Top On-Field Personalities

[Richard]

im sure you havent. i mean after all you have thought that smith was the next bradman.

Nope, I thought nothing of the sort.

 

[Richard]

seriously how many times have you said that no one deserves to have his average boosted by performances against b'desh?

Millions - I've also said that you don't deserve to be slated for scoring against them - it should simply be ignored.

lets see this period then.

I wish I had sufficient data - I'll leave you to it, as you seem to be the supreme authority on international cricket.

like it or not not everything that doesnt suit you is 'coincidence'. its fairly obvious to even the biggest braindead fool that his performances have dropped, and it is reflected in any average or any statistical data that you want to use. the odd huge innings proves nothing to suit you, especially when they've mostly come on dead flat wickets and it shows that occasionally hes managed to put the rigors of captaincy behind and scored runs, but hes never scored anywhere near as freely as he was pre captain.

All his huge innings have come on flat wickets:
195 at The Oval - extremely flat pitch
145 at The MCG - extremely flat pitch
187 at The SCG - extremely flat pitch, until it got uneven on the fourth-day
156 at Edgbaston - extremely flat pitch
52 and 105 at Kandy - the one exception, turning pitch, much better than any of the others
140 at Antigua - extremely flat pitch
It's incredibly obvious to me that he got a lot of luck from May to November 2002 and so was assumed to be a much better Test-opener than he actually was. His first-chance scores show quite clearly that mostly he got out early yet when he got in tended to score very big - a pattern the captaincy clearly hasn't affected at all.
In fact, he played 18 matches not as captain and 11 as captain (excluding Bangladesh games) yet the huge-score matches number 3 apiece, and in that time he made only 2 other scores between 50 and 140 (at Lord's and Headingley '02, both as non-captain).
Maybe he's looked more fussed and out-of-touch not as captain (something possibly exaggerated by the irrelevancy of his matches once he moved back to four) but his first-chance scores have actually taken a very similar pattern.

of course, the rubbish attack that australia had recently, i mean mcgrath that lucky ****, gillespie, kaspa and warne too all rubbish.as im sure was the england attack when he scored that 66 on a seamer friendly wicket in bangalore, despite the fact that you yourself have admitted that that english bowling attack wasnt bad at all in the conditions.

And the fact that it was not when opening means it's not relevant, because I've never said he isn't a very good batsman down the order.
Yes, he played much better than I'd expect in that innings in The Second Test in India, but mostly it's been hammering poor bowlers on flat pitches (and getting lots of luck) - exactly the same as Smith.

hayden i dont rate much as a batsman anyways, but at least hes scored against teams like india in india, and hes scored against SL in SL, something that smith hasnt been able to do. sehwag, im explained earlier that he has too. gibbs scored in pakistan, and against australia at home. jayawardhene is rubbish away from home anyways, i cant believe you'd bring him up as though hes a quality player.

My point is that he's scored runs on flat or turning pitches and not very often on seamers.
Gibbs scored in Pakistan, wow - a single series. And against Australia (you might actually notice that it was just book-ended with good innings, 78 at Adelaide, 51 and 104 at Kingsmead - not actually consistently good) - most of the pitches those Tests were played on were very flat.
Hayden has scored on flat tracks and turners, and not very often on seamers, very similar to Jayawardene.
The point, you might notice, is nothing to do with quality batsmen, but simply that there are rather a lot of batsmen around ATM who aren't quite as good as they might be made to seem.

no hes had the same amount of luck as smith and had a higher fc average, and you've absolutely criticized every thing hes ever done by calling him lucky. yet in smiths case you've praised him for all his brilliant knocks against poor opposition, and even those contained chances

I've said Sehwag has more luck than Smith, not that he's got a lower f-c average.
I've not "absolutely criticized every thing hes ever done" at all, simply said that he's made to look a better opener than he is by his luck.

what the hell are you talking about? sehwag averages 69 against SA and has played both home and away and score prolifically in both series. well done with the watching.

Well done with the not noticing that the series in SA was when he was batting down the order.
It should have been against SL or in South Africa - and he hasn't opened the batting in South Africa, so I was right.
You really need to stop bringing-up Sehwag down the order - I've never once mentioned that.

 

[Hit4Six]

I've said Sehwag has more luck than Smith, not that he's got a lower f-c average.
I've not "absolutely criticized every thing hes ever done" at all, simply said that he's made to look a better opener than he is by his luck.

theres a difference between luck and skill, if sehwag was lucky he wouldnt score centurys against the likes of the aus attack (in the past series the one in Chennai) or the pak one (the triple hundred).

 

[Richard]

Yes, there's a difference between luck and skill - and in both the innings you've mentioned Sehwag had luck and shouldn't have scored anywhere near as many as he did! No way around that.
The attacks were hardly great shakes, either - but that's taken totally out of the equation when dropped catches are involved.

