Now you're just changing the topic and hoping no one will notice. I say that in the annals of cricketing history, Wavell Hinds probably will go largely unremembered. I'm not going to deny that. But that isn't the point. The point is that Hinds deserved a better go in the side than he got, while players like Ganga and Smith with inferior records played when they probably shouldn't have. You can't deny this, so you're resorting to this sort of trick and hoping that no one will call your bluff.