Yuvraj Singh and Andy Symonds

[marc71178]

No, they do not. You just use the assumption that they must do to your advantage.

No, I look at the bowlers in each of the attacks - that Zimbabwe line up had one semi-decent bowler in Heath Streak and the rest were rubbish (bear in mind that this was before Price improved to his current levels, and also before Streak did)

However you seem determined to write off every bowler except Vaas as useless, so have decided that the likes of the entire NZ attack are rubbish and then quote editted figures that remove good performances in order to back yourself up.

[Richard]

No, wrong again - I've looked at those edited and unedited figures, decided they mean something to me and formed my ideas of those players there.
And as far as I'm concerned they're no superior to those players who played for Zimbabwe before WC2003 - I don't subscribe to the theory that because you play for Zimbabwe and you're not Heath Streak, you have to be worse than any other substandard player in more successful sides.
And I have certainly never written-off all bowlers except Vaas as useless, nor have I denied that he has bowled totally uselessly at times.

[Nnanden]

Yes, well, whether or not I have a life is not either relevant to you or something you know anything about.
So I'd leave it there if I were you.

...or youll get all your leb cousins and bash me??

[tooextracool]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[tooextracool]

In Underwood and Gibbs' days turning wickets weren't restricted to the subcontinent - they occurred here, there and everywhere, as long as it rained. Only after 1970 did they begin to reduce in number, and even then water sometimes seeped under the early excuses for covering.
You are really running-out of options if you have to try and put words onto my keyboard that I've never typed - I've never said turning wickets have been mostly confined to the subcontinent in the entire history of the game.
That only applies from the '70s onwards.

newsflash,underwood played until 1982, and while he wasnt as successful as he was in the late 60s he still had some pretty decent years with SR's in the 50s......

[tooextracool]

I think Richard was saying they have an excuse for that though.

yes they did have , but the fact is that if they averaged less it does not make them better!id say they're all as good as each other and chopra should get as many opportunities as the other 2 got.

[tooextracool]

Limited-overs cricket has been with us for a good deal of time now, let me assure you.
The first 20 of those last 50 years are irrelevant, because fingerspin was every bit as dangerous at all levels of cricket up to 1970 everywhere in The World as it is mostly just in the subcontinent nowadays. Uncovered wickets meant fingerspinners could turn deadly just after a shower wherever one may have occurred...

no the question is why were there so many finger spinners coming up from 1970-1990 outside the sub continent despite the fact that ODI cricket wasnt that popular in that period and the made up fact that leg spinners are better bowlers outside the sub continent

Of course good reflexes make someone a better batsman than someone else, the reason I'm such a shockingly poor batsman is because my eyesight and hand-eye-coordination isn't anywhere near as good as that of the best batsmen at my club.
However, good reflexes don't determine who is better from a certain level up, because from a not-especially-high level they're all equal.

what the hell are you on about? if chopra has great reflexes but not so good shot selection and concentration it doesnt by any means make him better players than anyone else. shot selection and concentration are more important than than reflexes and thats why there are several players who are better than him....

I never said a ball that doesn't take a wicket isn't a wicket-taking ball. I said it's a good ball, but only becomes wicket-taking when it takes a wicket.
I'll try to explain it one more time: -
Away-swinger, play-and-miss - good ball, well bowled - but try again, eh, that didn't do the batsman any harm.
Away-swinger, outside-edge nicked, ball goes to wicketkeeper - well bowled, you got the batsman out with a good ball. That was a wicket-taking ball, it took a wicket. Bad lack, bat, you couldn't have done much about that.
Wide Long-Hop, smashed to cover-fence - oh, bad luck mate - try again, you'll get him next time - everyone goes for four sometimes.
Wide Long-Hop, smashed right out of the middle of the bat, but straight to cover who takes the catch - you jammy b***ard, that wasn't a wicket-taking ball, you didn't deserve that - but it helps the team and the batsman's punished for a crap shot, so let's try to pretend you deserved credit for it.
Wide Long-Hop, right out of the middle of the bat, but straight to cover who drops the ball - you jammy b***ard bat - by all rights you're out, that was a crap shot and but for that fielder's ineptitude you would be back in the pavilion. And you, bowler - don't you dare look so disappointed, you wouldn't have deserved a wicket with that pie.

yes i understand what you are saying but the fact is that harmison has bowled several 'good' balls that might have got some batsman out,while it wouldnt have got others. in other words just because most of the wickets that he has taken happen to come from poor shots rather than good balls it doesnt mean that he hasnt bowled any good balls and that he is an inept bowler.

[tooextracool]

Yes, Tuffey and Hoggard are very comparable bowlers - no, Chopra's performance against Tuffey and Das' against Hoggard are not comparable, because in Bangalore Das faced Hoggard when he had the conditions he needs - Chopra faced Tuffey when he didn't.
Likewise, Giles and Vettori are very comparable - but at Motera (whatever you may attempt to recall incorrectly) Giles had the conditions he needs, not once did Vettori enjoy such benefits.

rubbish how many times do i have to say that the motera wicket was dead....in fact it was just about as dead as the same motera wicket on which NZ played the first test on which produced another draw.and if you had watched that NZ-india series you would have seen that there was turn in that wicket too, but it was 'slow' turn!!

