India's opening pair

[Richard]

But more importantly he only got over 40 twice in 16 innings and averaged 33.94

However, since his 133 and 58 are clearly anomalies and don't agree with any trend of his in the past, I'm going to adopt your method and strike them from the record, thus he only averaged 25.14 in that time.

And yet again you have to resort to including the opening innings, in spite of the fact that you have never provided a reason I have not disproved for why they should be included.
And the 133 and 58 are not anomalies, they are extensions - he did not get under 14 in 14 innings either.

 

[Richard]

No, his real problem was not having the physical or mental ability to cope with International Cricket.

So what problems did these problems cause?
Maybe the failure to convert 20s and 30s into 60s and 70s?
Who gives a flying f**k if someone's perceived not to have the mental or physical strength to cope with international cricket if they're scoring 60s and 70s here there and everywhere and averaging 55?

 

[Richard]

So what would he be then?

Proven failure is pretty conclusive.

Oh, yes, it's conclusive, but it doesn't mean it can't be turned-around.

 

[Richard]

why because it proves you wrong?

No, because it proves nothing.

you were the one that came up with the idea that rhodes failed for the first 5 yrs and waugh failed for 6, when i show you that you were wrong you characteristically change topic.

I was talking about a failure for the period as a whole, not year-by-year. See?

 

[Richard]

2 of those scores were part of a losing cause in any case, just like most of the other ramprakash innings. the 67* could barely be considered a match winning innings considering that butcher scored more than him and also considering that england winning had more to do with the bowling of fraser and cork and then some good 2nd inning battin from atherton. interestingly all those innings you mentiond came over 4 years before his last test.

Yes, true, but you said he couldn't play match-influencing innings. At all.
I never said he played a lot. But I did name a few occasions on which he played a very important (not neccesarily the most important) part in the match.

and he only scored 1 100 in that period too....yes i'll agree that vaughan wasnt batting in the right position, in fact i posted it on here at the time. but vaughan when he scored he scored big and that was represented in those 3 big 100s that he scored in that period. ramprakash's inability to score 50s often enough showed everyone really that mentally he wasnt good enough to play international cricket

Yes, very true, all of that.
Vaughan's ability to score big when he scores is precisely the reason why him opening the batting is such a bad idea, because he'll so often get out cheaply or relatively cheaply early on. When he's getting-out cheaply less, he'll score very big more often.

 

[lord_of_darkness]

^ Can we get back to the real topic man..

 

[Richard]

so the fact that he didnt even deserve to be in the side in the first place says that he cant be unfortunate to be dropped in 2002 as well.

And I have always said no-one could have any qualms about his axing in 2002.
An important thing, however, is to make use of an undeserved chance. Ramprakash most certainly did - even you cannot deny that, given his form in the next 4 series after his undeserved chance.

no you said that 10-15 innings would be enough time to judge whether a player is good enough or not and after 13 innings tendulkars average was in the high 20s

And after 15 it was over 40.

yes but his failure was in the 2nd innings of that test match on the flattest wicket in the series.

No, his failure was for all that series except the Bridgetown Test.

no he was instrumental in the success of the first 3 tests so he bowled extremely well.

He was instrumental in the success at Bridgetown and probably bowled extremely well. He bowled very poorly in the first 2 Tests and played little part in either victory.

why dont you look at one off tests? considering that warne's place in the side was fixed thats all he got at the time and when he did he bowled well and picked up wickets. why shouldnt it be considered i'll never understand. it was against a quality team wasnt it?
so you cant count either?
the way i see it hes had 1 good series against england, 1 good series against pakistan and 2 good series against the WI.

No, he had no good series against West Indies, he had one reasonable series and one series where he had 1 excellent Test and 3 very poor ones.
He also had a good series in Pakistan which can be attributed to beginner's luck and an excellent series against England which can be attiributed to English incompetance against any form of wristspin, no matter how rubbish.
And he had two good one-off Tests against South Africa where I have little doubt that they would have conquered him later had they had the chance.

sorry but how stupid is this? SR is the most important figure for any test match spinner because its far more important for them to take wickets than give away runs. id definetly take 2/58 over 1/25, especially considering the quality of the pace bowlers in the side it seems that keeping the runs down isnt completely necessary.

When have I disputed this? All I've said is that economy-rate isn't completely unimportant.

 

[Richard]

^ Can we get back to the real topic man..

Shortly, hopefully.
If you look deep enough I think you'll find this has some relevance to the topic. I think so...

 

[lord_of_darkness]

If you look deep enough I think you'll find this has some relevance to the topic. I think so...

