Vacation over - Bose.

[gator]

because WHEN Clarke broke in, he was the best candidate for the job- OZ were also looking to 'lower the age' and that got Clarke an added boost. But it was his performance in domestic cricket that got him his spot- which he kept for a while because of a good start- and then he lost it because of faltering in the middle and sure enough, Clarkey is not an automatic selection in Aussie test lineup today. For someone interested in 'teaching' me cricket, i did expect a better response, really.

what happened to ur google theory tht aussies always look at domestic performance..... now they look at age?? he is definitely ahead of other middle order batters with better FC performances.... and yeah, tht lesson flew right over you...

Quote: ur hero, ponting was not too special in FC either when he was picked. But he performend when the opening was present in the test team !

so tht proves my theory, lil bro.... he was picked on potential and not stats and it paid off, when he performed on the international stage.....

Quote: u and dance while ur master Vengsarkar toys around the selections based on Google and Howstat.. Vengy isnt my master- its a figment of your imagination to think that.

he is better than u in howstat...

[The Outsider]

Chandan, the science behind swing bowling is not exactly understood. There are the basic aspects which can be well explained but for example when scientists tried to examine the effect of moisture on swing they found no significant correlation in the lab, but anyone who has played and followed cricket will vouch that the ball does more in overcast conditions. Moist grass is going to increase the humidity near the pitch and does tend to increase the swing. Just look at how Pathan was swinging it in the first few overs at Karachi on a green top and could do nothing once the pitch dried out.

[CC1981]

what happened to ur google theory tht aussies always look at domestic performance..... now they look at age??

google theory may be your forte- not mine. My theory still stands- as i said, Clarke earned his spot by the weight of his performance in domestic cricket. The fact that he had age on his side got him the nod over players who are 6-7 yrs older (much shorter shelf life thus) and not performing much better. Besides, i am not sure what your once-in-a-blue-moon exception is supposed to prove...except that it was an exception to the norm. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of Aussie players- if not all of them- broke into the test team because they performed excellently in domestic cricket when a spot was available.

he is definitely ahead of other middle order batters with better FC performances

because he BROKE IN to the team with the weight of performances when the time was right- ie, spot was available !

yeah, tht lesson flew right over you..

I let cr@p like beamers pass to the keeper.

so tht proves my theory, lil bro.... he was picked on potential and not stats and it paid off, when he performed on the international stage..

Err...no. it proves *my* point, since Ponting still qualified based on his FC performances.

he is better than u in howstat...

Says the geek obsessing over bowling speeds. Oh the irony! :haha:

[CC1981]

Chandan, the science behind swing bowling is not exactly understood. There are the basic aspects which can be well explained but for example when scientists tried to examine the effect of moisture on swing they found no significant correlation in the lab

yup. Science still has much to learn- especially about its limiations.

[Chandan]

Chandan' date=' the science behind swing bowling is not exactly understood. There are the basic aspects which can be well explained but for example when scientists tried to examine the effect of moisture on swing they found no significant correlation in the lab, but anyone who has played and followed cricket will vouch that the ball does more in overcast conditions. Moist grass is going to increase the humidity near the pitch and does tend to increase the swing. Just look at how Pathan was swinging it in the first few overs at Karachi on a green top and could do nothing once the pitch dried out.[/quote'] Thanks!

[The Outsider]

But it was his performance in domestic cricket that got him his spot

How so? He had a few good outings but his FC average was 37 when he broke in.

so tht proves my theory, lil bro.... he was picked on potential and not stats and it paid off, when he performed on the international stage.....

Not only that, he was persisted with despite having a rather insipid start to his career by the standards of the Aussie middle order because the selectors were looking at more than how many centuries the guy can rack up on flat tracks.

[CC1981]

]How so? He had a few good outings but his FC average was 37 when he broke in.

1.Who is 'he' here and what was the age of his competitors/how many openings were present? 2. Does proving an odd-ball exception here or there overrule the standard MO of CA in the overwhelming majority of their players ?

[gator]

My theory still stands- as i said, Clarke earned his spot by the weight of his performance in domestic cricket. The fact that he had age on his side got him the nod over players who are 6-7 yrs older (much shorter shelf life thus) and not performing much better. Besides, i am not sure what your once-in-a-blue-moon exception is supposed to prove...except that it was an exception to the norm. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority of Aussie players- if not all of them- broke into the test team because they performed excellently in domestic cricket when a spot was available.

try searching on howstat and google again, how Clarkey, S.waugh and Ricky were faring compared to their peers in FC cricket when they were picked... ur responses reflect ur understanding and knowledge of the game.... stick to science and it will serve u well...

