Yuvraj Singh and Andy Symonds

[marc71178]

And the fact that the last Finals was 4 years ago means there can't possibly have been any improvement since then of course.

They haven't even regularly qualified for finals - they have no football pedigree.

And for you to come on here saying how you knew they were good (in spite of not saying anything of the sort before the Tournament) smacks of you desperately looking for something to be right in as everything else you say seems to be disputed by just about every other forum member.

 

[Eclipse]

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.

Thats his big problem.

It's all well and good to be deffensive but you do have to score. When on avrage it take's him about 120 balls to reach 40 runs the chances of him ever making many hundreds are extreamly low.


I am with you he is not test standerd at the moment. The only reason he and Sehwag have a good opening record is Sehwag good form (and considerable amount of luck).

 

[Linda]

Firstly Eclipse... SHEwag?! hehe..

I am agreeing with Richard on some levels. Perhaps Chopra has a fairly good average with Sehwag as partners, but how much of that is to do with him? Sure he can be all defensive and let Sehwag blast away, but what happens when Sehwag is a bit out of form, or just isnt hitting them as aggresively as he is so famous for?
Chopra doesnt contribute to the run scoring, and isnt that what being a batsman is all about?!

 

[marc71178]

And would someone who scores 20 from 20 balls be better then seeing as the middle order then have to face the Newish Ball.

 

[V Reddy]

And would someone who scores 20 from 20 balls be better then seeing as the middle order then have to face the Newish Ball.

If you compare to failure , then most players in the world look like greats .

If a player is going to make 20 from 20 balls in one inning then 100 from 100 in another then i would definately pick him than a player who consistently scores 30 from 150 but not beyond that b'coz then the success of that batsman depends on the success of other batsman.

I would agree with Arjun that maybe Chopra needs to be persisted with for a while to see if he can start converting those starts

 

[marc71178]

My point was is an opener who scores 20 at run a ball better than one who scores 20 in 50 or 60 balls?

 

[Richard]

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.

Greece's players were every bit as good as those of any other team - and they showed it. It takes some skill to play to a plan, you know. And coaching can't turn a bad player into a good one.

 

[Richard]

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

No, I'm not, I assure you. And I might point-out that even if Chopra was one of the best short-legs ever, and he's not, it doesn't make any compensation for substandard batting.

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.

No fingerspin bowler is going to make himself threatening if he only has rough to work with (and not all pitches end-up with significant footholds anyway), he needs the ball to turn appreciaby off the pitch. There is no point in playing fingerspinners outside the subcontinet. And no matter how slow the turn, if there's enough of it good spin bowlers will take cheap wickets.

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.

No, catches at short-leg can only ever come from batting error. Batting error does not constitute good bowling. It is batting error resulting in catches at short-leg that happen less nowadays, now that batsmen are properly protected from body blows.

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

My point is anyone could "work well" with Sehwag if he gets the figures he's been getting recently.

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.

A misjudged shot is throwing your wicket away. And there are not going to be many good balls flying around when the like of Lee, Bracken, Williams, Sami, Tuffey and Butler are bowling on wickets like Chopra's games were played on.

yes that is true but he needs to be given a longer stint,he hasnt done badly and the partnership has gone well.

He has done badly and he has had a fair stint - something like 18 innings is a fair time to judge people.

 

[marc71178]

No, catches at short-leg can only ever come from batting error.

Whatever you say, we all know that in spite of the rest of us agreeing on things, you know better.

 

[Richard]

Care to name them?

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

Das and Ramesh's averages are considerably higher.
It's not coincidence, but it says far more about Sehwag than Chopra.

 

[Richard]

Whatever you say, we all know that in spite of the rest of us agreeing on things, you know better.

Care to detail some recent examples of catches at short-leg being though good bowling?

 

[Neil Pickup]

Greece's players were every bit as good as those of any other team - and they showed it.

As shown by the way that the Greek side have starred at football's glamour clubs such as Perugia, Leicester, Bolton, Sheffield United and Burnley in recent years?

 

[Richard]

They haven't even regularly qualified for finals - they have no football pedigree.

And for you to come on here saying how you knew they were good (in spite of not saying anything of the sort before the Tournament) smacks of you desperately looking for something to be right in as everything else you say seems to be disputed by just about every other forum member.

I never said I knew they were good - I was as astounded as most people when they kept doing as well as they did.
Their past and apparent lack of pedigree does not, however, mean they cannot have been far better than most people realised - and they were. Because you don't win European Championships without a very, very good set of players.
Greece were not greater than the sum of their parts - they were greater than the reputation of the sum of their parts.

 

[Richard]

As shown by the way that the Greek side have starred at football's glamour clubs such as Perugia, Leicester, Bolton, Sheffield United and Burnley in recent years?

How many players have underperformed for ages and then performed at the right times?

 

[marc71178]

Das and Ramesh's averages are considerably higher.
It's not coincidence, but it says far more about Sehwag than Chopra.

Yes because had Chopra got out in the first few overs, the opening partnership would still have been into 3 figures!

 

[Richard]

My point was is an opener who scores 20 at run a ball better than one who scores 20 in 50 or 60 balls?

One who scores 20 off 50 or 60 balls is better.
However, one who repeatedly scores 40 off 120 balls followed by 3 or 4 off 10 balls is less useful than someone who consistently scores high numbers of runs.
Not that any Indian opener has done that in recent times, but plenty have been exposed for their lack of runs while one other has been championed due to his being in the right place at the right time (with the right partner).

 

[marc71178]

How many players have underperformed for ages and then performed at the right times?

Steve Harmison?

Oh sorry, I forget, he's only taken 40+ wickets in 7 Tests because of batsman error.

 

[Richard]

Yes because had Chopra got out in the first few overs, the opening partnership would still have been into 3 figures!

And every Chopra-Sehwag opening stand has ended in 3 figures, has it?

 

[Richard]

Steve Harmison?

Oh sorry, I forget, he's only taken 40+ wickets in 7 Tests because of batsman error.

Check-out most of those wickets and you'll find-out that statement you just made is absolutely right.
But of course Harmison must deserve credit for every one of those poor strokes. And the others from which catches have been dropped, too.

 

[marc71178]

One who scores 20 off 50 or 60 balls is better.

Or, the Chopra option as it is more commonly known?

However, one who repeatedly scores 40 off 120 balls followed by 3 or 4 off 10 balls is less useful than someone who consistently scores high numbers of runs.

Blimey, what insight, I'd never have guessed an inconsistent yet fairly low-scoring player is less useful than a consistently hgh scoring player.

Not that any Indian opener has done that in recent times, but plenty have been exposed for their lack of runs while one other has been championed due to his being in the right place at the right time (with the right partner).

Right place at right time?

He's played 15 innings in Tests - 5 times out in single figures, and the rest he's made at least 20. In fact he's made 5 in single figures, 2 in the 20s, 2 in the 30s, 4 in the 40s, and 2 half centuries.

That is shocking batting! He's been championed becasue he's been part of a successful partnership (Cricket is a team game, no matter what you think) and that partnership has made some great starts for India where all others have failed.

He is a consistent player who does not deserve to be dropped and certainly doesn't deserve the accusations you point at him, but then again as soon as you decide a player is bad, we all have to agree don't we, in spite of the evidence.