Prince EWS
Global Moderator
No, Ill actually agree with him on this one.Nnanden said:then you my friend, are WHACKED!!
Except for Tuffey, I think Blignaut is as good as all those bowlers.
No, Ill actually agree with him on this one.Nnanden said:then you my friend, are WHACKED!!
and even i can use the word "anomaly" here......regardless i havent suggested that chopra will succeed, im saying that he needs to be given more chancesRichard said:Just having a good technique doesn't matter if you haven't got the shot-selection, for instance Daren Ganga.
no most players that have potential get to play a lot more than chopra has....see das, ramesh,steve waugh,tendulkar,attapattu etc. why should he be an exception?Richard said:And as I've said, most players don't get as long as Stephen Waugh and Rhodes got to become successes. It is highly unlikely that Chopra will do so..
and he played 6 tests against zimbabwe......surprise surprise both his test centuries came against them. and he averaged 57,79 and 50 in those 3 series. add to that the 51 against b'desh. if you can say that chopra has been fortunate having been in a partnership with sehwag, i can say that das was fortunate enough to have played so many test matches against the useless teamsRichard said:As I've said, Das scored 50 for once out in his only Test against Bangladesh - that won't have had much impact on his average. So it doesn't matter that they're a bit better than the Bangladeshi bowlers....
you are either out of your mind, or trying desperately to save a lost argument....id bet on the latter.Richard said:And no, I don't think Tuffey, Oram, Butler, Lee, Bracken, Williams, Sami and suchlike are any better than Blignaut, Price and such. And certainly none of them are anywhere near as good as Streak...
ohh yes i see all the good figures are the odd ones out arent they?and i also see that you've left out his 2 good performances against pakistan in NZ(1 of them arguably his best performance ever)Richard said:Well, not sorry to disappoint you, but no mess exists.
Oram's 3 lots of good figures in Pakistan were odd occasions out - wholly inexplicable ones, yes, but odd nonetheless.
of course the 2/52 was appalling when both sides scored over 300.....as i am sure was the 0/37(10) when SL scored 272. and his 2/26(10) when WI scored 221 yes seamers paradise that.Richard said:The World Cup, as I've stated countless times, proves me wrong in nothing because I've never said Oram can't get good figures on bowler-friendly wickets, almost all of which New Zealand's World Cup games were played on.
rubbish, anybody who comes out with 3/51 bowling in the slog overs to pollock ,boucher and klusener on a batter friendly wicket should be proud.Richard said:And yes, the 10-51-3 were poor figures - wickets in the slog overs, expensive. For the most part, Oram was poor in the South Africa series, then achieved redemtion towards the end..
seriously that spell check of yours is horrible(thats about the 5th time you've misspelled subcontinent).......no there is no point in playing finger spinners outside a wicket that offers something for them, and the fact is that most wickets do offer something for the quality finger spinner on the last day.Richard said:There is no point playing fingerspinners outside the subcontient - mainly. Because no rule is without exceptions.
Mostly, fingerspin-suited surfaces occur only in the subcontient, but never have I said they never occur anywhere else. Hence there is not much point planning to play a fingerspinner unless you're touring the subcontinent...
no the fact is that even if i came up with a 100 examples showing quality finger spinners succeeding outside the subcontinent you would call them anomalies.Richard said:And again, complete rubbish. Yes, Vettori getting 12 wickets in New Zealand (against Australia) was also an anomaly. I can't imagine the pitch wasn't a big turner all the way through. This is an anomaly - it is massively in the minority and even if you manage to find every single instance of fingerspinners getting big wicket-bags outside the subcontinent it won't change the fact that they're in the minority and I could probably name 100 examples to the contrary.
dont make a fool of yourself....jonty rhodes had one of the best reflexes that you'll ever see. regardless the fact is that good reflexes doesnt = great batsman as you seem to be suggestingRichard said:Jonty Rhodes' reflexes were no better than any other good batsman. What made him as good a fielder as he was was doing the basics all but perfectly, superb anticipation, athleticism almost unrivalled and of course fantastic hands.
do i spot a change of mind?i seem to remember you saying 'A wicket-taking ball has to take a wicket - otherwise it is simply something that could have been a wicket-taking ball.'Richard said:They might have done, they might not have done. No delivery is ever certain to get a wicket.
yes richardson should infact be given credit for actually managing to get bat on it....the fact is that not too many other batsmen in the world would have even come close to edging it.Richard said:The fact is, however, Richardson got out to it and you couldn't blame him for doing so, so it was a wicket-taking ball.
