SaintsFan wrote:
I don't know what the fook you are on but there was no sarcasm anywhere at all in my post.
You are relating a child throwing paint in a reception class to whether a rugby player has the ability to make it as a top player (indeed, better than some of the best players in the country at present), or in your example that it relates to their genetic potential as a cricketer. That is stretching the bounds of logic to its very limits.
For every Johnny Lomax and Sam Tomkins there is a Jonathon Thurston, who even at the age of 18 was rejected by almost every club for to play for free. This is a player who was at one point considered the best in the world, but didn't even come close to achieving his genetic potential until his early twenties.
I did hear that his reception teacher said he was belting at throwing paintballs though, maybe we should have seen it coming.