• 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

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Mingster said:
Cricket is a team game - Tennis is an individual game
Err, ye-e-e-es.
Your point being?
There is no getting away from the fact that all team games are played by individuals.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
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.
And there were times in Australia where Chopra failed, as I've pointed-out several times. There were even occasions where Sehwag's luck dried-up, albeit not for too long.
The middle-order still didn't have much of a problem.
tooextracool said:
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
And I say it again - there is nothing more or less favourable about batting against Bracken, Williams, MacGill and Lee whenever they're bowling. The middle-order would likely have gorged themselves regardless - given that they scored heavily when Chopra failed and when he succeeded that kinda suggests so.
If someone is in the team merely to survive the first session, meanwhile, that is a poor excuse for a piece of selection. Especially given that he did his job about half the time and no more.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
and you call yourself a good judge of the game?
Yes, I do.
tooextracool said:
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!
No point in short-legs or silly-points unless the ball is turning or the bounce is uneven. Indeed, there's no point in fingerspinners unless the ball is turning.
tooextracool said:
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
Several times - you think about how many times they've got out caught there relative to how many times they've got out in other ways. Every good batsman plays a poor shot every now and them - otherwise they'd all average about 70. And when a batsman plays a poor stroke that results in a ball which didn't deserve a wicket getting one, that's quite clearly lucky for a bowler.
tooextracool said:
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
And because Sehwag happens to have had lots of runs against his name, while no-one else did when other Indian openers were in the position Chopra is, Chopra gets the benefit of it.
Ridiculous.
tooextracool said:
yes cricket is a game with individuals,but its how they work together that counts.
And because someone is in the right place at the right time they get credit they don't deserve.
tooextracool said:
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
And how well did he play? Not very well, otherwise he'd had got more runs.
tooextracool said:
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
Technical faults are no more or less important than faults with shot-selection. Yes, as Flintoff has demonstrated, these can be ironed-out, but it's a hell of a lot harder than fixing a faulty technique. Ganga is one of the many examples here.
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
I'd far rather take a team of players who perform far greater than the sum of their individual parts (ie Greece) than eleven superior players who don't coalesce together (England).
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Greece didn't perform greater than the sum of their parts if you ask me - it's just people didn't realise how good they actually were. Until now.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
If someone is in the team merely to survive the first session, meanwhile, that is a poor excuse for a piece of selection. Especially given that he did his job about half the time and no more.
and the fact that previous indian openers failed to survive half of the first over doesnt come into the equation at all does it? in just 3 series these 2 have been more successful than any other indian opening pair in over a decade, and you seem ready to break it up already....
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
Yes, I do.
well i can assure you you're not

Richard said:
No point in short-legs or silly-points unless the ball is turning or the bounce is uneven. Indeed, there's no point in fingerspinners unless the ball is turning.
yes and when giles took those 2 wickets in the first test against NZ at lords, you were still saying the same werent you?
theres no point in bowling a spinner in the sub continent if you dont have a short leg or a silly point.
Richard said:
Several times - you think about how many times they've got out caught there relative to how many times they've got out in other ways.
Every good batsman plays a poor shot every now and them - otherwise they'd all average about 70. And when a batsman plays a poor stroke that results in a ball which didn't deserve a wicket getting one, that's quite clearly lucky for a bowler..
there have been times when good sharp deliveries have got batsmen out caught at short leg, kirsten for example tended to fend a lot of deliveries
there at the start of his innings.
and just because the wicket happens to come off a poor shot rather than a good ball that doesnt mean you dont try to get it.

Richard said:
And because Sehwag happens to have had lots of runs against his name, while no-one else did when other Indian openers were in the position Chopra is, Chopra gets the benefit of it.
Ridiculous.
chopra gets the benefit for being part of the partnership that has been successful.its one thing scoring 28 in a partnership of 50....its another to score 28 in a partnership of 150. sehwag himself admits that he prefers to bat with a defensive opener, so perhaps some amount of credit for sehwags success should be put down to chopra.

