Test only batsmen

[tooextracool]

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)

largely because he sustained an injury before the ashes and despite going up to the selectors and telling them that he wasnt the same bowler that he had been over the last year he was still selected. he ended bowling about 10 mph slower and consequently had the worse series in his life.
he did however do a pretty decent job in the ashes series in 02-03 with the ball where he showed major improvement throughout that series.

 

[luckyeddie]

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

Nearest thing we're ever going to get to a statistic, I suppose. Have a party hat.

 

[luckyeddie]

largely because he sustained an injury before the ashes and despite going up to the selectors and telling them that he wasnt the same bowler that he had been over the last year he was still selected. he ended bowling about 10 mph slower and consequently had the worse series in his life.
he did however do a pretty decent job in the ashes series in 02-03 with the ball where he showed major improvement throughout that series.

No-one has ever disputed the fact that, at the end of his test career, White produced some excellent performances.

My thoughts were 'about time too'

 

[tooextracool]

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

seems to be the case with you as well

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.

no it shows how much stats overrate cork as a bowler.... the fact that his stats stand beside an outstanding bowler who was light years ahead of him indicates that. i know that you will never understand why i rate him higher but the thing with white was that he was always trying something...he was never out of the game. he could bowl a different ball every over and i still maintain that he was more effective towards the end of his career than cork ever was. he was a good bowler in the sub continent largely because he could get the ball to reverse and consequently offered something different to the attack.

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?.

well one thing that you should know....white was injured after that world cup and england decided that they should go in with a younger attack. consequently white was never selected for either ODIs or tests.

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

personally anyone can look at stats and come up and tell me oh this guy is better than the other. i wont bring up the tendulkar is overrated argument again but clearly if you are going to base everything on stats then you are either stupid or you are not a very good judge of the game. you can come up with some of your lame jokes here but for me this discussion is over....

 

[luckyeddie]

Whatever makes you happy, TEC.

 

[Andre]

Thank you all. TEC, you've come up with some truly astounding points, and you've dug yourself deeper into the hole throughout and all you've been able to do till the bitter end is criticise others for their view. Until you learn that outlandish statements don't cut the mustard, you'll struggle in the often intellectual discussions of the forum.

On the other hand, others know not to bite back - as tempting and at times excusable it may be. I think we've probably had enough of this thread.