have done better in his 5 Tests
McCague - 3 Tests doesn't prove that much, and his First-Class record, while better than some, is not immidiately suggestive of a Test-class bowler
Bicknell - should have played infitesimally more than he did, most people agree to that
Martin - read second part of McCague
Irani - should never have been picked for Test-matches, his batting is OK but his bowling record has never been flash
Mullally - read Martin
Croft - his domestic record has never been flash at all, indeed there is less than 2 runs difference between his Test and First-Class averages
Silverwood - never been consistent at the domestic level, has hardly played recently either
Tudor - read Silverwood
Habib - 3 innings proves little
Kirtley - his First-Class record, for those who bother to look, is actually exactly the same story as his Test one - very effective on seaming or uneven pitches, rather innocuous on grassless, even ones
Saggers - same story as Kirtley
The problem has not been domestic-success-international-failure, it has been either lack of persistence or lack of talent (leading to lack of success in domestic cricket).

 

[Richard]

they werent given enough chances because they were rubbish in the chances that they got.....

There are plenty of players who have been rubbish in their first 2 or 3 Tests - Stephen Waugh, Tendulkar, Atapattu, Kallis, Rhodes, the list goes on. Yet all had good domestic records and, eventually, they all translated to the international arena. All it took was a bit of faith.
England, I might add, regularly had to patch-up their side, but when Gooch, Atherton, Stewart, Smith\Hussain and Thorpe were all fit, it was a tough side to get into.

 

[tooextracool]

There are plenty of players who have been rubbish in their first 2 or 3 Tests - Stephen Waugh, Tendulkar, Atapattu, Kallis, Rhodes, the list goes on. Yet all had good domestic records and, eventually, they all translated to the international arena. All it took was a bit of faith.
England, I might add, regularly had to patch-up their side, but when Gooch, Atherton, Stewart, Smith\Hussain and Thorpe were all fit, it was a tough side to get into.

out of that entire list, only attapattu was distinctly mediocre. all the rest had some amount of potential.

 

[Richard]

And Atapattu certainly had some potential, too, even if he is about the most inconsistent batsman you could wish to see.
Who's to say the English players such as Hugh Morris didn't have the same potential? No, you can't say "they didn't" because it is not fact, same way it's not fact that Aakash Chopra doesn't have potential (it's looking increasingly like I might have been right about him, though, isn't it?). But you need to have played 4 or 5 Tests at least before you can be labelled as something approaching a failure.
This discussion is sounding rather familiar, incidentally...

 

[tooextracool]

Tufnell - didn't have a good domestic record, except on turning pitches - and his Test record on turners wasn't bad either. Like Giles, he could be a real handful on a turner, but because of his volatile nature I rate Giles as much the better bowler.

whatever you say, the fact is that his record in domestic cricket was fairly good, while his record at the intl level was rubbish. unless you now want to change your comments to everyone except spinners who had good domestic records also had good intl records?

John Morris - played 5 Test innings, while his performance was poor that is not enough to say conclusively that he proves much. His First-Class record, while better than most, was not exceptional anyway - he didn't even average 40.

was referring to hugh....

Hugh Morris - he, too, played only 6 innings, not something which can be conclusive enough to show anything in this pattern..

believe me there are very few players who get more than 6 innings after persistent failure. the fact that he was dropped suggests that he was not good enough period, enough of you trying to make up your own statements on players you've never even watched before.

Reeve - 3 Test-matches; while his record doesn't set The World alight, it certainly isn't the worst and had he been picked for his debut at a younger age than 28 I'm pretty confident he'd have played more than he did.

of course his brilliant test batting average of 24 and bowling average of 30 makes him 'not the worst', especially considering that he was averaging 35 with the bat and 26 with the ball in domestic cricket. if he was dropped after 3 tests, then he was obviously not good enough.

Tim Munton - 2 Test-matches proves nothing.
Such - fantastic domestic record he had, didn't he? First-Class average over 30..

err his first class bowling average was 25.86.....

