Okay, so who's gonna win?

[Blaze]

What's Fulton's List-A-OD average again?

30-35 I think. I don't think he is a great prospect in ODI's. His First Class average is around 50 though (Just like Ryder, who continues to score runs), so he is worth a go in Tests.

 

[Richard]

Richard - Why do you rate McMillan? His ODI average is something like 26, his strike rate isn't that high and he is mentally weak. You, especially, should be able to acknowledge that natural ability can mean nothing in international cricket.

I've never thought McMillan has been given a fair go, simply - almost invariably in the last 5 years he's been batting down the order while it's pretty obvious to me that he's best utilised at three.
Some of the players who've been tried there ahead of him strain belief. People seem to regard him as having potential as a reliable option to knock singles around down the order, and, purely and simply - he's not.
His use would be hitting a few boundaries with the field up.

 

[marc71178]

What's Fulton's List-A-OD average again?

And remind us again, how many times have you seen him bat?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Pretty much never in the current age.
Sides have often had 2 or 3 outstanding bowlers and a couple of good ones in the past, though, and there's no real reason to assume that won't be the case again in the future... we just can't know when.

Rarely has a side had 2 or 3 outstanding bowlers and a couple of good ones in ODIs, ever. Australia for instance have had Lee, McGrath and Gillespie, all of whom you could at a stretch call outstanding, and then you could throw in Hogg who's good, but invariably you'll have some part timers filling in some overs somewhere. Even before the days of specialist ODI teams when say the West Indies picked all their quicks, they still had Richards or Harper or someone bowl a few of the remaining 10, as did all teams. The only way you could get 50 genuine quality openers from international class front-line bowlers would be to have one or two quality all-rounders, and very few teams have that option.

Australia could pick Lee, McGrath, Gillespie, Bracken and Hogg, but they aren't likely to because of a) the batting and b) the over rates. A guy like Symonds who can give you a few overs going at 5 apiece or less, bowl them quickly and then bat later is invaluable, and teams have always recognised that.

Anyway, even Australia of a couple of years ago who had 4 genuine class bowling options didn't consistently restrict teams to under 240. No teams have been able to consistently do that since the mid 90s, when ODI tactics changed dramatically and scoring rates increased.

 

[Richard]

And remind us again, how many times have you seen him bat?

And remind us again, why does that matter?

 

[Richard]

Rarely has a side had 2 or 3 outstanding bowlers and a couple of good ones in ODIs, ever. Australia for instance have had Lee, McGrath and Gillespie, all of whom you could at a stretch call outstanding, and then you could throw in Hogg who's good, but invariably you'll have some part timers filling in some overs somewhere. Even before the days of specialist ODI teams when say the West Indies picked all their quicks, they still had Richards or Harper or someone bowl a few of the remaining 10, as did all teams. The only way you could get 50 genuine quality openers from international class front-line bowlers would be to have one or two quality all-rounders, and very few teams have that option.

Australia could pick Lee, McGrath, Gillespie, Bracken and Hogg, but they aren't likely to because of a) the batting and b) the over rates. A guy like Symonds who can give you a few overs going at 5 apiece or less, bowl them quickly and then bat later is invaluable, and teams have always recognised that.

Anyway, even Australia of a couple of years ago who had 4 genuine class bowling options didn't consistently restrict teams to under 240. No teams have been able to consistently do that since the mid 90s, when ODI tactics changed dramatically and scoring rates increased.

South Africa had Pollock, de Villiers, Donald, Matthews and McMillan at one point; later they had Pollock, Kallis, Donald, Elworthy, Klusener.
Pakistan, albeit only briefly, had Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, Mushtaq, Saqlain.
Even England had Caddick, Gough, Mullally, Ealham, White for a short time.
Certainly teams have many times had 2 or 3 quality bowlers - just because it's rare at the current time, don't use short-term memory as an excuse.

 

[marc71178]

And remind us again, why does that matter?

I wonder if actually watching a person gives you more knowledge about him than not?

Hmm, that's a tricky one there...

