Test only batsmen

[marc71178]

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

And Pigs fly...

 

[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??"

Conveniently omitting to mention that White's figures in NZ, Zim etc are rubbish (worse than his already poor career average)

 

[a massive zebra]

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.

Well its actually 4 runs difference in both batting and bowling and as batting averages vary more than bowling averages that suggests White was a better Test player. Batting avge/bowling avge comparisons will always favour batting allrounders more because batting averages can go up a lot whereas bowling averages are limited in scope.

 

[luckyeddie]

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!!

I produced some statistics - you produced nothing bar a complete fairytale wrapped in conjecture - which is the nearest thing we're ever going to get to a fact from you.

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

Very good, coming from someone who thinks that '52' is an insult. I see plenty between the two of us - if I'm proved wrong, I will freely admit it. Produce a single statistic which proves that White was in any way superior to Cork as an international bowler, and I will gladly concede.

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!

You really are becoming more than tedious - the fact remains that when Cork played outside England his record was still better than White's was playing at home - FACT, sonny boy, something glaringly missing from your arguments about, oh, pretty well anything. Come on, TEC. Show us that you still have some small grasp on reality, no matter how tenuous.

 

[marc71178]

Well its actually 4 runs difference in both batting and bowling and as batting averages vary more than bowling averages that suggests White was a better Test player.

But 4 runs out of 40 compared with out of 28 - a much smaller proportion.

 

[tooextracool]

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..

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

and White was never good enough at either discipline..

 

[tooextracool]

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

you said craig white couldnt "keep it tight"....with an ER like that in ODI cricket that claim goes right down the drain. unless you feel that he cant keep it tight in test cricket with more defensive fields!

 

[tooextracool]

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

when a bowler wasnt even considered to play abroad how can you consider him to be a better bowler to one that was??

 

[tooextracool]

Conveniently omitting to mention that White's figures in NZ, Zim etc are rubbish (worse than his already poor career average)

hes only played one test in both countries,with figures of 1/41,2,51 and 0/26. those figures arent as bad as the average makes them out to be. how can you be so sure that cork would have done better?
i also missed out australia where craig white has a better average than cork's,despite being up against a better batting lineup

 

[tooextracool]

I produced some statistics - you produced nothing bar a complete fairytale wrapped in conjecture - which is the nearest thing we're ever going to get to a fact from you.

those stats also porve that he is just about as good a bowler as kapil dev....clearly stats dont tell the true story in this case

Very good, coming from someone who thinks that '52' is an insult. I see plenty between the two of us - if I'm proved wrong, I will freely admit it. Produce a single statistic which proves that White was in any way superior to Cork as an international bowler, and I will gladly concede.

cork vs australia in australia averages less than white vs australia in australia despite being up against a better bowling attack. white in his prime vs cork in his prime and white wins again. personally i dont use stats to decide who the better bowler is....if you cant make out with your own eye that cork was some useless seamer track bully than you really give up watching cricket.

You really are becoming more than tedious - the fact remains that when Cork played outside England his record was still better than White's was playing at home - FACT, sonny boy, something glaringly missing from your arguments about, oh, pretty well anything. Come on, TEC. Show us that you still have some small grasp on reality, no matter how tenuous.

conveniently ignoring the fact that cork never played in the sub continent and wasnt barely even considered to play outside of home. im sorry if the selectors dont have faith in cork's bowling abilities then clearly he was never even a decent bowler

 

[luckyeddie]

TEC, there's no debating anything with you, because you cannot see anyone else's point of view except your own.

The fact that Cork's average, economy rate, strike rate etc as a bowler beats White's into submission however you look at it doesn't indicate that Cork was as good as Kapil Dev - it purely indicates that Craig White was not very good. The fact that the selectors lost faith in Cork is no big deal as far as I'm concerned - the fact that they also kicked White into touch after even less test matches than Cork played tends to be another giveaway too - not good enough. Or can you invent another rubbish excuse?

You maintain that your judgement outweighs statistics, yet when the selectors make a judgement call (such as playing Trescothick in preference to someone who you maintain is clearly a better player), they've got it wrong.

You think that Tendulkar is the most over-rated player ever, and you question MY judgement of players?

We now have a new TEC term which we can all laugh at too - the 'seamer track bully'.

 

[marc71178]

when a bowler wasnt even considered to play abroad how can you consider him to be a better bowler to one that was??

White was in because of his batting though.

Not solely his bowling.

 

[marc71178]

white in his prime vs cork in his prime and white wins again.

So when do you consider the respective primes to be - because even when Craig White had his good year (an average of 23.18), Cork averaged 12.25 in the same year!

Aside from that year, White has only had one other year averaging under 35 (and indeed his 2001 record of 7 wickets at 78.28 in 9 games barely suggest he improved towards the end of his career)

 

[Craig]

Conveniently omitting to mention that White's figures in NZ, Zim etc are rubbish (worse than his already poor career average)

Well Flintoff's Test bowling average and strike rate is hardly world beating.

 

[twctopcat]

Well Flintoff's Test bowling average and strike rate is hardly world beating.

I think the two are discussing the attributes of Cork and White, bringing in Flintoff's stats(half way through his career) is a bit meaningless.

 

[badgerhair]

I think the two are discussing the attributes of Cork and White, bringing in Flintoff's stats(half way through his career) is a bit meaningless.

It is pretty meaningless, although at least it makes some vague sense to comapre Flintoff with White, whereas comparisons with Cork are really a bit dimwitted.

Cork was never picked as the "all-rounder", but as a bowler who was quite handy with the the bat and could be an effective number eight or so, rather like the currrent specialist number eight, Giles.

Cork was picked as a main strike bowler, a role in which he only really performed well against West Indies.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[Prince EWS]

The original discussion was between Flintoff and White, which was brought up by me.

Cork was then dragged into it.

 

[luckyeddie]

It is pretty meaningless, although at least it makes some vague sense to comapre Flintoff with White, whereas comparisons with Cork are really a bit dimwitted.

Cork was never picked as the "all-rounder", but as a bowler who was quite handy with the the bat and could be an effective number eight or so, rather like the currrent specialist number eight, Giles.

Cork was picked as a main strike bowler, a role in which he only really performed well against West Indies.

Cheers,

Mike

On the contrary - he was most definitely selected as an all-rounder, initially picked on the back of a single performance with the bat - the 1994 B&H cup final which was probably the first time anyone from south of Watford (media) had ever heard of him. Some of his early appearances for England saw him batting at Number 7, so he was most definitely expected to fulfil the all-rounder role. The fact that he wasn't good enough to fulfil it is again neither here nor there.

You might as well lump South Africa in with the West Indies too and have done with it, because he took almost 40 wickets against them too.

 

[luckyeddie]

The original discussion was between Flintoff and White, which was brought up by me.

Cork was then dragged into it.

Wasn't me - just tried to clear a few 'misunderstandings' up.

 

[tooextracool]

White was in because of his batting though.

Not solely his bowling.

before the series in pakistan and SL white averaged around 13 with the bat....which is significantly worse than corks. so he was clearly picked solely on his bowling abilities