Shane Watson

[Gaijin-san]

That's not what she meant. She was saying that you take the runs any way you can get them. If one player looks less convincing then screw it. There's one way to win an argument in sport and that is point to the scoreboard.

I don't recall a match where, for example the match referee has said "Well England scored more runs than South Africa, but South Africa looked better so we'll award them the match".

The runs are important, the way you get them is not. You stick with the person who is making the runs, not necessarily the person who looks a million dollars.

 

[Langeveldt]

That's not what she meant. She was saying that you take the runs any way you can get them. If one player looks less convincing then screw it. There's one way to win an argument in sport and that is point to the scoreboard.

I don't recall a match where, for example the match referee has said "Well England scored more runs than South Africa, but South Africa looked better so we'll award them the match".

The runs are important, the way you get them is not. You stick with the person who is making the runs, not necessarily the person who looks a million dollars.

Great post... IMO the only judge of a player at the end of the day can be their stats....

 

[marc71178]

The runs are important, the way you get them is not.

If we're talking about selecting players for a Test side, you cannot just look at FC stats, that is the only point I'm making.

So in that case the runs are not as important.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

The runs are important, the way you get them is not.

As Marc said, when selecting players for a Test side, stats aren't everything.

If a player scores a hundred with ugly shots and stupid slogs (or rather stupid shots and ugly slogs) he's not played well enough to merit selection into a Test class team.

If say Dwayne Smith went to Bangladesh to play domestic cricket and scored 500 runs in 5 innings, I wouldn't exactly consider that to mean that he's the second coming of Richards. Runs in domestic cricket do not equal runs in Test cricket. Hence some account must be taken of the way the runs are scored.

 

[Gaijin-san]

That's a certainty, mate. But I'll say to you what I said to Marc. This wasn't about First Class performances. It was international.

 

[marc71178]

Which is clearly shown by this (in response to a post saying we couldn't base predictions of his Test success or failure on his ODI record), which is what I responded to in the first place:

Yes but its fair to judge that he will or won't be good in Tests based on his FC record, which is what we (most of us) are doing.

Now, try and tell me this is about his International Record.

 

[Gaijin-san]

Sorry mate :rolleyes:

I must have got the international impression from somewhere.. Anyway, it's what I was talking about, if nothing else.

 

[Linda]

Originally posted by marc71178
If we're talking about selecting players for a Test side, you cannot just look at FC stats, that is the only point I'm making.

Yeah and make sure you read that part there about being BASED on the record... I never said stats were everything, but if you've got a good record, then thats a pretty good starting point.
I think we all agree somewhat here, we are just finding ways to not agree.

 

[Mister Wright]

If selection was based purely on stats there would be no need for a selection panel or for selectors to go to games to watch players.

P.S.

Ged - notice how Watson only bowled 6 overs?

Told ya' I was right!

 

[Gaijin-san]

Yeah I noticed. But didn't you say something about how he can only bowl a certain amount of spells? Watto said yesterday he cant bowl up to 3 spells a day I think.

 

[Richard]

Yes but its fair to judge that he will or won't be good in Tests based on his FC record, which is what we (most of us) are doing.

Err, ye-e-e-es, I did notice that.
Someone didn't, though, and I was trying to point that out to him.

 

[Richard]

Not simple - look at some of the biggest English failures in recent times - they've scored a lot of runs in FC cricket.

And so have most of the succeses...:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

[Richard]

If selection was based purely on stats there would be no need for a selection panel or for selectors to go to games to watch players.

I really hate this former comment - even if you're only doing something based on one thing, you've still got to do it!
A team cannot select itself. It has to be selected, by someone! Whatever grounds they use!

 

[marc71178]

And so have most of the succeses...:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Except they haven't scored anywhere near as many at as high an average.

 

[Richard]

So?
Just because Hick's average is higher than Stewart's doesn't mean Stewart was a failure.
It is the denotation between success and failure that matters, not how succesful.

 

[Mister Wright]

I really hate this former comment - even if you're only doing something based on one thing, you've still got to do it!
A team cannot select itself. It has to be selected, by someone! Whatever grounds they use!

What are you on about?

I will break down my post for you.

I was saying that you can't select a team on stats alone. It is important to have a selection panel and for selectors to to watch players and see how they perform. Stats tell a story, but they don't tell the whole story!

 

[Richard]

I know that - my point is that even if selection was done on stats alone, you'd still need someone to do it!
Of course you can't do it on stats alone, but you need to watch the players 5 or 6 times to get a meaningful sample. Somehow I doubt this is always possible.

 

[Mister Wright]

Not that impossible when you have four selectors and only three games. Maybe it is a bit harder in England because they have either not enough selectors or more likely too many first class teams.

 

[Richard]

Too many players maybe but certianly not too many teams.
How long have there been 17 First-Class teams in England for (there have been 18 for 12 years)? Long enough!
What do you mean, only three games, though?

 

[Linda]

6 FC teams= 3 games.