Re: Well, at least I was there


Mike Holmans wrote:
> On 29 Jul 2005 22:00:22 -0700, "FRAN" <fran_beta@xxxxxxxxxxx> tapped
> the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>
> >
> >> The great thing is that you a) either believe that the above is what Mike
> >> and
> >> I said,
> >
> >It's a fair reading of the substance of your claim, which amounts to an
> >assertion that Lee is, in some way, constrained from meeting the
> >standard I set out by the failure of others to achieve it in great
> >numbers.
>
> No, it's a mischievous or idiotic reading, according to taste.
>
> We are arguing about the reasonableness of the standard you set.
>
> According to you, Lee will only have justified his selection if he
> achieves something which would put him in the top 1-2% of potential
> comparators.
>


And according to you, if he takes two the wickets of two tailenders
each innings from here on in, and finsihes with 21 wickets that will
have been "an amazing performance".

Please outline what makes that amazing, if not the weight of history?
Without that, you don't get to plead rain, or injury or declarations or
the return to form of Gillespie or his replacement with Kasper, as
Bharat began to imply ...

If I'd had him taking 6 per test, I'd see your point. But 4 wickets per
test for four tests? A short run like that is perfectly foreseeable.
Most of the top flight bats have had at least one 5-test series where
they emerged with a Bradmanesque average or better *for that series*.
In this case, Lee doesn't need to do *that* well. 20 wickets @ 25 made
up mostly of tailenders is about a 400 run series @ 60 or 70, perhaps
including a century. Very good, but not astonishing.

Fran


> You are, of course, entitled to set whatever standard you like, but
> were anyone to be fired from their employment for not justifying their
> hiring because they did not reach a standard which 98% of people do
> not reach, most courts would consider that an unfair dismissal.
>
> Nobody is saying that Lee *cannot* achieve your target. What we are
> saying is that if he does it will have been an amazing performance
> rather than one which merely "justifies his spot".
>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Well, at least I was there
    ... >> The great thing is that you a) either believe that the above is what Mike ... >It's a fair reading of the substance of your claim, ... We are arguing about the reasonableness of the standard you set. ... were anyone to be fired from their employment for not justifying their ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Well, at least I was there
    ... >it is a reasonable standard to set. ... >very unfair standard to set for "justifying inclusion." ... of bowlers who have taken an average of at least two wickets per Test ... And, as we have already seen, averaging four wickets per Test is ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Parsing a mostly fixed width text file
    ... > Hello Mike, The delimiter is a space, the problem is that will ... each "line" ends with a standard vbCrLf pair) then you can use the Split ... function solution into some standard VB file handling code then here is an ... Private Sub Command1_Click ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: completed my Varaint class.
    ... header which is defined to declare it, ... and we can deduce from other parts of the Standard ... That's what Mike means ... then you cost yourself portability with no ...
    (alt.comp.lang.learn.c-cpp)
  • Re: How would McGrath have bowled at Lahore
    ... >Mike Holmans wrote: ... >> If you are going to consider that Lillee did nothing in Pakistan, ... >> that Lillee should not be able to take wickets on them. ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)