But it had far more to do with the pitch than the ability of the bowler.
i notice you use the word 'slip'....care to give me a number?Richard said:Rubbish. Any half-decent batsman is always far more likely to get out caught slip to a seamer than short-leg, at any stage in any innings.
Prince EWS said:Blignauts average wouldn be nearly as high if he didnt play for ZImbabwe.
I dont really think hes that good, but Lee, Sami, Williams, Bracken and Butler are certainly not the hardest players to be considered on equal terms with.
Richard said:So yes, it is just coincidence.
Since he's only been dismissed 10 times in Tests, it does have a fairly big impact on an average.Richard said:As I've said, Das scored 50 for once out in his only Test against Bangladesh - that won't have had much impact on his average.
Actually, it was one wicket in the slog, and that was the one of Boucher who was racing along at the time. That wicket in the 49th over quite probably reduced the SA score as the 2 men were together in a very rapid and settled partnership.Richard said:And yes, the 10-51-3 were poor figures - wickets in the slog overs, expensive.
Richard said:Yes, Vettori getting 12 wickets in New Zealand (against Australia) was also an anomaly.
Why's that then?Nnanden said:then you my friend, are WHACKED!!
Only 10 times, funny that, it looks like 38 to me. In fact, if you remove the Bangladesh Test from his career it takes his average down by 0.43. Which is not much of an impact.marc71178 said:Since he's only been dismissed 10 times in Tests, it does have a fairly big impact on an average.
A wicket in the 49th over is not likely to have much effect on anything except a bowler's average.marc71178 said:Actually, it was one wicket in the slog, and that was the one of Boucher who was racing along at the time. That wicket in the 49th over quite probably reduced the SA score as the 2 men were together in a very rapid and settled partnership.
No, it's not impossible, it's just pretty unusual.marc71178 said:Because heaven forbid he might have bowled well, he's a finger spinner and it's not the subcontinent, so that is impossible (!)
No, he's been given more chances than plenty who have done as poorly as he has have been given and it's time someone else got a chance. Ideally a proper opener, though.tooextracool said:and even i can use the word "anomaly" here......regardless i havent suggested that chopra will succeed, im saying that he needs to be given more chances
Potential is a very, very subjective term and the only excuse people use to give players more chances than they deserve is "we think he's got potential". Sometimes (Flintoff) it works; many times it doesn't.tooextracool said:no most players that have potential get to play a lot more than chopra has....see das, ramesh,steve waugh,tendulkar,attapattu etc. why should he be an exception?
Yes, Das was fortunate to have got the chances to play against crap bowlers. He took some of those chances, wasted others. Chopra was fortunate to have got the same chances, and has taken them less well than Das has. His inadequecies have been hidden by Sehwag and those who credit him for Sehwag's success.tooextracool said:and he played 6 tests against zimbabwe......surprise surprise both his test centuries came against them. and he averaged 57,79 and 50 in those 3 series. add to that the 51 against b'desh. if you can say that chopra has been fortunate having been in a partnership with sehwag, i can say that das was fortunate enough to have played so many test matches against the useless teams
No, you are trying desperately to ignore fact by making ludicrous abusive statements. As I've already demonstrated, Test-averages for all bar Tuffey are very similar. I have destroyed the material on whcih your case was based, I'm afraid: Das scored runs against attacks every bit as good as those Chopra has scored them against, and there's sod-all you can do about that.tooextracool said:you are either out of your mind, or trying desperately to save a lost argument....id bet on the latter.
On... yes... bowler-friendly surfaces. And amongst other very poor performances.tooextracool said:ohh yes i see all the good figures are the odd ones out arent they?and i also see that you've left out his 2 good performances against pakistan in NZ(1 of them arguably his best performance ever)
Not a seamer's paradise, but helpful enough for the seamers.tooextracool said:of course the 2/52 was appalling when both sides scored over 300.....as i am sure was the 0/37(10) when SL scored 272. and his 2/26(10) when WI scored 221 yes seamers paradise that.
Rubbish, no matter who the batsmen, wickets in the slog overs don't denote credit to any bowler if they're just skied slogs.tooextracool said:rubbish, anybody who comes out with 3/51 bowling in the slog overs to pollock ,boucher and klusener on a batter friendly wicket should be proud.
And you've misspelled a hell of a lot more.tooextracool said:seriously that spell check of yours is horrible(thats about the 5th time you've misspelled subcontinent).......no there is no point in playing finger spinners outside a wicket that offers something for them, and the fact is that most wickets do offer something for the quality finger spinner on the last day.
Yes - because they are. If you were, somehow, to find 100 of these anomalies, I would prove them as such by finding 1000 examples to the contrary.tooextracool said:no the fact is that even if i came up with a 100 examples showing quality finger spinners succeeding outside the subcontinent you would call them anomalies.