Im sure if we look down through to some ancestoral records we might find something of short relevance..

 

[Richard]

yes so the fact that tendulkar averages 7 runs more than ganguly at the top ATM it means that he is a far better player at the top.

No, it means he is a better opening-batsman.
It doesn't mean he is better at hammering it in the first 15, which is what I was talking about.

so then lets hear it,how many times did he succeed in run chases? given that batting at 4 requires you to be somewhat competent in run chases especially considering hes been move down from a far more successful position for this.

Well considering his average at four when India have batted second is a more-than-acceptible 37.05, and he's been not-out in one fifth of his innings, I'd say he's done a reasonable job.

for a player as exceptional as tendulkar it is ordinary, and the fact that hes doing far better job at the top than he is at 4....

It's not ordinary compared to most others.

so lets see all his scores from the 99 wc at 4 then shall we?
140* 4 not out 1 W World Cup 15 v Ken in Eng 1999 at Bristol
2 4 bowled 1 W World Cup 21 v SL in Eng 1999 at Taunton
22 4 caught 1 W World Cup 25 v Eng in Eng 1999 at Birmingham
0 4 caught 2 * W 5th ODI v NZ in Ind 1999/00 at Delhi
13 4 bowled 1 * L C&U Ser. 2 v Pak in Aus 1999/00 at Brisbane
12 4 run out 2 * L C&U Ser. 3 v Aus in Aus 1999/00 at Melbourne
34* 4 not out 2 W 3rd ODI v WI in WI 2001/02 at Bridgetown
65 4 bowled 1 W 5th ODI v WI in WI 2001/02 at Port of Spain
1 4 lbw 2 W NW Series 2 v Eng in Eng 2002 at Lord's
49 4 caught wk 2 W NW Series 3 v SL in Eng 2002 at The Oval
105* 4 not out 1 N NW Series 5 v Eng in Eng 2002 at Chester-le-Street
19 4 caught 2 W NW Series 6 v SL in Eng 2002 at Birmingham
36 4 caught wk 2 L NW Series 8 v Eng in Eng 2002 at The Oval
113 4 caught 1 W NW Series 9 v SL in Eng 2002 at Bristol
14 4 bowled 2 W NW Series F v Eng in Eng 2002 at Lord's
7 4 caught 1 W ICC KO 3 v Zim in SL 2002/03 at Colombo
9* 4 not out 2 W ICC KO 11 v Eng in SL 2002/03 at Colombo
16 4 run out 1 W ICC KO SF v SA in SL 2002/03 at Colombo
0 4 lbw 2 W 5th ODI v NZ in NZ 2002/03 at Wellington
1 4 caught wk 2 W 6th ODI v NZ in NZ 2002/03 at Auckland

as you can see clearly that same tendulkar failed in the entire 99 wc batting at 4, yet of course we all know that if he had batted 4 in the 03 edition india would have won the cup. its also interesting to note that he failed in his last 6 innings at 4(7 if you count the match in NZ where he batted at 3) so his being sent back to the top was justifiable. the 38 average is also inflated by his 140* against kenya in the 99 wc so it should probably be a lot lower than that.

He didn't fail in his last 7 innings at four or three, he failed in 6 of them, because one was a not-out, and a not-out cannot be a failure.
Excluding that Kenya innings his average at four is 35.38, still pretty good.
And the fact that he failed in all of WC99 at four (and I can't believe he wouldn't have scored quite a few against anyone else on that Kenya day had he got the chance) is of what relevance? Given that he's succeeded since.
We do not know that India would have won WC2003 if he'd batted at four at all, but they'd have had a better chance if you ask me.

look at it in context, all his scores have come when hes been sent in to bat early, his 87* vs england, 111 against zimbabwe, 68 against NZ, 95 vs SA,64 vs NZ and the 71 vs pak

Yes, so they have. He's still not done very well when batting at four.

nope ganguly has been good at 3 so he bats at 3, dravid at 4, kaif at 5 and yuvraj at 6 suggests to me to be the right batting order. theres no place for tendulkar there IMO

So you would really prefer Kaif to Laxman?

yes but if you had done the same thing with those players then they wouldnt have got their chance to become as good as they are today. that suggests to me that they deserve more chances at the intl level.

And the fact that very few players get the chances they did suggests to me that Chopra should be among the majority, not the minority.

yes and looking at chopras appalling first class average of nearly 50, he clearly doesnt deserve any more chances.....

