• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Yuvraj Singh and Andy Symonds

GermanShepherd

School Boy/Girl Captain
Richard said:
The new ball - taken by brilliant swing-bowlers such as Sami, Bracken, Williams, Tuffey and Butler.
Sure, it took some skill to see them off.
He also faced Jason Gillespie and Shoaib Akhtar, both of who are better than the bowlers you mentioned.
 

GermanShepherd

School Boy/Girl Captain
Richard said:
Best forward-short-leg in The World, I don't think so. Andrew Strauss and Katich are pretty good. Anyway, that position's just a waste of a fielder except on turning pitches against spinners.
The west Indian quicks certainly had plenty of catches taken in that position in the 80's with their perfume balls.
It is not a waste of a fielder.
 

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Best forward-short-leg in The World, I don't think so. Andrew Strauss and Katich are pretty good. Anyway, that position's just a waste of a fielder except on turning pitches against spinners.
I think you'll find that guys such as David Boon (in particular), Greg Blewett, Jimmy Adams, Gus Logie, etc. put that VERY old theory to bed a very long time ago. They were pioneers in the sense they proved fielding at Short Leg can be an attacking position no matter the bowler. Logie was probably the first but Boonie made the position his own (because, unlike Logie, he couldn't feild anywhere else anyway!)

BOOOOOOOOOOOOONIE. We miss ya buddy.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Arjun said:
Das didn't have enough power to translate his potential into performance. Trescothick, Hayden, Gayle, Gibbs and several world class openers did.
Das is a far better player than Trescothick will ever be. Almost as good as Gayle, too.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
And when quick bowlers bounce and are fended to there.
Which doesn't happen very often, because it almost invariably takes very poor batting for that to happen. Plenty of captains and commentators don't seem to realise the reality of the number of catches taken there off seamers.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
oh really? so i would also assume that bowlers like dillon and cuffy wouldnt require too much skill to see off either would they?
and what happened in the WI 2 years ago? openers failed.....india lost
and against those sub standard zimbabwe bowlers in 2001....openers failed...india came out with 1-1.

clearly the middle order seems to do better when the openers provide a platform......
No, the like of Dillon and Cuffy don't require too much skill (relatively speaking) to see-off. Yes, Das failed, I didn't deny that. Just the same way Chopra failed in Australia. It just so happened that Sehwag got a big share of luck, the middle-order all fired big-time, and the totals were massive. Das' record against Zimbabwe is about the one respectible part of his career, I might remind you.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
Which doesn't happen very often, because it almost invariably takes very poor batting for that to happen.

Didn't take you long for you to remove any credit a bowler deserves... 8-)
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
Just the same way Chopra failed in Australia.
Depends on which way you look at it...

Most people would've considered what Chopra brought to the team to not be a failure.

Richard said:
It just so happened that Sehwag got a big share of luck, the middle-order all fired big-time, and the totals were massive.

Oh yes, I forgot the other part of your beliefs - it's all about luck!
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
i think anyone whos seen all 3 field in that position wouldnt have too much doubt that strauss and katich are barely even in the same league....
Well I've seen all three and they're all about the same if you ask me.
tooextracool said:
1) india play half their matches in the sub continent....you'd think that he would come in handy there quite often.....
2) forward short legs are also used to bounce out a batsman, i would always have a forward short leg for the first 15 overs of any test match.
1, the subcontinent is supposed to be spin-friendly. How many proper dustbowls have we seen recently?
2, no, they're not, it's just most captains and commentators seem to have the misguided notion that they are. Good batsmen don't get caught at short-leg off seamers very often.
tooextracool said:
no, there is a case.....its called 'potential'. the man is young and inexperienced surely he can work on his game to the extent of improving his average to the benchmark 40s. have you seen a weakness in his technique? i havent as yet. the only chink that he has is all temperamental and even that can be argued with the fact that he tends to bat for such a long time,before throwing it away.
and yes the point of batting is to score runs, but does it matter who scores them? if you had a partnership of 150 out of which one player scored 40 and the other a 110 would you call it a failure?i think not....if the partnership is going well why change it?
Because you change it for the better, one man scores 110, the other scores 110 as well. Which would you prefer. Cricket isn't built around partnerships, it's built around individuals. That's why individual averages are rather more often quoted than partnership averages.
The "potential" excuse is used many times... maybe Chopra does have potential, but you'd think after three series it would start being revealed. He's got a very obvious chink in his armour - his shot-selection is not up to scratch. Just because his dismissals don't have any particular similarity about them - so what? The fact is, he keeps getting himself out without scoring significant runs. That is a chink in the armour if you ask me.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
Depends on which way you look at it...

Most people would've considered what Chopra brought to the team to not be a failure.