[The Outsider]

BTW, I just went through the thread and am wondering about the significance of Underwood and Chandra to the discussion on trundlers who rely exclusively on swing. Moreover, if we were playing on stickies like Underwood and Barnes did we would select those kind of bowlers but how many tests are played on Headinglies where one trick ponies like Bose will be successful?

[gator]

1.Who is 'he' here and what was the age of his competitors/how many openings were present? 2. Does proving an odd-ball exception here or there overrule the standard MO of CA in the overwhelming majority of their players ?

the statsboy is now the official spokesperson of cricket australia and still commits basic mistakes... or shall i say, flawed technique ;)... search on indian cricket instead, it will serve this discussion better.....

[CC1981]

try searching on howstat and google again, how Clarkey, S.waugh and Ricky were faring compared to their peers in FC cricket when they were picked.

Be my guest. Since your speed- obsession has now turned into howstat obsession, i am sure you are up for the task!

ur responses reflect ur understanding and knowledge of the game

And so does your's...or rather, the 'lack' of it, since you refuse to accept the basic fact that almost all Aussie players who got their breaks got it after performing well in FC cricket and that is the MO of CA- if you do well for a few seasons and there is a spot, you are gonna be given a shot. This MO isnt a law of physics- so there is obviously an exception here or there- but holds true for the overwhelming majority of the Aussie cricketers.

[CC1981]

BTW, I just went through the thread and am wondering about the significance of Underwood and Chandra to the discussion on trundlers who rely exclusively on swing. Moreover, if we were playing on stickies like Underwood and Barnes did we would select those kind of bowlers but how many tests are played on Headinglies where one trick ponies like Bose will be successful?

Again- same was said about kumble when he debuted. Predictors seem to refuse to accept the fact that their opinions about who is going to succeed and who isnt in the future arnt empiric facts but guessworks. That is the bottomline.

[The Outsider]

2. Does proving an odd-ball exception here or there overrule the standard MO of CA in the overwhelming majority of their players ?

Firstly, Australian domestic cricket performance is a much more accurate indicator of how a player would perform in the international circuit than our screwball domestic system. That's a universally accepted fact so it would make more sense to select purely on numbers there than here. Secondly, Clarke is not the odd ball exception. Many have been pointed out in the thread alreasy.

[gator]

Since your speed- obsession has now turned into howstat obsession, i am sure you are up for the task!

i dont see stats to judge potential.... i leave it to the rookies....

[The Outsider]

Predictors seem to refuse to accept the fact that their opinions about who is going to succeed and who isnt in the future arnt empiric facts but guessworks.

No its not an empiric fact but given that no 120-125 kmph trundler has left his mark on international cricket its pretty safe to say neither will Bose, more so after having watched some clippings of his.

[CC1981]

Firstly, Australian domestic cricket performance is a much more accurate indicator of how a player would perform in the international circuit than our screwball domestic system.

Perhaps. but it is still no reason to overlook a much more principally sound career-advancement method adopted by CA. FC performances improve when you give the system accountability- ie, by going the Aussie way and picking players (if spot if available) based on their domestic performance as a general rule of thumb.

Secondly, Clarke is not the odd ball exception. Many have been pointed out in the thread alreasy.

many ? so far three names have been thrown into the hat- Clarke, Steve Waugh & Ponting. For every 'exception-case' you can find in CA, i will find you 10 successful names in the last 20 years that got selected based on their FC performance.

[gator]

Again- same was said about kumble when he debuted. Predictors seem to refuse to accept the fact that their opinions about who is going to succeed and who isnt in the future arnt empiric facts but guessworks. That is the bottomline.

it seems like guesswork to u because you dont understand the intricacy involved in judging potential..... it cannot be gained by reading websites or stats.... it is attained by experience...

[CC1981]

No its not an empiric fact but given that no 120-125 kmph trundler has left his mark on international cricket its pretty safe to say neither will Bose' date=' more so after having watched some clippings of his.[/quote'] Pfft. Change 120-125kph with 'cant turn the ball' and this is a flashback from 15 yrs ago when Kumble debuted. Same story- new names. and the same guesswork being peddled as some sort of quantifiable fact.

[gator]

Quote: Secondly, Clarke is not the odd ball exception. Many have been pointed out in the thread alreasy. many ? so far three names have been thrown into the hat- Clarke, Steve Waugh & Ponting. For every 'exception-case' you can find in CA, i will find you 10 successful names in the last 20 years that got selected based on their FC performance.

tht is good enuf for u.... i dont wanna spoon-feed u.... find out the rest of the names urself...

[CC1981]

it seems like guesswork to u because you dont understand the intricacy involved in judging potential..... it cannot be gained by reading websites or stats.... it is attained by experience...

And you have zero clue about how to make an accountable and consistent system, sorry to say. Something you too will learn through experience- i hope! But you don't get that by randomly picking players who 'look good' by your arbitary standards.