And looking at the number of Indian opening-batsmen with averages in the late 40s or early 50s who've not done much in Test-cricket, no, he doesn't. And AFAIK the only one to average in the high 50s doesn't even get a look-in.

and how many other seaming or turning wickets has he played on?? not many and the fact that he has succeeded in several of them suggests to me that he cant be considered a flat track bully.

Exactly - not many. And the fact that he's failed in most of them suggest to me that he is a flat-track bully.

rubbish , you didnt even watch that series! yes the first test wicket was flat, but the 2nd test wicket was a blatant turner. paul wiseman took 4 wickets in the first innings and the totals in the respective innings were 305,298,183,72/1, those arent high scores at all. and surprise surprise richardson scored 2 50s. any more stuff from handpicking.com?

So why couldn't Sri Lanka finish New Zealand off, then? If it was such an extravagant turner, they should have been able to win three-and-a-half days, against such relatively poor players of spin.

any more tripe that you are going to bring up?

Probably, given that your best attempt at dismissal of anything I write is as such.

id like to see how many innings on seamer friendly or turning conditions that richardson has failed on!

More easy to look at is when he has scored runs:
99 vs Zimbabwe, on a pitch where New Zealand made 465 and Zimbabwe scored 370 in their follow-on. Suggests to me it was pretty good for batting.
77 vs South Africa at Bloemfontein which is notorious for slow, low wickets with no seam-movement. This one, I can tell you having watched the game, was no different.
60 at St. George's Park vs South Africa - typical wicket here, too, slow, low and seaming - scoring runs wasn't easy, he did it pretty well.
75 at Basin Reserve vs Zimbabwe, 19 wickets fell in the entire game, impossibly slow pitch, nothing in anywhere for any bowlers.
59 vs Pakistan at Eden Park, nothing in the wicket for any bowlers. The Sami-instigated collapse was one of the worst ever seen.
119 for once out at Christchurch, on a wicket as dead as anything you'll see - the drop-in experiment hadn't yet been honed.
106 at WPT Park, Hamilton, out of a total of 407 for 4. Barring that declaration, it would probably have been 600 or 700. A pretty good batting wicket, something makes me think.
57 vs Aus at The Gabba - second-innings, flat wicket but he still deserves credit for playing in a style unsuited to him in a short run-chase.
143 and 83 vs Bangladesh - "Bangladesh" - that's all we need to know there. Though I'm assured the wickets were very flat, in a Bond discussion.
76 vs Eng at Christchurch - absolutely plumb lbw on 33.
60 at Basin Reserve - dropped 3 times.
95 and 71 vs WI at St.George's, Greneda, 1099 runs for 25 wickets in the match. Pretty flat wicket, methinks.
113 for once out vs India at Basin Reserve - excellent performance on one of the best seamers' wickets you'll see.
91 for once out vs SL at PSS, flat a wicket as you'll see, Vaas on off-day.
55 and 55 at Kandy, seemingly yet more dispute over whether the pitch was turning or not.
145 at Mohali, flat as any wicket you'll see.
82 and 41 vs Pak at Basin Reserve - very flat wicket, only Shoaib's genius forced a result.
93 and 101 at Lord's - very little in that pitch for the bowlers.
73 and 49 at Trent Bridge - good performance, that pitch offered no little turn.
Of course, only on the England games can I remember off the top of my head whether there were any let-offs, and I can't be bothered to dredge through all the reports to find-out.
It's highly unlikely there won't have been some somewhere, though.

oh yes bowlers have penetrative techniques too now dont they?

Err, yes, any fool can see that.
Seam, conventional-swing, reverse-swing, cutters, turn, drift, loop. None of which are much use without a certain amount of accuracy and bounce.

yet hes taken so very many wickets in non seaming conditions, the 15.35 average in the most spinner friendly conditions in india in 2001 certainly is a valid example isnt it?

Yep, and there are plenty more.
From the lot I've seen, all down to poor strokes, some from tail-enders, some from top-order.

 

[Richard]

Im sure if we look down through to some ancestoral records we might find something of short relevance..

You can probably blame tooextracool for it going off-topic, if you mind, that is.
I don't, myself. I like evolution of discussion.

 

[tooextracool]

No, because it proves nothing.

how does it not prove anything?the fact that he had been successful in many more series than ramprakash was early on must say something!

I was talking about a failure for the period as a whole, not year-by-year. See?

and it wasnt a failure for the period as a whole.....steve waugh even managed to get that average upto 40 in mid 89 just so you know it. you cannot say that someone who was averaging in the 40s in 89 as a failure in his first 4 years.