White bowled every bit as well in India as he did in Pakistan - he just didn't bowl as much. If he'd bowled more, I'm very confident he'd have got more wickets. All White said was he wasn't as fast then as he was a year before (and quite true) - he did not say "I'm no longer a Test-class bowler"

rubbish, anyone who saw white bowl in that series knew that he was no looger half as good as he was a year ago. the pace was a crucial asset in his armour that made him effective everywhere in the world. only someone who didnt watch him bowl in that series would come up with a stupid statement like this. in fact if you look at what happened in the summer when he was smashed all over the park by australia you would realise that he was not half as good.

Flintoff and Oram's bowling was similar in the first two Tests, but Flintoff moved the ball more in Bangalore than Oram would ever have done - hence Das again faced a tougher Test.
So, while the respective New Zealand and England bowlers are very similar, the difference in conditions meant a far more stern test for Das than Chopra."

ok then i'll admit that das had the sterner test because he had to play in bangalore.....the first 2 tests of both series were played on the same wickets(mohali and motera),in the same conditions against a very similar attack. and while chopra came out with an average of 46 after that series das came out with an average of 33!

Yes, and as Mr. Halsey has said, the point is that far lower average can be allowed for by the extremely more vigorous challenge posed to Das.

yes but if he averaged less you can in no way prove to me that he actually did better than what chopra would have.....and as i have just showed, against a similar attack in similar conditions das did worse than chopra.

Because the other evidence (ie how they cashed-in against weaker attacks) suggests Das can do what Chopra can't.

I've just answered that..

no you have not because the attacks are far from comparable.......everyone on here has disagreed with you on that.

There is no reason why they should have been given as many chances as they were - most people aren't. Who knows what other players might have become phenomenons after initial failure? Ed Smith might have taken Test-cricket by storm if England's selectors hadn't thoughtlessly discarded him the way they did (please remember that you cannot, no matter how hard you try, prove that this is beyond the realms of possibility).
The fact is that there are many players who have been given no more than their fair chance, failed to take it, and been dropped. It is almost certain that some would have gone on to achieve what Waugh and the like achieved.
Chopra will likely become one of that band. But you can't make him out to be anything special - that's all he is, one of those who didn't take his fair chance and can only have his potential next-stage-of-Test-career guessed at.

no the fact that hes been involved in so many crucial opening partnerships show that he had potential unlike what some of the other players who failed. chopra has just about as much potential as das and ramesh did,perhaps more, and he should be given his fair share of opportunities too.

No, of course it doesn't devalue the partnership - but it does mean that the player who only scored 30 hasn't done much to be proud of..

what rubbish, of course he has something to be proud off. hes been involved in putting 200 runs on the board for his team. how much he scored in that doesnt matter,becuase he played to the plan which was to blunt out the new ball while sehwag played his shots, and he has done that successfully on several occasions.

No, there are plenty (seemingly including the Indian selectors) who believe he has not shown sufficient potential to be given a run beyond what he has earnt.

what rubbish,how can you make a foolish statement like this? show me the proof that the selectors think he doesnt have potential? as i have said on countless times before...he was dropped because the selectors felt that someone else had more potential than him......

As I've said - a few times - there will never be players who have shown no potential in anyone's eyes. Just because you think Ed Smith didn't show any potential and Chopra did does not make that fact!

no the fact that chopra showed potential in 90% of the peoples eyes while ed smith showed potential in less than 50% of the peoples mind it shows that one deserves to be given more opportunities while the other doesnt. and your eyes are flawed....because yours are the same eyes that thought harmison(and several other players) had no potential.

[tooextracool]

And how often has Vettori been presented with the proverbial dustbowl?
I don't give a damn what you attempt to gurantee to anyone - I saw it with my own eyes, I saw Vettori turning the ball considerably whenever he was given the chance. And that is why he was so succesful.
I'm getting rather sick of you simply stating that things which happened did not..

oh what rubbish...your eyes are obviously defective because i watched that game and with my very own eyes saw a brilliant spell of bowling from vettori using flight,and drift to brilliant effect because of which to this day i rate him with high regard. there was no turn in that wicket,in fact it was the flattest wicket ive ever seen in australia.
regardless ive decided to get a second opinion on this too and you know 2 eyes are better than 1, heres a quote from cricinfo.....
"The bowling of Daniel Vettori (6/87) was of an electrically high standard early, his flight and guile impeccable in relatively unhelpful conditions. "
i think thats conclusive enough...you have been proved wrong again....im sure you didnt watch that match, because the fact is that only a fool would say that it was a turner. even the commentators said it was terribly flat
and accusing me of telling something that did not happen, my a**

So let's see the number of times Warne, Murali, Abdul Qadir and Mushtaq Ahmed failed outside the subcontinent then, and compare it to every fingerspinner to bowl from the early 1970s onwards...
Fancy that?.

if you look at abdul qadirs record you will see clearly that he averages 26 at home and 47 abroad....that is a huge gap and thats not even considering his record in the sub continent!
murali can hardly be considered an orthodox wrist spinner because he turns the ball in the opposite direction and gets more turn than every other spinner gets.

And who said to look at the last 1.5 years... you did.
You most certainly are losing the thread if you accuse me of doing something which was in fact carried-out by you.

no i was referring to the desperation of your argument not suggesting that you suggested that id look at that. the fact that in the alst 1.5 years(or indeed in the last 4 years) vaas has barely even been as consistent as oram only goes to show that your logic is flawed.