NUFAN
Y no Afghanistan flag
Yeah.. apart from every single Test side that has played a Test match ever.( no team has ever fielded 11 individuals simultaneously who can merit a case for their national XI)
Yeah.. apart from every single Test side that has played a Test match ever.( no team has ever fielded 11 individuals simultaneously who can merit a case for their national XI)
Oops,i meant alltime XI.Yeah.. apart from every single Test side that has played a Test match ever.
I could be annoying/awesome and show you at least 10 instances of teams which have fielded 11 players who would at the time of the Test arguably make their ATG National XI, but I wont subject you to it.Oops,i meant alltime XI.
post it!I could be annoying/awesome and show you at least 10 instances of teams which have fielded 11 players who would at the time of the Test arguably make their ATG National XI, but I wont subject you to it.
He just means every country's first Test.post it!
Look bud: You can't even comprehend that I was retelling Hutton's opinion not offering my own. You dishonestly tried to pass your assessment of Amre as his own. Its a bit rich of you to criticise too mightily about data sets when you have NONE to back your opinion of Amre.1. Again, the stats as they stand, are irrelevant from a statistical point of view. This is mathematically indisputable, so I'd suggest you do not try to buttress your point by drawing insignificant numbers from the hat.
2. The fact that there arn't many at test level argues towards many things. One of them being, the test arena is *NOT* the complete arena of batsmanship that is intrinsically the objective of this thread. If you want to argue the point that a format that predominantly provides oppotunity to hunker down for a batsman, is the guage of whether a batsman is easy or hard to contain, then it shows the limited scope of your argument. Test cricket does not put an onus on the batsman to avoid getting contained.
3. Would've played more tests has many factors than simply, skills. To assume that every single cricketer who did not play many tests, is solely a factor of skill (and its inverse), would demonstrate a complete lack of awareness to many variables that otherwise impact selection of players.
4. I won't even begin to address the logical absurdity of the last two sentences of your post.
Alright, this discussion is going around and around in circles. Let's drop it, hey?
Hey hey hey AN. Respect da modsMungo, Big baby has a point about the Hutton opinion.
Or fixing some odds.I have played against Amre. amongst many others. He was a wasted talent but cricket in India in the 80s was not strictly professional either: if you didnt make it to the national team, you still needed some form of income augumentation, aka reducing you to a part time cricketer or a seasonal cricketer at best.
That's your official name now.Big Baby: Hey AN my boy was looking over my shoulder as I was reading your post. He told me to give you the angry smiley.
And to think that I once truly thought you were a Cyberman.Big Baby: Hey AN my boy was looking over my shoulder as I was reading your post. He told me to give you the angry smiley.
You are assuming too much. There has been nothing dishonest in what I've posted- if you notice,I am a bit reticient to talk about my personal cricketing experience and with good reason. What I was trying to be reticient about, is hinting at the incident being a product of my own observations *and* conversations with Amre. He was my team-mate at one point.Look bud: You can't even comprehend that I was retelling Hutton's opinion not offering my own. You dishonestly tried to pass your assessment of Amre as his own.
The folly of this statement is something that is lost on you. I will try with an analogy: You are the guy, who shows up to the gun-fight with a plastic knife ( as is the status of your extremely limited data-set), then yells and screams at the guy who doesnt have a gun either, when he points out that you are stuffed.Its a bit rich of you to criticise too mightily about data sets when you have NONE to back your opinion of Amre.
There is no logical absurdity in comparing Amre and kallis to parameters that are identical to the data-set you are using for Amre.I'm not limiting the discussion to any form of cricket. You did that by inviting us to consider Nadkarni's ER at test and FC level. So your second para isn't in response to any point I made. Its just another red herring. To humour you lets look at his overall record anyway. Amre's ODI SR is mediocre as is his ListA record. FC record nothing out of the ordinary for Indian conditions. He didn't play t20. His test record shows he couldn't compete at higher standards. You got anything else? How good was he at French cricket? Entertain us with an anecdote about that...
Loved /your para 3. Yeah he could've failed for any reason. Might have been a bed wetter: Who knows. BUT - you said it was down to the fact he couldn't play pace bowling: Remember? So I've just held you accountable to that assessment.
The logical absurdity was comparing Amre to Kallis in the first place and I note it was you who made the comparison.
Maybe this was a little too subtle.Alright, this discussion is going around and around in circles. Let's drop it, hey?