Agreed. I rate Davies highly, but having him rated more highly than Ishant Sharma is just a sign of of Cribb's innate bias. I might just select Sydney Grade cricketers next time around as I suspect he'll rate 'em higher.
Ah. So the fact that Davies has epic first class stats saw him be a good player? Tikolo should have been better than shit then really.
It's not just based on career stats though. Different competitions were worth different weights (the Intercontinental Cup not rating highly). Beyond that, it was done in a similar way to the NZ draft, so what Tikolo did 15 years ago didn't factor too much.
At the time of drafting. Sharma averaged 26 in fc cricket including 35? at test level. I thought that India was a fast bowlers grave yard and thus an average of 26 (less when you consider that tests count towrds fc) in those conditions would be pretty good.
I have to say, I'm with you on that one. At the time of the draft, Sharma was a good threatening, test standard opening quick bowler. Davies was someone who'd never managed to put enough of a run together in county cricket to really threaten the national side.
Yeah but the stats weren't going to include his fitness record were they.. all they said is that when fit, Davies took wickets at 20
I'd still take our team over a number of those rated above us. I clearly disagree with Crab's statistical methodology.