Test only batsmen

[luckyeddie]

And regarding Cork, he was a great bowler, and I rate him highly, but he wasnt an allrounder. He batting was..... well.....

And there I agree in part. White had the makings of a good batsman, certainly at the end of his test career, and contributed significantly on a number of occasions.

However, where many people err is by relying on their own memory of a player - and that's what you have done (and so did I to a lesser extent).

There was nothing in it between Cork and White as far as batting was concerned until the end of 2001. Both were rubbish, averaging around 20.

Then Cork lost his place in the side again and White played a couple of significant tours, in India and Australia, together with the home tour against India. He made three major contributions with the bat and in the process took his average from 17 to 24 - and that's why we remember him as being good.

People say that first impressions last the longest, but they don't.

 

[tooextracool]

Cork was suited to English conditions because he was a conventional swing bowler - he never had any real pace to begin with.

the fact that he played most of his tests in england shows how limited he was as a bowler. frankly speaking if cork had played in SL,pakistan and india we would see that average hovering around the 40s.

Where do you come up with a statement about his pace 'going'? Au contraire, my little Richard-like buddy, Cork's problems started when the England bowling coach at the time tried to ADD to his natural pace and make him into another Darren Gough. He eventually lost his only real weapon, the ability to swing the ball back into the right-hand batsman, and a swing bowler who gets close to the stumps who loses the in-swinger is dead meat.

whatever it was,he lost it in 96 and became fairly ineffective after that

White, on the other hand, spent the first 5 or 6 years of his international career as a journeyman plodder. Oh, don't get me wrong - he could surprise batsmen with his pace which came from a deceptively lazy action, and he learned how to reverse-swing a ball both ways. Just couldn't get people out - and a bowler who can't get people out is a liability.

neither could cork for that matter. white was vastly underrated as a bowler....in fact he was instrumental with both bat and ball in those series victories in SL and pakistan, although most of the credit seems to go to thorpe. he was also one our best bowlers in the ashes in 02-03.
i dont see how you can just rate cork higher because he had a higher average.he was nothing more than an ordinary military medium bowler

 

[tooextracool]

Why not? Flintoff's figures don't go half the way to telling what a good bowler he actually is....

neither does craig white's for that matter

Who has added the ability to defend and also the ability to choose when to attack...

not really...AFAIC thats the only thing that puts flintoff down as a batsman...yes it has improved over the last year but clearly from what we've seen in the WI against sarwan and against NZ in the first test he still has a long way to go in terms of being patient and waiting for the loose ball.

 

[tooextracool]

Erm, take wickets??

neither has flintoff!!his bowling average is higher than whites....yes hes been lucky but so was craig white!craig white in his prime 00-01(until the ashes) was a brilliant bowler. flintoff is 'limited'

Erm, keep it tight?

as is expressed by his ER of 4.38 in ODIs

 

[tooextracool]

Cork played may have played 27 at home and 10 away, but his away record was still 31.66 (still considerably better than that of White)

those away tests btw were played in SA and NZ....quite similar conditions to those at home arent they??while white played in SL,pak and india?gee i wonder whos average would be higher??

 

[Prince EWS]

Averages and other stats are very deceiving. A prime example of this is James Andersons test batting average.

Your memory of a player is what you should rely on. It allows you to pick up on how you actually though a player went. You can bowl beautiful spells and not pick up wickets, or get an unlucky decision while batting.

 

[tooextracool]

Where do you get that from?

Tests:White 30, Flintoff 34

Batting:
White 1052 @ 24.46, Flintoff 1472 @ 28.30
White 1 ton & 5 fifties, Flintoff 3 & 7

Bowling:
White 59 @ 37.62, Flintoff 66 @ 41.95
Economy White 3.36, Flintoff 2.88

So his average is less with the ball, but not significantly less (10%) and not enough to outweigh all the other figures which are in Flintoff's favour!

interesting in similar number of tests...white averages more with the ball. so how does that make flintoff a better bowler??flintoff is unquestionably the better batsman though but thats not my point!

