Yuvraj Singh and Andy Symonds

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

Flintoff most certainly was not a consistent player in the English Test side post 2001

I think tec meant consistently selected in the side.

[marc71178]

Originally Posted by Richard

Yep, a whole 5 overs.

So ignore the 35 or more he bowled in the second innings, they're just an exception?

[tooextracool]

Originally Posted by Richard

Flintoff most certainly was not a consistent player in the English Test side post 2001, he started to bowl accurately in the one-day side from the winter of 2001\02 (and even then he still got hammered quite a bit because batsmen used their feet to him), and started to score Test runs only in the summer of 2003, 5 years after his debut.
Who's to say I "like" Flintoff, or Rhodes for that matter. It matters not whether I "like" any player, and I don't, because to "like" or "dislike" players is an intensely foolish.
The fact is their cases are very unusual and whatever I think of them it doesn't alter the fact that most players don't get a free-ride for 5 ot 6 years. Chopra has no reason to get one.

i meant that flintoff was picked consistently in the test side post 2001 or more accurately after the ind-eng series in india. rhodes on the other hand played every test match from 92 to 98 without performing much at all. surely he was retained for those 6 years due to his remarkable fielding ability......
chopra might not deserve a free-ride for 6 years.... he should at least get another 2 series like some of the other openers in the past have

Originally Posted by Richard

I did not call the times Oram has got good figures exceptions at all, because they have happened about half the time. Incidentally, I didn't watch the 2002\03 Ind-NZ series, the first time I've ever seen in full a match in which Oram bowled was this summer, before I've only ever seen highlights. I've just judged by the vast majority of cases that show Oram has got good figures when the pitches have helped seamers and not when they haven't.

and despite my trying to show you that he has bowled well in pakistan, against SA at home, in the wc and in a few other series you still wont admit that you have been proved wrong.

Originally Posted by Richard

Let me assure you, Vettori was turning the ball very big on the third day, the ball that got Gilchrist caught at short-leg being an example. And no, it does not refute my ascertation that wickets abroad "do not" suit fingerspin, because, yes, you guessed it, I have never said such a thing. For the most part, they don't, but grounds in the Caribbean have produced fingerspin-friendly wickets sometimes, The SCG does almost every year, and there have even been occasions in England when grounds have produced fingerspin-friendly wickets (like The Oval in 1997)..

nope i dont agree with you that the perth wicket turned that much on day 3 and there doesnt seem to be a way to prove that that was the case.....regardless you stated that finger spinners were useless outside the sub continent, so perhaps you'd like to alter that statement by saying that they are useless outside wickets that offer something for them....as are most spinners for that matter.

Originally Posted by Richard

So why isn't he one of the best batsmen you'll ever see?

now thats just plain stupid.......

Originally Posted by Richard

The fact is, being a good short-leg isn't that difficult.

yes im quite sure that having lightning quick reflexes and safe hands isnt that difficult......

Originally Posted by Richard

And why not?.

it just shows that there are times when wicket taking balls dont take wickets....which quite refutes your theory

Originally Posted by Richard

The chance is considerably less than 5%, and that is so small that it doesn't merit the placing of a short-leg. That fielder would be far better placed somewhere the early vulnerability could be exploited.

it is more likely that placing a short leg against a player who is vulnerable to the short ball would fetch wicket than placing him anywhere else on the field

Originally Posted by Richard

He might be - but you can't just presume someone is going to do what about 1 in 500 people do!

Yes, I know they both had plenty more opportunities, you just said there weren't any "others", and I said there were.

yes and the others were given far more opportunities to change that....if chopra continued to get out in the same vein for another couple of series then yes he should be dropped like the others were. the fact is that chopra despite being just about as impressive hasnt been given half as many opportunities as the others were.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Richard

Tell me, how is someone who has an average in the mid-20s a successful Test-match batsman?

He protects the middle order from the new ball.

Also, its unfair to bring up his average when he hasnt even played 15 tests yet!

Chopra is a great player, and shouldnt be dropped for anyone.

[Nnanden]

until he can play a bloody shot more than once, he IS NOT a great player.

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Nnanden

until he can play a bloody shot more than once, he IS NOT a great player.

What does that have to do with Chopra?

Ive seen himplay the same forward defensive shot a million times!

But seriously, I think you are overreacting. He is there to see off the new ball, and that he did. He was scoring more runs than those that were put down next to his name. He created opportunities fro Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman etc. to score runs against the older ball.

[Nnanden]

patel got a shot at opening and he got 67 or 69!! why not give him more chances? escpecially since he can keep.

[Deja moo]

Originally Posted by Nnanden

patel got a shot at opening and he got 67 or 69!! why not give him more chances? escpecially since he can keep.

Patel has enough problems sorting out his keeping . The team would do well to keep him away from the opening slot unless Chopra is the regular opener and India is chasing quick runs to set the opposition a target .

[marc71178]

Keeping and opening long term with this amount of cricket would lead to early burnout.

[Nnanden]

yea actually, good point. regardless, with the amount of talent in Indian batting at the mo i find no need to put chopra up there, unless he becomes more agressive. a s/r of even only 40 and an average of about the same would be sufficient. maybe put ganguly opener? just not the current chopra.

[Prince EWS]

The current Chopra is the best opener you can have.

You just dont understand that he allows the middle order to score runs.

He is a real opener, and deserves to be in the team.

[Nnanden]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

The current Chopra is the best opener you can have.

You just dont understand that he allows the middle order to score runs.

He is a real opener, and deserves to be in the team.

Gee, then the Indian middle order are worse then i thought!! Cant score runs w/out help...

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Nnanden

Gee, then the Indian middle order are worse then i thought!! Cant score runs w/out help...

Youde be suprised what a difference it makes.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by marc71178

So ignore the 35 or more he bowled in the second innings, they're just an exception?

No, when did I say that?
I just said that South Africa hammered him last summer, West Indies hammered him in the winter and New Zealand hammered him in the first-innings at Lord's.
I was saying that this is likely to resume when West Indies play England again.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

He protects the middle order from the new ball.

Also, its unfair to bring up his average when he hasnt even played 15 tests yet!

Chopra is a great player, and shouldnt be dropped for anyone.

15 Tests! You can't say someone has to play 15 Tests before getting a fair go! 7 or 8 is about right.
He certainly is not a great player.
And really, how often has the middle-order needed protecting from mighty bowlers such as Sami, Butler, Tuffey, Bracken, Williams and Lee? Not very often, I'd guess.