Richard said:
And how well did he play? Not very well, otherwise he'd had got more runs.
did you even read the point i made? he worked long and hard to score those runs before he threw it away.....

Richard said:
Technical faults are no more or less important than faults with shot-selection. Yes, as Flintoff has demonstrated, these can be ironed-out, but it's a hell of a lot harder than fixing a faulty technique. Ganga is one of the many examples here.
unlike flintoff and ganga who throw their wickets away with a poor shot earlier on in their innings, chopra has been very sensible in choosing what to play at and what not to. its only that after he plays 100 odd balls that he throws it away, its a temperamental thing,something that might or might not be ironed out quickly but we wont find out unless hes given more chances.
 
Last edited:

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
There is no getting away from the fact that all team games are played by individuals.

And there's no getting away from the fact that with a partner, a batsman is useless.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
No point in short-legs or silly-points unless the ball is turning or the bounce is uneven. Indeed, there's no point in fingerspinners unless the ball is turning.

Actually, there's no point in anything if you start going down that line...


Richard said:
And because Sehwag happens to have had lots of runs against his name, while no-one else did when other Indian openers were in the position Chopra is, Chopra gets the benefit of it.
Ridiculous.
Why is it ridiculous?

Chopra did a very good job for India, yet because you don't like him, you refuse to accept it.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
Greece didn't perform greater than the sum of their parts if you ask me - it's just people didn't realise how good they actually were. Until now.
Oh yes, their outstanding record in Finals matches before Euro 2004 showed how great they were.

It's very easy to say such a thing with hindsight isn't it?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
Oh yes, their outstanding record in Finals matches before Euro 2004 showed how great they were.

It's very easy to say such a thing with hindsight isn't it?
And the fact that the last Finals was 4 years ago means there can't possibly have been any improvement since then of course.
Greece in Euro 2004 were a team that people didn't realise how good they were until the last. They wouldn't have beaten the teams they beat without being pretty good.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
Why is it ridiculous?

Chopra did a very good job for India, yet because you don't like him, you refuse to accept it.
No, he did a job many batsmen have been doing for a long time.
And yet, because he has been opening with someone who has had the success Sehwag has had, while others haven't, he has been highlighted where others haven't.
Nothing to do with me having a dislike to him. He seems like a very nice young man. Why on Earth would anyone think I don't like him? Unless, of course, they can think of no other way to attempt to disprove my argument.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
marc71178 said:
And there's no getting away from the fact that with a partner, a batsman is useless.
Presuming you mean without a partner, no, not true at all. A 75* from someone facing the 1st ball of an innings and carrying his bat when the next highest score is 12 and only 2 others make double-figures can be invaluable if it means a score reaches 115 instead of collapsing for 59.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
and the fact that previous indian openers failed to survive half of the first over doesnt come into the equation at all does it? in just 3 series these 2 have been more successful than any other indian opening pair in over a decade, and you seem ready to break it up already....
No, Chopra has been far less successful than plenty of Indian openers of recent times. Sehwag's success and relative speed of scoring, however, has meant partnerships between the two have boomed to degrees not seen for a while.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
tooextracool said:
well i can assure you you're not
No, you can assure me you think I'm not. No more.
tooextracool said:
yes and when giles took those 2 wickets in the first test against NZ at lords, you were still saying the same werent you?
theres no point in bowling a spinner in the sub continent if you dont have a short leg or a silly point.
There's no point in bowling a spinner anywhere unless they can turn the ball. That's the gist of it.
tooextracool said:
there have been times when good sharp deliveries have got batsmen out caught at short leg, kirsten for example tended to fend a lot of deliveries there at the start of his innings.
and just because the wicket happens to come off a poor shot rather than a good ball that doesnt mean you dont try to get it.
There have been times - and those times are so rare they can be discounted as anomalies.
Any bowler who bowls for poor shots is a poor apology indeed, meanwhile.
tooextracool said:
chopra gets the benefit for being part of the partnership that has been successful.its one thing scoring 28 in a partnership of 50....its another to score 28 in a partnership of 150. sehwag himself admits that he prefers to bat with a defensive opener, so perhaps some amount of credit for sehwags success should be put down to chopra.
Perhaps... and perhaps it should be mostly put down to the astonishing number of let-offs he's had recently. If Sehwag hadn't been so successful and Chopra had batted in exactly the same way he has done, Chopra would not still be in the side, I can absolutely assure you of that.
tooextracool said:
did you even read the point i made? he worked long and hard to score those runs before he threw it away.....
Yes, and he didn't score enough before throwing it away, and about half the time he didn't score any before throwing it away.
tooextracool said:
unlike flintoff and ganga who throw their wickets away with a poor shot earlier on in their innings, chopra has been very sensible in choosing what to play at and what not to. its only that after he plays 100 odd balls that he throws it away, its a temperamental thing,something that might or might not be ironed out quickly but we wont find out unless hes given more chances.
It is not at all - Chopra is regularly out before even facing 30 balls. If you're out like that (and let's face it - who isn't) you've got to make more of the times you get to 40 or so. Chopra thus far has not, and he has had a fair number of chances.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
No, you can assure me you think I'm not. No more.
i'll put it this way...you're the only person who thinks you are. chopra is the best short leg in the world today and is right up there in the 'boon' league

