tooextracool said:
i meant that flintoff was picked consistently in the test side post 2001 or more accurately after the ind-eng series in india. rhodes on the other hand played every test match from 92 to 98 without performing much at all. surely he was retained for those 6 years due to his remarkable fielding ability......
Flintoff was recalled twice during that time - all right, he didn't play as consistently as Rhodes but I have no doubt had he done so he would have failed even more abysmally than he did in any case.
There are other examples of players who got long terms without seemingly doing much to merit it - Stephen Waugh for instance.
tooextracool said:
chopra might not deserve a free-ride for 6 years.... he should at least get another 2 series like some of the other openers in the past have
Those other openers who have cashed-in against some of the weak attacks they have faced, instead of failing miserably like Chopra has.
tooextracool said:
and despite my trying to show you that he has bowled well in pakistan, against SA at home, in the wc and in a few other series you still wont admit that you have been proved wrong.
He got good figures in the last 2 South Africa ODIs, not in the preceding ones. As I said, each game must be taken individually. By the sounds of things the last game, at least, was played on a seaming track.
tooextracool said:
nope i dont agree with you that the perth wicket turned that much on day 3 and there doesnt seem to be a way to prove that that was the case.....regardless you stated that finger spinners were useless outside the sub continent, so perhaps you'd like to alter that statement by saying that they are useless outside wickets that offer something for them....as are most spinners for that matter.
Wristspinners can turn the ball dangerously on anything. Fingerspinners can turn the ball dangerously only on wickets that are very dry. These wickets regularly occur only in the subcontinent, and sometimes in West Indies.
I have never said "fingerspinners are useless outside the subcontinent", maybe you've tried to misinterpret something I said to suit yourself and try to make it look like I've said something and gone back on it.
Fingerspinners are useless when the pitch does not suit fingerspin. Mostly these wickets occur only in the subcontient and sometimes in West Indies. That is all I will have said, because it is true.
tooextracool said:
now thats just plain stupid.......
yes im quite sure that having lightning quick reflexes and safe hands isnt that difficult......
Safe hands, many have, lightening quick reflexes will make your batting better. The fact is, Bradman's eyes and reflexes weren't exceptional - what made him an exceptional batsman was his concentration.
tooextracool said:
it just shows that there are times when wicket taking balls dont take wickets....which quite refutes your theory
No, it shows that there are times when
good balls don't take wickets. A wicket-taking ball has to take a wicket - otherwise it is simply something that
could have been a wicket-taking ball.
tooextracool said:
it is more likely that placing a short leg against a player who is vulnerable to the short ball would fetch wicket than placing him anywhere else on the field
Good players are never so vulnerable to the short-ball that they'll regularly get caught at short-leg.
tooextracool said:
yes and the others were given far more opportunities to change that....if chopra continued to get out in the same vein for another couple of series then yes he should be dropped like the others were. the fact is that chopra despite being just about as impressive hasnt been given half as many opportunities as the others were.
Because he has failed against poor attacks while others have cashed-in at least sometimes against weaker ones then failed against better bowling.