McCague - 3 Tests doesn't prove that much, and his First-Class record, while better than some, is not immidiately suggestive of a Test-class bowler..

oh yes his average of 27 isnt suggestive of a first class bowler
and as said above 3 tests is more than enough, you cant pick players for a lifetime if they fail miserably. and his average of 65 suggests that he failed miserably.

Bicknell - should have played infitesimally more than he did, most people agree to that..

because of his Oh so brilliant test average of above 35?

Martin - read second part of McCague..

read all of mcCague....

Irani - should never have been picked for Test-matches, his batting is OK but his bowling record has never been flash..

why because he averages nearly 40 with the bat and under 30 with the ball?
whether you always believed he would fail or not, the fact is that he is another one of those examples of domestic success/intl failure

Silverwood - never been consistent at the domestic level, has hardly played recently either..

point being? why the hell would i care if he hasnt played recently? the fact is his first class record is good and is intl record is poor.

Tudor - read Silverwood..

read above...

Habib - 3 innings proves little..

read McCague.

Kirtley - his First-Class record, for those who bother to look, is actually exactly the same story as his Test one - very effective on seaming or uneven pitches, rather innocuous on grassless, even ones..

as is every successful fast bowler in the last decade for england, especially caddick.
please stop trying to modify the stats to suit yourself, if his record is good i dont care how it is, the fact is that he was picked on his record and he failed at the intl level.

Saggers - same story as Kirtley..

read above.

The problem has not been domestic-success-international-failure, it has been either lack of persistence or lack of talent (leading to lack of success in domestic cricket).

the problem actually is that people like you cant get over the fact that certain successes in domestic cricket can be failures in intl cricket. if those players had been persisted with, at best they would have turned out to be another ramprakash or hick.

 

[tooextracool]

And Atapattu certainly had some potential, too, even if he is about the most inconsistent batsman you could wish to see....

so you saw flashes of brilliance in his innings of 0,0,0,1, 0, 0?

Who's to say the English players such as Hugh Morris didn't have the same potential? No, you can't say "they didn't" because it is not fact, same way it's not fact that Aakash Chopra doesn't have potential (it's looking increasingly like I might have been right about him, though, isn't it?). But you need to have played 4 or 5 Tests at least before you can be labelled as something approaching a failure.
This discussion is sounding rather familiar, incidentally...

no i can because Morris couldnt score against a minnow SL team. as far as chopra is concerned, i said he has potential, not that he would succeed, we've seen 1 billion times before that potential doesnt always produce results consistently. needless to say, dropping him from the side and shattering his confidence didnt help.

 

[Richard]

whatever you say, the fact is that his record in domestic cricket was fairly good, while his record at the intl level was rubbish. unless you now want to change your comments to everyone except spinners who had good domestic records also had good intl records?

believe me there are very few players who get more than 6 innings after persistent failure. the fact that he was dropped suggests that he was not good enough period, enough of you trying to make up your own statements on players you've never even watched before.

of course his brilliant test batting average of 24 and bowling average of 30 makes him 'not the worst', especially considering that he was averaging 35 with the bat and 26 with the ball in domestic cricket. if he was dropped after 3 tests, then he was obviously not good enough.

err his first class bowling average was 25.86.....

oh yes his average of 27 isnt suggestive of a first class bowler
and as said above 3 tests is more than enough, you cant pick players for a lifetime if they fail miserably. and his average of 65 suggests that he failed miserably.

because of his Oh so brilliant test average of above 35?

read all of mcCague....

why because he averages nearly 40 with the bat and under 30 with the ball?
whether you always believed he would fail or not, the fact is that he is another one of those examples of domestic success/intl failure

point being? why the hell would i care if he hasnt played recently? the fact is his first class record is good and is intl record is poor.

read above...

read McCague.

as is every successful fast bowler in the last decade for england, especially caddick.
please stop trying to modify the stats to suit yourself, if his record is good i dont care how it is, the fact is that he was picked on his record and he failed at the intl level.

read above.

the problem actually is that people like you cant get over the fact that certain successes in domestic cricket can be failures in intl cricket. if those players had been persisted with, at best they would have turned out to be another ramprakash or hick.