No, good shot-selection = great batsman (eg Don Bradman, Graeme Smith - neither had perfect techniques and certainly neither had exceptional eyes).tooextracool said:dont make a fool of yourself....jonty rhodes had one of the best reflexes that you'll ever see. regardless the fact is that good reflexes doesnt = great batsman as you seem to be suggesting
No, you don't spot a change of mind - you just try your favourite tack of trying to find one where none exists, because you haven't got a case to make against me.tooextracool said:do i spot a change of mind?i seem to remember you saying 'A wicket-taking ball has to take a wicket - otherwise it is simply something that could have been a wicket-taking ball.'
ahh yes in typical richard fashion.
No, he can't have any credit for hitting it, but he doesn't deserve any discredit for being out. We cannot say for certain whether anyone "would" have come close to gloving it, because no-one else faced it.tooextracool said:yes richardson should infact be given credit for actually managing to get bat on it....the fact is that not too many other batsmen in the world would have even come close to edging it.
Try first, second, third or fourth slip. All the slips, in other words.tooextracool said:i notice you use the word 'slip'....care to give me a number?
IMO kirsten would be more likely to get out at short leg than if you placed the same fielder at 1st slip or 2nd slip or 3rd slip or anywhere else on the field at the start of the innings
Yep, positive.marc71178 said:Convenient that.
Sure it's not an anomaly?
One of the most ridiculous comments I've heard in a long time. A wicket at any point in an ODI innings, especially in the late overs is always crucial as it gives the team that takes it a chance.Richard said:A wicket in the 49th over is not likely to have much effect on anything except a bowler's average.
That argument is viable in the case of Streak because he has no support. Blignaut is an example of the fact that Streak has no support. Have you ever seen him bowl? His international economy rates are 3.56 and 5.18 and domestically he's 3.55 and 5.22. The reason why those numbers are so high is because he is wildly inconsistent with line and length and largely very inaccurate. Yes, he is talented and has occasionally pieced together an outstanding spell, but to say he would be better if he played for another team is ridiculous.Prince EWS said:Blignauts average wouldn be nearly as high if he didnt play for ZImbabwe.
They call for the Third-Umpire because, believe it or not, there are actually other things in cricket besides the result.Mr Mxyzptlk said:One of the most ridiculous comments I've heard in a long time. A wicket at any point in an ODI innings, especially in the late overs is always crucial as it gives the team that takes it a chance.
Even a wicket off the final ball of an innings is a big deal (hence they call the third umpire for run outs) because it could mean 1 or 2 less runs to chase.
Yet the fact remains that on a given particular occasion, one or two runs (or the 10 or 20 runs saved by dismissing a set batsman in the 49th over) could make the difference. Hence it is of importance.Richard said:They call for the Third-Umpire because, believe it or not, there are actually other things in cricket besides the result.
1 or 2 runs hardly ever make a difference - and don't anyone go and name some of the occasions where they have, because I'm perfectly well aware of them and I said hardly ever - not never. Remeber, for every time even 10 runs has made a difference, there are probably about 30 or 40 occasions, maybe even more, where they haven't.
Richard said:They call for the Third-Umpire because, believe it or not, there are actually other things in cricket besides the result.
Ive seen him bowl on several occasions.Mr Mxyzptlk said:That argument is viable in the case of Streak because he has no support. Blignaut is an example of the fact that Streak has no support. Have you ever seen him bowl? His international economy rates are 3.56 and 5.18 and domestically he's 3.55 and 5.22. The reason why those numbers are so high is because he is wildly inconsistent with line and length and largely very inaccurate. Yes, he is talented and has occasionally pieced together an outstanding spell, but to say he would be better if he played for another team is ridiculous.
no he hasnt....why did das and ramesh get almost 3 times as many chances as he did when all of them didnt do any better(by your standards) outside of the sub continentRichard said:No, he's been given more chances than plenty who have done as poorly as he has have been given and it's time someone else got a chance. Ideally a proper opener, though.
what are you talking about?so a player who shows potential for 8 games despite not having an avg of 40+ should be dropped? if you had been a selector for the indian team you would have dropped tendulkar years ago....along with attapattu and steve waugh if you had been a selector of the respective sides.Richard said:Potential is a very, very subjective term and the only excuse people use to give players more chances than they deserve is "we think he's got potential". Sometimes (Flintoff) it works; many times it doesn't.