Oh yes, I forgot the other part of your beliefs - it's all about luck!
You didn't forget it at all. No-one could possibly do that. The fact is, Sehwag would not have scored runs in Australia to the magnitude he did but for dropped catches and Umpiring let-offs.
And because the rest of the middle-order and his opening partner happen to have performed while Chopra is in the team then his presence must have caused this to happen... yes, of course it must.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
Didn't take you long for you to remove any credit a bowler deserves... 8-)
Less time than it did for you, and almost everyone else, to attempt to add credit where none is due.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
GermanShepherd said:
The west Indian quicks certainly had plenty of catches taken in that position in the 80's with their perfume balls.
It is not a waste of a fielder.
Note - 80s. How many catches have you seen taken off seamers in recent times, compared to how many times you see a fielder placed there?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
GermanShepherd said:
He also faced Jason Gillespie and Shoaib Akhtar, both of who are better than the bowlers you mentioned.
Yes, and given that they were in the minority, and both sub-par by their own standards anyway in the relevant series, it is far more significant that most bowling didn't make any use of the new-ball.
Hence getting through it wasn't such an achievement as it might seem.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
Cricket isn't built around partnerships, it's built around individuals. That's why individual averages are rather more often quoted than partnership averages.

That's a new one.

Cricket is a team game, and I would've thought the reason partnership averages aren't often quoted has more to do with the fact that aside from openers (where incidentally Chopra is in a very successful one), players don't tend to bat together that often.

Oh, and the fabled "first-chance" averages are seldom, if ever, quoted, but that hasn't stopped you.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
Less time than it did for you, and almost everyone else, to attempt to add credit where none is due.
If a bowler gets a wicket, he's generally done something worthy of being creditted with the wicket.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
In the fantastical World of cricket plenty of viewers try to live in, they do.
In the real World, they don't.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
That's a new one.

Cricket is a team game, and I would've thought the reason partnership averages aren't often quoted has more to do with the fact that aside from openers (where incidentally Chopra is in a very successful one), players don't tend to bat together that often.

Oh, and the fabled "first-chance" averages are seldom, if ever, quoted, but that hasn't stopped you.
Cricket is a team game played by individuals. Without the individuals, there would be no teams. Hence, the emphasis is one one individual, not whether someone else is helping him keep his place in the side.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
No, the like of Dillon and Cuffy don't require too much skill (relatively speaking) to see-off. Yes, Das failed, I didn't deny that. Just the same way Chopra failed in Australia. It just so happened that Sehwag got a big share of luck, the middle-order all fired big-time, and the totals were massive.
the middle order fired largely because the openers fired....let me remind you that the same middle order failed miserably in barbados, and then again in jamaica.....some amount of that must be put down on the poor starts given to them by the openers.

Richard said:
Das' record against Zimbabwe is about the one respectible part of his career, I might remind you.
yes das did well but the other opener didnt....so effectively dravid was always in at 5/1.....as a result india struggled in that series. if the same happened in australia, as it has been for years, i can assure you that india would have been hammered in that series. with the quality of the indian middle order, all it needs is for the openers to survive for the first session.....its not the number of runs in that session that counts,its the fact that the middle order gets to bat in more favourable batting conditions
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
Well I've seen all three and they're all about the same if you ask me.
and you call yourself a good judge of the game?

Richard said:
1, the subcontinent is supposed to be spin-friendly. How many proper dustbowls have we seen recently?
so? the wickets have been slow and spinners have been bowling the bulk of the overs in the series. surely on these wickets where the run rate tends to be slow you would slip in a forward short leg and try to get the batsman out!

Richard said:
2, no, they're not, it's just most captains and commentators seem to have the misguided notion that they are. Good batsmen don't get caught at short-leg off seamers very often.
not every team happens to have 7 good batsman, and good bowlers can get a batsman out caught at short leg if they bowl the right length ie fast and into the rib cage. ive seen kirsten get out there several times,along with steve waugh and more recently fleming....and im quite sure they are all not good batsman and/or the bowlers were lucky

Richard said:
Because you change it for the better, one man scores 110, the other scores 110 as well. Which would you prefer.
except in the last 15 years there hasnt been a single opening pair capable of doing the above on a consistent basis in india(or even as well as sehwag and chopra have been).your argument is a bit ridiculous....its like saying would you rather have a batsman who averages 50 or a batsman who averages 70,conveniently forgetting that there arent any players who do average 70, and averaging 50 isnt that bad

Richard said:
Cricket isn't built around partnerships, it's built around individuals. That's why individual averages are rather more often quoted than partnership averages.
yes cricket is a game with individuals,but its how they work together that counts.

Richard said:
The "potential" excuse is used many times... maybe Chopra does have potential, but you'd think after three series it would start being revealed.
in 1 series he averaged 46....in another he was instrumental in the success. so hes really had only one awful series. regardless potential isnt the number of the runs you score.....its about for how long and how well you played to score those runs

Richard said:
He's got a very obvious chink in his armour - his shot-selection is not up to scratch.Just because his dismissals don't have any particular similarity about them - so what? The fact is, he keeps getting himself out without scoring significant runs. That is a chink in the armour if you ask me.
its a chink in his armour,but theres not a problem with his technique. the same could have been said about flintoff a couple of years ago, and it doesnt take 3 series to get that sorted out
 
Last edited:

Top