You cannot know that.
It is time, I think, for me to clear-up a problematic issue.
"Good domestic record" does not, as far as I'm concerned, mean some of the things you have taken it to mean in your description of these players.
As far as I'm concerned, "good domestic record" means a bowler has to be averaging under 27 and going for less than 3-an-over, for more than 1 season in a row, to be considered a success - his career record, obviously, has to bear that out at least from a certain point onwards. A batsman has to be averaging 40 at the very least.
Your whole case, meanwhile, is based around the fact that you are totally certain that, were these short-term failures to be given more chances, they would have continued to fail, while I would be prepared to bet quite a bit - including my computer - that there are stacks of players whose first 2 or 3 Tests have provided little guide as to how their career was going to pan-out. The fact is, aside from Hick, Knight and Fairbrother, there have been no players in the last 15 years who have had genuine success at the domestic-First-Class level and failed when given a fair chance at the Test. Equally, aside from Trescothick (who I think you and I both agree is not the Test player some do) there are hardly any examples of players who have failed at the domestic level and played well internationally.

 

[Richard]

so you saw flashes of brilliance in his innings of 0,0,0,1, 0, 0?

I certainly didn't, because I didn't see it, and somehow I doubt anyone else did either. But someone did see some brilliance somewhere else - probably in his domestic-First-Class play - and in the end that brilliance has shone through, albeit only in-fits-and-starts, in Test-cricket.

no i can because Morris couldnt score against a minnow SL team. as far as chopra is concerned, i said he has potential, not that he would succeed, we've seen 1 billion times before that potential doesnt always produce results consistently. needless to say, dropping him from the side and shattering his confidence didnt help.

Yes, Morris' failure to punish Sri Lanka was a poor effort. Nonetheless, we've seen players fail against minnows before and go on to better things.
And if you can apply the theory to Chopra you can also apply it to all the players who performed in the County Championship and got few chances in Tests.

 

[tooextracool]

You cannot know that.
It is time, I think, for me to clear-up a problematic issue.
"Good domestic record" does not, as far as I'm concerned, mean some of the things you have taken it to mean in your description of these players.
As far as I'm concerned, "good domestic record" means a bowler has to be averaging under 27 and going for less than 3-an-over, for more than 1 season in a row, to be considered a success - his career record, obviously, has to bear that out at least from a certain point onwards. A batsman has to be averaging 40 at the very least.
Your whole case, meanwhile, is based around the fact that you are totally certain that, were these short-term failures to be given more chances, they would have continued to fail, while I would be prepared to bet quite a bit - including my computer - that there are stacks of players whose first 2 or 3 Tests have provided little guide as to how their career was going to pan-out. The fact is, aside from Hick, Knight and Fairbrother, there have been no players in the last 15 years who have had genuine success at the domestic-First-Class level and failed when given a fair chance at the Test. Equally, aside from Trescothick (who I think you and I both agree is not the Test player some do) there are hardly any examples of players who have failed at the domestic level and played well internationally.

it seems like we'll never get this sorted out. very few players get more than 3-4 games at the international level unless they show some sort of potential. IMO its fairly obvious that 99% of the time anyone whos dropped is obviously not good enough to play intl cricket and if those players were dropped then it suggests that their domestic record flatters them. there is of course no logical way to prove your ridiculous theory wrong, because you seem to cling to the slightest hope that they maybe another attapattu. im afraid that most players that have ever failed only got 3-4 chances and therefore not many people can then be classified failures.

 

[tooextracool]

I certainly didn't, because I didn't see it, and somehow I doubt anyone else did either. But someone did see some brilliance somewhere else - probably in his domestic-First-Class play - and in the end that brilliance has shone through, albeit only in-fits-and-starts, in Test-cricket.

which is precisely the point, we've seen far too many players show 'potential' at the domestic level and then fail miserably at the international level even if its only for 3-4 games.

Yes, Morris' failure to punish Sri Lanka was a poor effort. Nonetheless, we've seen players fail against minnows before and go on to better things.
And if you can apply the theory to Chopra you can also apply it to all the players who performed in the County Championship and got few chances in Tests.

theres a difference between failing and showing potential, chopra showed potential hence he was retaind for the number of games that he got, morris obviously didnt, and after failing against a mediocre attack early on in your career you're obviously going to have problems being selected.

