Yuvraj Or Chopra

[tooextracool]

No, because both have failed at the Test-level.
Sriram hasn't played at the Test-level, so the only comparison viable is First-Class averages. Especially considering Chopra's failed at the Test-level, too.

and who are you to say that sriram wont fail even more miserably than chopra did?

 

[marc71178]

Yes, of course it is - so, whereas for an Australian (for instance) it would be that someone averaging 50 would be a better bet than someone averaging 43, for an Indian it's someone averaging 60 would be a better bet than someone averaging 50.

When they're over a certain level, it's how not how many.

 

[SJS]

err how about watching him bat as a comparison??
as i said before,

You said it !

Unfortunately since fans/arm chair critics dont get to see many of the players and have only stats to go by, they somehow assume they are better placed than selectors who see them AS WELL AS have access to stats

 

[Richard]

Then there's no way you can say Sriram is a superior batsman at Test level! I don't care how many runs you score in domestic cricket, if you fail to duplicate it at Test level then you're inferior to the mild domestic batsman with the Test hundreds. Sriram may well be a superior batsman, but who are you to state that he is before he's played a single Test?

And I haven't!!!!
I have simply suggested that it might be an idea to find-out whether or not Sriram is a superior player at the Test-level, given that he's been superior at the domestic level for quite a while now.

 

[Richard]

err how about watching him bat as a comparison??
as i said before, just because hick averaged more than everyone else in domestic cricket, it doesnt make him better.

And almost everyone who watched Hick bat in domestic-First-Class-cricket couldn't have the slightest clue that he wasn't going to prove superior to everyone else at the Test-level.
Watching is a good idea, yes, but you must watch at least 6 or 7 times, and significantly, you must watch someone score runs, before making-up your mind.
You can't just say "he's got a high average but whenever I've watched him he's failed so he must be crap".
The amount Sriram has played for the A-team, too, seems to suggest that no-one's exactly written him off.

 

[Richard]

and who are you to say that sriram wont fail even more miserably than chopra did?

He might do.
But I still think he should be given the chance, rather than giving Chopra yet more chances or picking two middle-order batsmen to open.

 

[Richard]

When they're over a certain level, it's how not how many.

Partly true - I'd say it's how and how many.

 

[Richard]

You said it !

Unfortunately since fans/arm chair critics dont get to see many of the players and have only stats to go by, they somehow assume they are better placed than selectors who see them AS WELL AS have access to stats

Which is the whole point of paying selectors to do the job, rather than just grabbing one man off the street and having him analyse a whole load of stats then pick the team.
That, of course, and you need a culpable scapegoat. It has to matter to those doing the job.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

And I haven't!!!!
I have simply suggested that it might be an idea to find-out whether or not Sriram is a superior player at the Test-level, given that he's been superior at the domestic level for quite a while now.

You said your MO he's a superior batsman. Couldn't be bothered to verify if that's actually what you said, so if I misread, apologies.

 

[Richard]

What I actually said was "inferiors of his have been tried" - I guess it was obvious to me what I meant (ie people whom he has outperformed at the only comparable level, Indian domestic, have been tried for Tests while he hasn't). It is not, however, crystal clear and it's wholly understandible for anyone to skim-read my posts.

 

[marc71178]

Partly true - I'd say it's how and how many.

Of the 2, how is more important than a couple of extra runs.

 

[Tom Halsey]

A couple of extra runs could come in very handy in a close Test match.

 

[tooextracool]

And I haven't!!!!
I have simply suggested that it might be an idea to find-out whether or not Sriram is a superior player at the Test-level, given that he's been superior at the domestic level for quite a while now.

thats certainly not what i remember you saying....
"Personally I'd say someone with an average of pushing 60 is a superior of someone just averaging 50 (Chopra)."

perhaps you missed out a 'might be' somewhere around there which wouldnt have started this entire argument in the first place?

 

[tooextracool]

He might do.
But I still think he should be given the chance, rather than giving Chopra yet more chances or picking two middle-order batsmen to open.

and when have i said that he shouldnt be given a chance?ive simply stated that theres no way you can say for sure that he is better than chopra.
and you know where i stand on chopra ie he should be given more chances, and that is the view of a massive group of people.

 

[tooextracool]

And almost everyone who watched Hick bat in domestic-First-Class-cricket couldn't have the slightest clue that he wasn't going to prove superior to everyone else at the Test-level.
Watching is a good idea, yes, but you must watch at least 6 or 7 times, and significantly, you must watch someone score runs, before making-up your mind.
You can't just say "he's got a high average but whenever I've watched him he's failed so he must be crap".
The amount Sriram has played for the A-team, too, seems to suggest that no-one's exactly written him off.

yet you yourself said that you saw a significant hick weakness when he played......and no you cant decide from stats whether someone is a better player than another, you do that by watching them and by looking at their stats. obviously someone whos averaging consistently in the 60s deserves a chance, but theres no way anyone can make a bold claim that hes a better player than someone else that averages a tad under him.

 

[marc71178]

A couple of extra runs could come in very handy in a close Test match.

Except I'm talking about suitability for Tests, not Test averages.

 

[Richard]

thats certainly not what i remember you saying....
"Personally I'd say someone with an average of pushing 60 is a superior of someone just averaging 50 (Chopra)."

perhaps you missed out a 'might be' somewhere around there which wouldnt have started this entire argument in the first place?

If you look carefully you'll see that I stated that Sriram was a superior of Chopra (and others) at the domestic level.
If the like of you hadn't jumped to the conclusion that I was saying that automatically meant he had to be a superior at the Test-level there wouldn't have been a problem.

 

[Richard]

and when have i said that he shouldnt be given a chance?ive simply stated that theres no way you can say for sure that he is better than chopra.
and you know where i stand on chopra ie he should be given more chances, and that is the view of a massive group of people.

And I've never said I think he is unquestionably better than Chopra - just that he's done better at one level so he should be given the chance to do better at the next one up.
You have got your wish, for one Test at least, with Chopra - let's hope he justifies all of you lot's faith in him.

 

[Richard]

yet you yourself said that you saw a significant hick weakness when he played......

No, I didn't - I didn't watch cricket at the time.
I said that someone thought they saw one, and IMO they were proven right.
IYO they weren't, because as far as you're concerned his failings were temperamental not technical.

and no you cant decide from stats whether someone is a better player than another, you do that by watching them and by looking at their stats.

Oh, the only way most people accept that someone is better than another is his achievements (mostly summarised by generally-used stats) at the highest level (Tests and ODIs).
You can make a pretty good guess at who's going to make the greatest achievements at Test and ODI level by doing what you said - but you can't be certain.

obviously someone whos averaging consistently in the 60s deserves a chance, but theres no way anyone can make a bold claim that hes a better player than someone else that averages a tad under him.

And hence I've not made that claim.
But 10 is a bit more than just "a tad".

 

[marc71178]

You have got your wish, for one Test at least, with Chopra - let's hope he justifies all of you lot's faith in him.

And regardless of whether he does well or not, you'll still have a go at him, probably because this Aussie attack isn't as good as the Zimbabwe attack Das faced.