 

[tooextracool]

Exactly - you don't think they've shown potential, I do.
I didn't think Chopra had shown any real potential - you did.
If McKenzie had played 13 Tests and averaged in the 20s while getting constantly dismissed by spinners of all types I'd probably think otherwise, but he hasn't - he's played 38 (those first 3 in which he had to open really don't show anything except that he's not an opener, which we knew already) and he'd not done badly at all before the end of the 2003 England series. After that he's been abysmal and couldn't complain about being dropped when he was. Given the standard of his replacements (including Amla; De Villiers who, for all his promise, cannot really have much expected when he's tossed around this much; and Van Jaarsveld) I'd say giving him another go is something they could do worse than.

lets take a trip down memory lane shall we?
"The "potential" excuse is used many times... maybe Chopra does have potential, but you'd think after three series it would start being revealed."

and now after dippenaar and mckenzie have played 15 odd series each they clearly have revealed so much of their potential.

"Because as I said earlier, most players don't get anything like that amount of time. Rhodes and Flintoff are - yes, you guessed it - anomalies. Most players who fail for even 2 years get dropped without trace, let alone those who fail for 5."

remind me again how long dippenaar and mckenzie have been in the side for?

"15 Tests! You can't say someone has to play 15 Tests before getting a fair go! 7 or 8 is about right."

cough 6 times that amount is still not enough apparently for players who YOU think have potential, or rather players that you like.

"I'm talking about the fact that Chopra has not shown potential in everyone's opinion - he just has in yours and some others'. Hence you can't say "he's shown potential so he must have more chances"."

and now the same argument can be used in dippenaar and mckenzies cases, fabulous.

"It doesn't matter who thinks he does and who thinks he doesn't - the point is so far he hasn't demonstrated any decent run-scoring ability. You could make a case for almost everyone having potential, and certainly some who hardly anyone thinks has potential can have bags of the stuff.
The important thing is whether selectors think he's got potential, and that results in whether or not he gets more chances than he's earnt."

and do the SA selectors think that they do have potential? neither of them are in the side ATM.

"Chopra has played 15 Test innings, which is perfectly enough to judge success or failure on. Less than 10 innings cannot be judged decisively on, 15 can."

cough

"Choppra has, however, failed miserably in my opinion, because an average of 28 is a pretty miserable failure.
And most people who've failed that badly don't get any more than 15 chances."

so why the hell did dippenaar and mckenzie get 6 times as many chances, and despite similar averages, are set to replace the likes of cronje, cullinan and rhodes?

and as far as mckenzie not being constantly dismissed by spin, please sherlock go ahead and tell me why the 3 bowlers who've dismissed him most are warne, murali and ramnarine? or why hes been dismissed more than 20 times by a spinner? no i mean maybe he should be given 100 test caps because as we all know desperately mediocre players like dippenaar and mckenzie will forever have potential, whether or not they prove it or not at the intl level is irrelevant.

 

[tooextracool]

But it's still highly unlikely to have made much difference given how many ODIs SA were losing before and after that series and how close all the games were.

SA were losing before yes, but getting absolutely stomped on by NZ 5-1 is something that even they are not accustomed to.
with regard to how close the games were, face it most matches in ODIs are close anyways, the better team has always been the one that performs at the right moments. unfortunately with smith being half as competent as he normally is as captain, he managed to complete screw up those moments in the game.

 

[tooextracool]

Rhodes started extremely well (48 in his first 9 Tests) then averaged an abysmal 23 from his next 23 Tests. The potential shown in his first 9, though, kept him in the side until his final 21 games in which he averaged 45.5.
McKenzie has had a slightly similar pattern, though his good start lasted longer and his poor period hasn't yet been as long.
I'm pretty confident he could turn himself back the way Rhodes did - and play a good deal more games, too.

except that after 13 tests mckenzie was averaging about 32. after 8 tests he was averaging 28, and he managed to get that to 35(before it dropped down again in the WI) thanks to another one of his brilliant innings against the mighty SL attack- no surprise either that it was against a depleted SL attack lacking both vaas and murali(against zoysa, wikremasinghe, fernando and perera!) who as we all know basically form the SL attack on their own. then of course thanks to his brillaince against the mighty zimbabwians, the only attack hes really competent enough to score against away from home, he managed to get it up to 38 and then it fell down to 33 again. so well done with that. 'similar pattern too', with mckenzie never averaging over 40 in any part of his career.
to even suggest that mckenzie is anywhere near the class as rhodes was is disgraceful and an insult to everything that rhodes has done for SA. if mckenzie ever plays for SA again, it will only make the selectors look even more foolish than they've already shown themselves to be.

Because it's not anywhere near as simple as that; it's a case of averaging 40 after his first 28 real Tests (averaging 41 at home and 39 away, I might add) then failing miserably in the next 10, in which he made just 1 score over 52 (thanks to a dropped catch on 20-odd).

no surprise either that he played 6 out of 9 of those series at home, and 1 against zimbabwe. failed in the WI too i might add.