Richard said:
There's no point in bowling a spinner anywhere unless they can turn the ball. That's the gist of it.
incase you missed the last series in india,there was turn,its called 'slow turn', never easy to get wickets on, but if anyone gets the wickets, it happens to be the spinners.
in places outside the sub continent there is almost always a bit of turn and a bit of rough to work with on the last couple of days. and thats when you need a silly point or a short leg if you have a quality spinner.

Richard said:
There have been times - and those times are so rare they can be discounted as anomalies.
rubbish, its known as good bowling,particularly on a lively track. there isnt much of it today but nonetheless the best of it happens to be at the start of every inning.

Richard said:
Any bowler who bowls for poor shots is a poor apology indeed, meanwhile.
no bowler tries to get a batsman out with poor shots, the fact is that you have to have a fielder in the right place to get a batsman out when he does play a bad stroke. there are plenty of bowlers who get more wickets of bad balls than they do off the good ones....its the number of good ones that you bowl in between each bad ball that counts.

Richard said:
Perhaps... and perhaps it should be mostly put down to the astonishing number of let-offs he's had recently. If Sehwag hadn't been so successful and Chopra had batted in exactly the same way he has done, Chopra would not still be in the side, I can absolutely assure you of that.
i might agree with that, but its a partnership....if the 2 work well together regardless of who scores more i think its still worth keeping

Richard said:
Yes, and he didn't score enough before throwing it away, and about half the time he didn't score any before throwing it away.
most of the times he got out early, it wasnt a case of throwing it away...rather it was a good ball or a misjudged shot,which is not exactly a weakness.

Richard said:
It is not at all - Chopra is regularly out before even facing 30 balls. If you're out like that (and let's face it - who isn't) you've got to make more of the times you get to 40 or so. Chopra thus far has not, and he has had a fair number of chances.
yes that is true but he needs to be given a longer stint,he hasnt done badly and the partnership has gone well.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
And the fact that the last Finals was 4 years ago means there can't possibly have been any improvement since then of course.
Greece in Euro 2004 were a team that people didn't realise how good they were until the last. They wouldn't have beaten the teams they beat without being pretty good.
it depends on what you call 'good'.....in terms of individual talent, holland,england,france,spain,italy and the czechs were right up there. but when it came to the game plan, coaching and carrying out a plan to perfection then greece took the cake.
 

tooextracool

International Coach
Richard said:
No, Chopra has been far less successful than plenty of Indian openers of recent times. Sehwag's success and relative speed of scoring, however, has meant partnerships between the two have boomed to degrees not seen for a while.
and success has to do with 'runs in a partnership' rather than 'runs by an individual'....or at least success for a team.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Richard said:
No, Chopra has been far less successful than plenty of Indian openers of recent times.

Care to name them?

I suppose it's just coincidence that he and Sehwag have one of the highest average partnerships in history?
 

Top