Pick the XI for Boxing Day v India

[Ian Dargie]

Wow here I was thinking this was about Cowan vs Warner. Oh well, let me consider this further. Truth be told Cowan Klinger and Voges should have been selected before Warner.

Seriously this is about Cowan vs Warner and you continually bringing up Klinger and Voges is not doing anything to strengthen your argument. The difference here is opinion. Learn to live with other peoples opinions no matter how much you disagree.

This is weak as water.

You've made an argument for Cowan. That argument, if applied consistently, also favours Klinger and Voges over Warner.

Bringing up Klinger and Voges highlights that you're arguing selectively. You emphasise Cowan's FC experience, but abandon that line when other players, who have even more FC experience, are mentioned.

So yes, that absolutely strengthens my counter-argument that it's Cowan's form in the past six weeks that put him in the frame. If it's his previous experience at FC level, as you've insisted, then we'd be talking about Klinger and Voges as well. But we're not, so the argument that Cowan's FC experience is what counts has a massive hole in it. If it can't be applied consistently, it should be discarded.

Learn to make a coherent argument rather than hiding behind 'it's my opinion' whenever your thinking is challenged.

 

[Ian Dargie]

I'll go with this. My argument was always that other factors lead the selectors to think Warner over Cowan. Ones that were not cricket based but popularity.

An argument for which you have been relentlessly unable to produce a skerrick of evidence.

Do you disagree with that assessment?

Because my opinion is that Warner was picked to placate the Japanese Yakuza, who were keen to see him open the batting.

Admittedly, I have no evidence for this. But you have no evidence for your argument either. So that makes these two explanations equally credible and equally compelling.

Do you accept this?

 

[Rumblah#16]

This is weak as water.

You've made an argument for Cowan. That argument, if applied consistently, also favours Klinger and Voges over Warner.

Bringing up Klinger and Voges highlights that you're arguing selectively. You emphasise Cowan's FC experience, but abandon that line when other players, who have even more FC experience, are mentioned.

So yes, that absolutely strengthens my counter-argument that it's Cowan's form in the past six weeks that put him in the frame. If it's his previous experience at FC level, as you've insisted, then we'd be talking about Klinger and Voges as well. But we're not, so the argument that Cowan's FC experience is what counts has a massive hole in it. If it can't be applied consistently, it should be discarded.

Learn to make a coherent argument rather than hiding behind 'it's my opinion' whenever your thinking is challenged.

Okay let's pick players who have played less than a full year of FC cricket then. :rollseyes:

In the A game before the NZ tests, tell me, who performed better?

 

[Ian Dargie]

Okay let's pick players who have played less than a full year of FC cricket then. :rollseyes:

Was it a mistake to pick Cummins and Pattinson? How much FC cricket had they played?

You still haven't addressed my question about Klinger and Voges.

If Cowan's FC experience commends him over Warner, surely the same goes for Klinger and Voges, who have more FC experience than Cowan and have also scored more runs in the current Sheffield Shield season.

It seems that Cowan's FC experience counts, but Voges's and Klinger's FC experience does not. Are you going to address this glaring inconsistency in your argument about the importance FC experience?

In the A game before the NZ tests, tell me, who performed better?

Cowan made more runs than Warner in the A game.

Are you suggesting that Cowan should have got the nod based on one innings?

Because, on one hand, you've argued that it's his 8 years of FC experience that commend him. But now you seem to be swinging the pendulum completely the other direction and arguing that a single fixture made him more deserving.

Which one is it?