total tripe...the quality of bowlers that das scored against was far far worse than the quality of bowlers that chopra failed against. if chopra had played all his tests against NZ at home he would probably be averaging 46 oddRichard said:Yes, Das was fortunate to have got the chances to play against crap bowlers. He took some of those chances, wasted others. Chopra was fortunate to have got the same chances, and has taken them less well than Das has. His inadequecies have been hidden by Sehwag and those who credit him for Sehwag's success.]
lets not look at select bowlers, look at the entire bowling attacks that das was successfuly against....streak,price,friend,watambwa,blignaut,murphy,olonga,hassibul hossain,naimur rahman,rafique,ranjan das,bryan strang,paul strang,nkala, viljoen.Richard said:No, you are trying desperately to ignore fact by making ludicrous abusive statements. As I've already demonstrated, Test-averages for all bar Tuffey are very similar. I have destroyed the material on whcih your case was based, I'm afraid: Das scored runs against attacks every bit as good as those Chopra has scored them against, and there's sod-all you can do about that.
how in the world could you call a pitch on which more than 600 runs were scored as bowler friendly? or another in which pakistan scored abt 280 ?as usual you are passing judgement on matches that you yourself admit that you havent watched.Richard said:On... yes... bowler-friendly surfaces. And amongst other very poor performances.
rubbish, stop making a fool of yourself and ignoring the facts .SL scored 272 on a dry wicket that was definetly not a seamers paradise. and in the NZ-WI game, there was a little bit in the wicket for the first 10 overs or so thats it, and oram didnt even bowl in those overs.Richard said:Not a seamer's paradise, but helpful enough for the seamers
that just proves my point......if he got 2 genuine wickets then isnt that better than 'buying' his wickets in the slog overs.....to go at 5.1 runs an over despite bowling a large number of bowlers in the death is a pretty good performance particularly on a flat pitchRichard said:Rubbish, no matter who the batsmen, wickets in the slog overs don't denote credit to any bowler if they're just skied slogs.
Anyhow, as it has been pointed-out, only 1 of the 3 came at the end of the innings.
what do you not understand from the words "quality finger spinner?'.....the number of times that finger spinners have got good figures in the 3rd and 4th innings is about the same number as the times leg spinners have. if finger spinners were so useless then why are they far far more finger spinners in the world than leg spinners,especially in places like SA and england?Richard said:No, they don't. Otherwise you'd see loads of fingerspinners getting good figures in third- and fourth-innings. And that hasn't happened very often.
err what?when i said that chopra had one of the best reflexes you will ever see you responded by saying "why isnt he such a great batsman then?"Richard said:No, good shot-selection = great batsman (eg Don Bradman, Graeme Smith - neither had perfect techniques and certainly neither had exceptional eyes).
Jonty Rhodes' eyes and reflexes weren't any better than those of all good batsmen. Because once reflexes get to a certain standard (the sort of standard you need to be a good club batsman) there is no difference between them. As proven by the fact that Don Bradman's eyes were tested in 1938 and were said to be no better than anyone else's.
What makes an exceptional batsman is concentration and what makes an exceptional fielder are the factors I named that you attempted to rubbish.
oh you are such a joker....you have been proved wrong yet you come up with useless arguments to save yourself.....richardson didnt play a poor shot at that ball, he did what any batsman would have done and unfortunately with the form that he was in he managed to get a bit of bat on a near unplayable ball. how can you possibly say "if he had missed it it wouldnt have been a wicket taking ball" the fact is that he edged it, not many other batsman would have hence called "wicket taking"Richard said:No, you don't spot a change of mind - you just try your favourite tack of trying to find one where none exists, because you haven't got a case to make against me.
Yes, a wicket-taking ball has to take a wicket. If the Richardson ball had missed the glove, it wouldn't have been a wicket-taking ball, it would have been a ball that could have taken a wicket.
If a good ball takes a wicket, the batsman can't be blamed. If it doesn't, the bowler just has to shrug and walk back to his mark.
But a bad ball cannot be turned into a wicket-deserving one just because someone played a crap shot.
yet he seemed to get out there so often.....as i said, you can do a statistic and you'll find that kirsten got out just about as often at short leg/silly point as he did at any one slip positionRichard said:Try first, second, third or fourth slip. All the slips, in other words.
IMO Kirsten was always very unlikely to get out caught short-leg off a seamer, because he was rather too good for that.
yes since you didnt watch either of those 2 games in which vettori did well(along with the rest), they must have been blatant turners!!Richard said:No, it's not impossible, it's just pretty unusual.
That pitch, quite simply, had to have offered quite a bit to the spinners, because otherwise it is all but impossible that Vettori would have taken 12 wickets against a quality batting-line-up.
And every now and then, grounds that do not normally produce fingerspin-friendly surfaces produce them. I will look-up that match in the 2001 Wisden due to aroused curiosity.