alfie wrote:I know you don't much rate Wood , Sussex : but I think we can do without those carefully selected "stats" purporting to prove he is basically rubbish
Sometimes nuances get lost arguing particular points, Alfie. The proposition was not is Wood a bad player, it was in reference to (a) the suggestion he is deserving of the longest contract ever offered by England (b) the suggestion he is a generationally hard player to replace, and his retirement is going to pose some unprecedented struggle to replace him.
On that regards, I dont think the stats attack was particuarly "carefully" selected to fit my argument. To justify the long contract, its pretty normal to ask whether Wood has ever been a reliable assest to England, and no he has not, I think thats a simple given. If we then assume that he will be reliable, then I think its again quite sensible to ask for a player all about express pace, how has he played when he actually has managed to play more than 1 or 2 tests in a year? The answer is, the only two years he's been available near 100% availability, are his worst statistical years... and that makes sense, because the toll of bowling quick regularly seems to equate to slower paces, and diminishing returns.
You then move onto the idea of how much of an asset he is. The idea he is irreplaceable can be broken down two fold - firstly, his performances compared to his peers are noteably good, that he is essential to the side or, secondly, we accept the wide held proposition that his extra pace brings with it an additional element for succes. Neither of these are proven by the stats, so rather than being carefully selected, I struggle to see the truth in this proposition. Other bowlers perform worse with him in the side, and he does not out perform them. I then suggested the stats also show that in live series v dead ones, his performances are even more underwhelming.
I dont think it requires much massaging of figures to suggest Wood's value is over-rated. Now of course, one could say he has value as a 1 or 2 a year guy that is bowling full out assault pace all the time, but then that doesn't necessitate giving him a massive deal. The two things cant really be right here, unless contrary to evidence over a long span, Wood suddenly is capable of bowling 98 mph 10 tests a year, and maintaining his form. Which even at his physical peak, he was not able to do, so as an injury ravaged 33-34 year old, we are asking for a miracle.
Interesting that even in this latest tournament, England kept him out the last two games, and low and behold we won both...... where would we have been without Woods 6.5 an over given away, and his wicket average of 60?
More than anything, it annoys me that some players retain this illusion of irreplacability, while others do not. David Willey is miles better than Mark Wood in LOs, and look how hes been treated. Taking wickets in the low 20s, best econ bowler in this tournament for England, and he lost a central contract to a 25 year old who has played 2 LO games!!
