• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Secondaries

Cloete

Cloete

International Captain
AussieDominance said:
yeh i guess those are valid points but to be very successful you will have to have competent
Click to expand...
ffs...

Just keep ignoring everything said...

Don't worry, I'm sure if you have competent you will 100% absolutely be VERY successful! No doubt! Because you've reached the hallowed minimum!!
 
Robertinho

Robertinho

Cricketer Of The Year
AussieDominance said:
yeh i guess those are valid points but to be very successful you will have to have competent
Click to expand...
What? So you think the difference between being successful and very successful is something as simple as having competent secondaries?...
 
Adamc

Adamc

Cricketer Of The Year
Haha. I can't really be bothered explaining why it's a rubbish theory, it just is. Maybe for an individual player to be highly successful they will need a competent+ secondary, but as far as teams go there's no need to have everyone at that level to be successful.
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
I'm certainly hoping that's not the case, because I thought I had a team with fairly good secondaries, yet mine aren't close to the "golden position"
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I hope med-med type batsmen can do okayish... I'll have at least 4 of that sort of skill, some of them bowlers.
 
Robertinho

Robertinho

Cricketer Of The Year
Scaly piscine said:
Definitely not.
Click to expand...
Assuming that he means stamina-bowling-cons or stamina-batting-conc, then I think you're wrong. The only advantage the comp-resp-comp has is 2 levels more of stamina, it is behind 2 primary levels...
 
Scaly piscine

Scaly piscine

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Robertinho said:
Assuming that he means stamina-bowling-cons or stamina-batting-conc, then I think you're wrong. The only advantage the comp-resp-comp has is 2 levels more of stamina, it is behind 2 primary levels...
Click to expand...
I don't see why anyone would put it in that order. It's always primary-respective secondary-stamina whenever it's mentioned.
 
Robertinho

Robertinho

Cricketer Of The Year
Scaly piscine said:
I don't see why anyone would put it in that order. It's always primary-respective secondary-stamina whenever it's mentioned.
Click to expand...
Why can't you see? It's just as logical as putting in the order that you claim it "always" is. Just because you use that order, doesn't mean that everyone else in the entire world shares your inability to see the merits of listing them in the order that they appear in a player's profile.

Geez Scaly... absolute shocker...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top