**Official** England in The West Indies

[Mr. P]

I HAVE seen Edwards play more then two or three times, (cable) and he has a LOT of potential. How Richard can be making judgements like this is beyond me.

 

[Craig]

Just because somebody has potential doesnt make them a great cricketer.

Case in point Ronnie Sarwan.

 

[Richard]

Because when a player is performing so well in Tests, the figures he'd need (to raise his FC above his Test average) in his extremely limited FC appearances are impossible.

So, because someone averages 55 in Tests, the fact that they play little non-Test FC cricket means they can't average 60 in that?
Why not?

 

[Richard]

I HAVE seen Edwards play more then two or three times, (cable) and he has a LOT of potential. How Richard can be making judgements like this is beyond me.

Judgements like what?
Have the words "I don't think Edwards has the potential to be a good Test bowler" ever passed my keyboard?
Maybe "I don't think Edwards is close to being a Test-class bowler ATM" have done (in fact they most certainly have) but I've never said he doesn't have potential.
As Liam says, he needs careful handling and if you ask me that means not playing Test-cricket constantly and being hammered constantly.
Allow him to develop his game without constant confidence knocks.

 

[marc71178]

So, because someone averages 55 in Tests, the fact that they play little non-Test FC cricket means they can't average 60 in that?
Why not?

If someone is averaging 50 in FC and 55 in Test's - they would need a hell of a lot more than 60 in FC to raise the overall average over that of the Test average.

 

[Richard]

And if someone is averaging 0 in First-Class and 0 in Tests (having played 0 games of either) they need to average 60 in FC-cricket to average 60 in FC-cricket, and 55 in Tests to average 55 in Tests.
This really is a bizarre argument.:rolleyes:

 

[marc71178]

FC average includes Tests though, or had you forgotten that simple fact?

 

[Richard]

Err, no.
But non-Test First-Class doesn't include Tests.

 

[marc71178]

Oh, another statistic which doesn't exist.

What about the first chance, non-Test average.

A double negative suggests that that in fact does exist.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Just because somebody has potential doesnt make them a great cricketer.

Case in point Ronnie Sarwan.

But Sarwan is fulfilling potential right now. A Test average around 40 and an ODI average over 40 isn't bad. Yes, his potential is huge, but there are far better examples than Sarwan.

 

[Rik]

Best - you've never seen him. That said, a brilliant judgement yet again Richard! You just don't cease to amaze me.

Just to be cheeky I bet I've seen him play more than you have :P

Since he played over here in Shropshire

 

[Craig]

But Sarwan is fulfilling potential right now. A Test average around 40 and an ODI average over 40 isn't bad. Yes, his potential is huge, but there are far better examples than Sarwan.

I'm talking about a lot of his career.

 

[Richard]

Oh, another statistic which doesn't exist.

What about the first chance, non-Test average.

A double negative suggests that that in fact does exist.

So you are now denying that an average exclusively at one level exists?
Why use First-Class averages only when they include Tests, too? Domestic-First-Class and Test-matches are different. You put that one about often enough. Though you seem to think they are rather more different than they in fact are.
Hence, surely, there should be a distinction? Though of course it's easier to print a First-Class average when you include all First-Class games. So that's why they do it.
But when you're looking at a player's domestic career, why on Earth would you want to use internationals?

 

[Craig]

What is the progonis on Jerome Taylor?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Taylor is neither match fit nor in form, but both may change by the end of the Carib Beer Cup.

Carlton Baugh got a century for Jamaica in the last round, which should be noted.

 

[Richard]

His FC average must be close to 50?
If he had some decent shot-selection knocked into him (maybe he has it already and just hasn't used it in Tests?...) then he'd be a Gilchrist-alike.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

His FC average must be close to 50?
If he had some decent shot-selection knocked into him (maybe he has it already and just hasn't used it in Tests?...) then he'd be a Gilchrist-alike.

His non-Test FC record...

18 matches
29 inns
1189 runs
47.56 avge
4x100
5x50
HS - 158*

 

[Craig]

Likely England line-up:

ME Trescothick
+MP Vaughan
MA Butcher
N Hussain
GP Thorpe
A Flintoff
+GO Jones/CMW Read (If picked might bat down the order)
AF Giles
SP Jones (assuming he passes fit in India)
M Hoggard
SP Harmison

 

[Richard]

Wouldn't argue with that.
Of course, warm-ups can change almost anything.
And it could mean Hoggard\Anderson is a possibility.

 

[Richard]

non-Test FC record...

See, it does "exist", and someone other than me uses it?
:P
Are you seriously telling me that you've never seen non-Test FC used, marc?