 

[Dick Rockett]

And remind us again, why does that matter?

Argh! I mean, AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHH!

How can you sit there and type this drivel in a public forum? How can you sit there and essentially claim that a player cannot, cannot, cannot, improve over time? How can you sit there and make such unequivocal statements about someone you have never seen play the game?

 

[Richard]

I wonder if actually watching a person gives you more knowledge about him than not?

Hmm, that's a tricky one there...

I wonder if it's not possible to know a single thing about someone without watching them...

 

[Richard]

How can you sit there and essentially claim that a player cannot, cannot, cannot, improve over time?

Err, WTF? When in the blue blazes have I ever made such a claim?

How can you sit there and make such unequivocal statements about someone you have never seen play the game?

When, exactly, did I make "unequivocal statements"?

 

[Dick Rockett]

I wonder if it's not possible to know a single thing about someone without watching them...

If you were blind, and standing in front of an endless, snow-capped mountain vista, as the first dawn light slowly brings everything into focus - the thousands of pine trees gently swaying in the breeze, the family of ducks slowly drawing their gentle wakes across a pristine alpine lake that reflects all this splendour, do you really think that having it all described to you by an associate could possibly give you any idea exactly how amazing the view is?

 

[Richard]

Quite aside from the fact that cricket is a totally different matter...
Yes - if the associate was a good commentator on said matters.
It couldn't convey all it's majesty, but it could give you an idea.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Err, WTF? When in the blue blazes have I ever made such a claim?

By pointing at Fulton's List A average and implying that that means he cannot possibly be up to international standard. What's more, you have gone on record many times stating that a player who doesn't perform at domestic level is highly unlikely to make a successful jump to internationals.

When, exactly, did I make "unequivocal statements"?

Every statement you make is unequivocal.

 

[Dick Rockett]

It couldn't convey all it's majesty, but it could give you an idea.

Exactly. Just as you cannot possibly have a complete picture of a player by looking at his stats.

 

[Richard]

By pointing at Fulton's List A average and implying that that means he cannot possibly be up to international standard.

No, implying it means he's pretty unlikely to be.

What's more, you have gone on record many times stating that a player who doesn't perform at domestic level is highly unlikely to make a successful jump to internationals.

I have.
Why on Earth does this equate to "cannot possibly improve"?

Every statement you make is unequivocal.

Nonsense.

 

[Richard]

Exactly. Just as you cannot possibly have a complete picture of a player by looking at his stats.

And I claimed to where, exactly?

 

[Dick Rockett]

No, implying it means he's pretty unlikely to be.

That's your opinion, fair enough. I disagree, based on what I've seen live.

Why on Earth does this equate to "cannot possibly improve"?

It doesn't. It's you who throws that point into the ring every time people get excited about a new player.

Nonsense.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Richard]

It doesn't. It's you who throws that point into the ring every time people get excited about a new player.

Rubbish, I never say anything of the sort.
To give an example of recent times: Munaf Patel
And in any case - you are now admitting that you were wrong to attempt to equate this to the List-A-OD\ODI thing?

Thanks for proving my point.

You have been watching far too much Mister Men.

 

[Dick Rockett]

Rubbish, I never say anything of the sort.
To give an example of recent times: Munaf Patel
And in any case - you are now admitting that you were wrong to attempt to equate this to the List-A-OD\ODI thing?

Nope, the opposite. Acknowledging that we have different points of view. Believe it or not, most people on here would respect your point of view if you weren't so absolutist about putting it across.

Edit: how ironic that you're excited about Munaf Patel, when most people on here aren't yet.

You have been watching far too much Mister Men.

I don't get it - British TV or your joke.

 

[Richard]

Nope, the opposite. Acknowledging that we have different points of view. Believe it or not, most people on here would respect your point of view if you weren't so absolutist about putting it across.

I don't see myself as absolutist - so therefore I can't do much about changing that.

I don't get it - British TV or your joke.

It's a standing joke off Mister Grumpy.
You imitated it perfectly.