Richard said:
A series full of seamer-friendly wickets, yes - I really must question how closely you have been watching, yet again. The only wicket in that series which favoured the seamers was Headingley, and surprise surprise, he failed there.
How many seamer-friendly wickets has he played on in his career - not many, exactly. On the rare occasion he has, more often than not he's failed.
actually i was referring to the series vs india where he averaged 48 in seaming conditions. regardless the 2nd innings of the headingly test can hardly be considered a failure, he was the top scorer from either side in that inning and he survived twice as many balls as anyone else did. and the manner of his dismissal can hardly be classified as a failure, because he got a scorcher from the pitch. he failed in the first innings yes, but he did pretty well in the 2nd given the nature of the pitch.
Richard said:
Anyone who disagrees with me, with or without watching them bowl, like you, is simply sticking determinedly to the generalisation that they must be worse because everyone says they are. I've provided comprehensive evidence as to why all the bowlers Chopra has faced I have denounced as woefully sub-par are so. Just like the Zimbabwean attack Das profited from so many times..
actually no, you have filtered all the good figures of the bowlers and posted misleadingly higher averages for every bowler. and no, any expert in the world today will tell you that the list of bowlers that chopra has played is far better than the ones that das did.
Richard said:
If Chopra had scored 51 for once out against Bangladesh I'd be the first to say "he did what he needed to, but it really doesn't prove much and nor does it have any real affect on his average".
Which, funnily enough, is exactly what I've said about Das. I never said he deserves any real credit for scoring 51 for once out against Bangladesh - but it does not fall into the category you attempted to place it in, ie "failing against Bangladesh".
no, let me put it this way then.....he failed in the first innings when every one else in the side cashed in and his 2nd innings performance cannot be determined as a success or a failure. so out of the 1 full inning that he got to bat he failed and that should be considered as a failure.
Richard said:
Substandard performances (whether poor or abysmal): 26
Good performances on seamer-friendly wickets: 10
It should be added here that the summing-up of seamer-friendly wickets cannot ultimately be trusted given that two of the three few occasions where I can provide a second opinion have shown to be incorrect.
Good performances on wickets which have been surmised as not-especially-seamer-friendly: 17
To the last two we can obviously add a few performances against Zimbabwe that have been overlooked on the excuse of generalisation because they might wreck the argument.
So, we see the general picture that he has been good more often than he has been poor (once the Zimbabwe games are added), and some of these good performances can be attributed to seamer-friendly wickets. Not, at a guess, as many as have been in this above list.
We can add those other games post-2002\03
Maybe a cumulative, post-2002 analogy can be provided.
But it seems the summing-up has not proved anything as conclusively as some might have hoped.
no the example of vaas was not used to criticise his performances on non seamer friendly wickets. rather it was used to show that oram had performed similarly but you had dismissed him as not being consistent enough.
a summary of orams record since the world cup (leaving out performances on seamer friendly wickets) looks like this:
bad: 0/68(10),0/65(10),0/47(10),0/67(7),1/48(10),0/41(6),3/51(10),0/41(6)
good: 1/31(7),0/38(9),2/33(8),0/23(6),2/28(10),1/37(9),2/28(10),0/44(10),0/44(10),0/43(10),1/26(8)
so hes had 8 bad performances(including the tvs cup) and 10 good performances with a success rate of 56% as opposed to vaas who since 2000 has a success rate of 40%.
so clearly it can be seen that oram is not just a seamer track bully and his record has been as consistent(or rather more ) than vaas.