 

[tooextracool]

Wasting your breath, or fingers. I just had a look at Cork's bowling record (again - just in case I missed something the first 50 times) - and it stands up perfectly well in comparison to Darren Gough and Andrew Caddick - and blows Craig White's out of the water.

which explains why he his place in the side was never permanent!

 

[tooextracool]

Yes that was my point. He always got the old ball.

Not he always got the old ball during the ashes.

he was a better bowler with the old ball....however he was still capable enough to be a decent new ball bowler

 

[luckyeddie]

TEC, You continue to clutch at straws, trying to prove that if I have seen a black cat, you have seen a blacker one.

It's ridiculous, the way you continue deluding yourself, but don't let me stop you. It has become hilarious, and I love a giggle with my toast and marmalade.

You decry Cork as a spent force after 1996, yet White did absolutely nothing in his first six years as a test cricketer except get out for a whole series of low scores and watch forlornly as the opposition batsmen smote him round the park. Around 2001, he for the first time justified his place.

When someone points out that by eliminating all Cork's home performances and just looking at the away ones, Cork's bowling figures are still superior to White's, you totally ignore that post. Away from home, Cork took 30 wickets in 10 games at 31.66. Not great, but White's overall record of 59 wickets in 30 games at 37.62 (home, 27 from 15 games at 34.7 or away, 32 from 15 games at 40) pale into insignificance.

Now, let's throw away Cork's early tests - the final straw you clutched at before you and your ridiculous argument went down for the third time. He played 37, so shall we just take the last 30?

96 wickets from 30 games at 32.11. Hey, getting closer to White's rubbish.

last 25?

78 wickets from 25 games at 32.65. Maybe TEC's got a point.

last 20?

60 wickets in 20 games at 30.26. Maybe not.

last 15?

46 wickets in 15 games at 28.93. Doesn't look like it.

last 10?

33 wickets in 10 games at 23.87. Ha ha ha. Black cat.

last 5?

9 wickets in 5 games at 51.11. Ah, got me there.

Only in the last 5 games which Cork played for England did his performances drop - 5 games out of 37.

Your argument, as nearly always, has no redeeming features.

 

[tooextracool]

You decry Cork as a spent force after 1996, yet White did absolutely nothing in his first six years as a test cricketer except get out for a whole series of low scores and watch forlornly as the opposition batsmen smote him round the park. Around 2001, he for the first time justified his place..

comparing white in his prime vs cork in his prime, white was a much better bowler.

When someone points out that by eliminating all Cork's home performances and just looking at the away ones, Cork's bowling figures are still superior to White's, you totally ignore that post. Away from home, Cork took 30 wickets in 10 games at 31.66. Not great, but White's overall record of 59 wickets in 30 games at 37.62 (home, 27 from 15 games at 34.7 or away, 32 from 15 games at 40) pale into insignificance.

heres a post of mine that you didnt read.. i dont blame you, eyes tend to decline when you reach 52(checks....number of cards in a deck...yep 52).

"those away tests btw were played in SA and NZ....quite similar conditions to those at home arent they??while white played in SL,pak and india?gee i wonder whos average would be higher??"

Now, let's throw away Cork's early tests - the final straw you clutched at before you and your ridiculous argument went down for the third time. He played 37, so shall we just take the last 30?

96 wickets from 30 games at 32.11. Hey, getting closer to White's rubbish.

last 25?

78 wickets from 25 games at 32.65. Maybe TEC's got a point.

last 20?

60 wickets in 20 games at 30.26. Maybe not.

last 15?

46 wickets in 15 games at 28.93. Doesn't look like it.

last 10?

33 wickets in 10 games at 23.87. Ha ha ha. Black cat.

last 5?

9 wickets in 5 games at 51.11. Ah, got me there.

Only in the last 5 games which Cork played for England did his performances drop - 5 games out of 37.

Your argument, as nearly always, has no redeeming features.

these averages dont mean a thing...you have once again ignore the fact that white played most of his away tests in batter friendly conditions in the sub continent. you have also ignore the fact that cork wasnt even considered to tour the sub continent which shows how limited he was as a bowler.