No player who's done very poorly and shown me no potential does deserve more than about 10 games (at the most).
Players who've shown me potential do deserve more than that.

shown YOU potential? when the hell will you learn that the whole cricketing world doesnt revolve around you and what you think? fact is no one, and i mean absolutely no one thinks that mckenzie deserves a place in the side except you. that shows how much potential he has. and no player can possibly deserve 41 tests despite failure after failure and disgrace after disgrace.

 

[tooextracool]

Millions - I've also said that you don't deserve to be slated for scoring against them - it should simply be ignored..

except when thats the only team that you are capable of scoring against, it really shows how much of a disgrace you are to have even played the game.

I wish I had sufficient data - I'll leave you to it, as you seem to be the supreme authority on international cricket.

seriously how stupid is this? you claim that smith has had just as long a successful period as vaughan with a similar average and now you convenientally mention that you dont have sufficient data? when you get a brain, please let me know. the only thing i can assume from that comment is that you've just lost the entire argument.

All his huge innings have come on flat wickets:
187 at The SCG - extremely flat pitch, until it got uneven on the fourth-day

rubbish, apparently you still havent understood the definition of dead flat. vaughan has been failing on every type of wicket except the dead flat ones until his recent inning in SA. no surprise either that you missed his 76 against the WI at headingly in 00 and his 120 against pakistan at old trafford, his 64 in bangalore, and i would guess his 197 at trent bridge and 61 at headingly considering that you;ve already said that both those pitches assisted the seamers.

140 at Antigua - extremely flat pitch

and that is what you call a dead flat wicket. no surprise that it came after he became captain either.

It's incredibly obvious to me that he got a lot of luck from May to November 2002 and so was assumed to be a much better Test-opener than he actually was. His first-chance scores show quite clearly that mostly he got out early yet when he got in tended to score very big - a pattern the captaincy clearly hasn't affected at all.

yes because an fc average of 48 is disgraceful.

In fact, he played 18 matches not as captain and 11 as captain (excluding Bangladesh games) yet the huge-score matches number 3 apiece, and in that time he made only 2 other scores between 50 and 140 (at Lord's and Headingley '02, both as non-captain).
Maybe he's looked more fussed and out-of-touch not as captain (something possibly exaggerated by the irrelevancy of his matches once he moved back to four) but his first-chance scores have actually taken a very similar pattern..

err what?

And the fact that it was not when opening means it's not relevant, because I've never said he isn't a very good batsman down the order.
Yes, he played much better than I'd expect in that innings in The Second Test in India, but mostly it's been hammering poor bowlers on flat pitches (and getting lots of luck) - exactly the same as Smith.

but smith has NEVER EVER performed against a quality bowling attack. sehwag has even if it is on the rare occasions. hence his higher fc average makes him a far better player.
as far as sehwag opening is concerned, its only another pathetic attempt of yours to save your argument that its impossible for a lower order batsman to succeed at the top.

My point is that he's scored runs on flat or turning pitches and not very often on seamers..

except that his failing against seamers doenst prove anything other than hes rubbish. if you are trying to prove the same thing about smith then i agree, he too is just as poor.

Gibbs scored in Pakistan, wow - a single series..

which is already more than i can say about smith.

And against Australia (you might actually notice that it was just book-ended with good innings, 78 at Adelaide, 51 and 104 at Kingsmead - not actually consistently good)

which changes things how? you cannot just eliminate figures you dont like. fact is that he scored against australia, something that smith has been incapable off. saying that he only ended it with good figures is just as ludicrous as me saying that smith only played well in the first 2 tests in england and therefore had a poor tour there.

- most of the pitches those Tests were played on were very flat.

no put on your glasses next time. none of the wickets were flat.

Hayden has scored on flat tracks and turners, and not very often on seamers, very similar to Jayawardene.
The point, you might notice, is nothing to do with quality batsmen, but simply that there are rather a lot of batsmen around ATM who aren't quite as good as they might be made to seem.

precisely, like smith.
and the fact is that at least hayden has scored on turners, smith hasnt scored on turners or seamers. simply taken a free ride by scoring against WI, england(with anderson leading the attack) and b;desh.

I've said Sehwag has more luck than Smith, not that he's got a lower f-c average.
I've not "absolutely criticized every thing hes ever done" at all, simply said that he's made to look a better opener than he is by his luck..

lets see the figures then? i for one would love to know how many let offs the 2 have had. the fact that sehwag has a better fc avg suggests that he is a better player than smith, simple as that.

Well done with the not noticing that the series in SA was when he was batting down the order.
It should have been against SL or in South Africa - and he hasn't opened the batting in South Africa, so I was right.
You really need to stop bringing-up Sehwag down the order - I've never once mentioned that.

because after hammering every team at the top of the order he is clearly not good enough at the top.

 

[Hoggy31]

AHHHHHHHH, so many quotes in this thread!