 

[Richard]

it seems like we'll never get this sorted out. very few players get more than 3-4 games at the international level unless they show some sort of potential. IMO its fairly obvious that 99% of the time anyone whos dropped is obviously not good enough to play intl cricket and if those players were dropped then it suggests that their domestic record flatters them. there is of course no logical way to prove your ridiculous theory wrong, because you seem to cling to the slightest hope that they maybe another attapattu. im afraid that most players that have ever failed only got 3-4 chances and therefore not many people can then be classified failures.

Thing is, as I've said oh so many times, "showing potential" has different meanings - if someone is lucky enough to have shown potential in the selectors' eyes, they get 7, 8, 9 chances as opposed to the unfair 3, 4, 5 sort of thing.
I will stick to that a handful of innings is not enough to show anything either way. You can stick to it being "ridiculous" if you want.

 

[Richard]

which is precisely the point, we've seen far too many players show 'potential' at the domestic level and then fail miserably at the international level even if its only for 3-4 games.

And that is either the fault of selectors or "just the way things are" (ie a place is only available for a short time, due to an injury etc.).
It does not say much about the relative possibility of a domestic success being a long-term international failure.

theres a difference between failing and showing potential, chopra showed potential hence he was retaind for the number of games that he got, morris obviously didnt, and after failing against a mediocre attack early on in your career you're obviously going to have problems being selected.

All the attacks Chopra faced were distincly mediocre, as I've shown before now. Nonetheless, the selectors adjudged him to have the potential to play however many Test-innings he's played now.
Plenty aren't so fortunate.

 

[tooextracool]

Thing is, as I've said oh so many times, "showing potential" has different meanings - if someone is lucky enough to have shown potential in the selectors' eyes, they get 7, 8, 9 chances as opposed to the unfair 3, 4, 5 sort of thing.
I will stick to that a handful of innings is not enough to show anything either way. You can stick to it being "ridiculous" if you want.

well obviously averaging 19 after 3 games with all low scores is not potential. seriously potential requires you to have played at least one good innings even if it were only a 60-70 followed by a couple of low scores

 

[tooextracool]

And that is either the fault of selectors or "just the way things are" (ie a place is only available for a short time, due to an injury etc.).
It does not say much about the relative possibility of a domestic success being a long-term international failure..

it is not the fault of the selectors if someone fails miserably in his 3 tests. i would rather not see players like rikki clarke and bicknell in the side because im confident that they were not good enough when they were picked. if however they showed dramatic improvements since then at the domestic level, then i would reconsider.

All the attacks Chopra faced were distincly mediocre, as I've shown before now. Nonetheless, the selectors adjudged him to have the potential to play however many Test-innings he's played now.
Plenty aren't so fortunate.

you really do take things to the height of stupidity. please go on and compare the likes of akhtar,half fit gillespie, lee, macgill, tuffey and oram to ratnayake,Anurasiri,kalpage etc....

 

[Richard]

well obviously averaging 19 after 3 games with all low scores is not potential. seriously potential requires you to have played at least one good innings even if it were only a 60-70 followed by a couple of low scores

Not neccesarily - it can just be "looking good".

 

[Richard]

it is not the fault of the selectors if someone fails miserably in his 3 tests. i would rather not see players like rikki clarke and bicknell in the side because im confident that they were not good enough when they were picked. if however they showed dramatic improvements since then at the domestic level, then i would reconsider.

I was equally confident that all the players who were picked (mainly for ODIs) despite poor domestic records were not good enough, too.

you really do take things to the height of stupidity. please go on and compare the likes of akhtar,half fit gillespie, lee, macgill, tuffey and oram to ratnayake,Anurasiri,kalpage etc....

When did I mention the attack Morris faced?

 

[tooextracool]

Not neccesarily - it can just be "looking good".

no it is not, looking good on your way to 10 doesnt help you retain your place in the side. 1 good inning usually does.