 

[luckyeddie]

No, I continue to ignore the ridiculous preposition that you have seen a blacker cat - witness the fact that it's now White 'in his prime'. What next - 'White in his prime when he has a good game against Cork when he has a bad one'? Stupid, lame argument.

Your argument is futile, I'm also 51 as I mentioned before, but don't worry, age is never an insult. Next year, I shall be 52 - but your mental age will still be in single figures.

About my eyes - yes, I am going blind. It's not nice, so I apologise if I've missed any cogent point. However, because you seldom make one, that's not too likely, is it?.

I didn't ignore the fact that White played his away tests in batter-friendly conditions you mind-numbingly frustrating individual - I even included White's home tests as a stand-alone figure - 27 from 15 games at 34.70 - or did England only pick him at home when they had prepared batsman-friendly pitches too?

You're a crank, fella. A troll - and not a very good one either. I've coughed up better arguments than you will ever be able to muster, because I substantiate mine with the occasional fact.

 

[tooextracool]

No, I continue to ignore the ridiculous preposition that you have seen a blacker cat - witness the fact that it's now White 'in his prime'. What next - 'White in his prime when he has a good game against Cork when he has a bad one'? Stupid, lame argument.

yea i bet all arguments are stupid and lame when you cant prove your point.
theres no point in comparing 2 individuals if you dont compare them in their primes especially in this case because craig white was picked regardless of whether he was bowling at his best because he provided something with the bat!!

Your argument is futile, I'm also 51 as I mentioned before, but don't worry, age is never an insult. Next year, I shall be 52 - but your mental age will still be in single figures.

considering you seem to act like a 12 year old i dont see anything different between the 2 of us.

I didn't ignore the fact that White played his away tests in batter-friendly conditions you mind-numbingly frustrating individual - I even included White's home tests as a stand-alone figure - 27 from 15 games at 34.70 - or did England only pick him at home when they had prepared batsman-friendly pitches too?.

those facts dont prove anything to me at all...the fact still remains cork was rarely picked to play outside of england and that shows how limited he was as a bowler. unless you want to rate bowlers solely on performances at home!

 

[a massive zebra]

I cannot believe you are even having this argument. Cork was so obviously the better and much more dangerous bowler in almost all conditions, the figures and contemporary opinion prove it.

There is no way White would have got into the England side for his bowling alone, Cork's selection was based on his bowling ability.

 

[marc71178]

And I dont think its bigger as such.

There must be some concession made to the fact that the bowling averges are higer than the batting averages, but not as much as you are suggesting. I think it puts the two players pretty much equal.

Was Craig White ever considered good enough to be a Test Number 6?

No, because his batting isn't that good.

And the real term difference does make a difference.

eg - Player A - Batting average 7, bowling 21, Player B Batting average 17, Bowling average 31.

10 run gap in each, but no doubting which is the better option.

It seems wierd that everyone rates White fairly highly except English supporters....

And we're the ones who watched him...

 

[marc71178]

as is expressed by his ER of 4.38 in ODIs

Don't even attempt to compare the 2 in ODI cricket!

 

[marc71178]

the fact that he played most of his tests in england shows how limited he was as a bowler. frankly speaking if cork had played in SL,pakistan and india we would see that average hovering around the 40s.

And he'd have only taken 2 or 3 wickets in his life...

We're talking about a bloke with over 120 Test Wickets!

 

[marc71178]

yes it has improved over the last year but clearly from what we've seen in the WI against sarwan and against NZ in the first test he still has a long way to go in terms of being patient and waiting for the loose ball.

But I don't blame him for that NZ knock as he was playing the whole innings in that manner, and the game situation called for it.

 

[marc71178]

those away tests btw were played in SA and NZ....quite similar conditions to those at home arent they??while white played in SL,pak and india?gee i wonder whos average would be higher??

Yes, so what's your excuse for the huge disparity at home then?

 

[marc71178]

interesting in similar number of tests...white averages more with the ball. so how does that make flintoff a better bowler??

Where have I said that?

I've actually said that White's stats are better but by nowhere near as much as the batting is in Flintoff's favour.