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, true, but you said he couldn't play match-influencing innings. At all.
I never said he played a lot. But I did name a few occasions on which he played a very important (not neccesarily the most important) part in the match.

i said that he hadnt played match winning or match saving innings, and 2 of those innings that you mentioned had no relevance on the result, the other one barely mattered because the victory had a lot to do with the rest of the side rather than ramps innings.

Yes, very true, all of that.
Vaughan's ability to score big when he scores is precisely the reason why him opening the batting is such a bad idea, because he'll so often get out cheaply or relatively cheaply early on. When he's getting-out cheaply less, he'll score very big more often.

well if he wasnt up to it mentally why was he not a failure?

 

[tooextracool]

And I have always said no-one could have any qualms about his axing in 2002.
An important thing, however, is to make use of an undeserved chance. Ramprakash most certainly did - even you cannot deny that, given his form in the next 4 series after his undeserved chance.

yes he did take his chance and scored, but one year does not make someone successful and ramprakash as much potential as he had and as much as you would like to think not, didnt manage to keep the momentum going for long enough.

And after 15 it was over 40.

but if all selectors thought like you did he would have been dropped after 13. regardless it took him 13 innings for someone as good as sachin to turn it around, you cant prove that chopra wouldnt have turned it around in his very next innings.....2 innings dont make that much of a difference.

No, his failure was for all that series except the Bridgetown Test..

no i wouldnt call taking 9 wickets in 2 tests as failures....

He was instrumental in the success at Bridgetown and probably bowled extremely well. He bowled very poorly in the first 2 Tests and played little part in either victory.

no he didnt, he was ok in the first 2 tests as you would expect from most bowlers when they bowl in non turning conditions.

No, he had no good series against West Indies, he had one reasonable series and one series where he had 1 excellent Test and 3 very poor ones.

no he had 2 other good series against the WI, one in aus with a SR of 58.50 and another in the WI in 99 with an SR of 59.75.

He also had a good series in Pakistan which can be attributed to beginner's luck

and you cannot take wickets without bowling well, so there was no luck but just good bowling.

And he had two good one-off Tests against South Africa where I have little doubt that they would have conquered him later had they had the chance

except that you can only speculate....the fact is that he bowled well in both those tests.

When have I disputed this? All I've said is that economy-rate isn't completely unimportant.

err you just said that SR's should be totally ignored....the SR is the most important statistic when it comes to looking at bowlers, especially in a side that includes mcgrath and gillespie who have generally been extremely mean when it comes to giving away runs.

 

[marc71178]

And yet again you have to resort to including the opening innings, in spite of the fact that you have never provided a reason I have not disproved for why they should be included.

I only used the run of scores you trumpeted, so no opening innings there

And the 133 and 58 are not anomalies, they are extensions - he did not get under 14 in 14 innings either.

Yet bowlers who do well can be removed to suit you?

They are surely extensions as well.

Can't have it both ways.

 

[marc71178]

Who gives a flying f**k if someone's perceived not to have the mental or physical strength to cope with international cricket if they're scoring 60s and 70s here there and everywhere and averaging 55?

If they're scoring 60s and 70s they're not lacking in mental strength...

 

[marc71178]

Oh, yes, it's conclusive, but it doesn't mean it can't be turned-around.

If it's conclusive, it can't be turned round though.

 

[marc71178]

Well considering his average at four when India have batted second is a more-than-acceptible 37.05, and he's been not-out in one fifth of his innings, I'd say he's done a reasonable job.

When opening and batting second it's 52.54 and he's not out 1 in 9 - truly shocking.

 

[tooextracool]

No, it means he is a better opening-batsman.
It doesn't mean he is better at hammering it in the first 15, which is what I was talking about.

but an openers job is to do both and since he does that best and has been signifcantly worse at 4 hes better off opening the batting

Well considering his average at four when India have batted second is a more-than-acceptible 37.05, and he's been not-out in one fifth of his innings, I'd say he's done a reasonable job.

whats your point? the fact is that he hasnt been able to help his team in run chases and scoring 37 when the team is chasing 280 doesnt help. regardless a considerable number of his scores came when they were chasing low scores so they dont count either. i've shown you all his scores in the 2nd innings at 4 and he hasnt done much at all to suggest to me that hes actually been doing the job hes been assigned to do.

It's not ordinary compared to most others.

no but its ordinary for him and you dont make someone like sachin look ordinary, especially when hes been shining at the top

He didn't fail in his last 7 innings at four or three, he failed in 6 of them, because one was a not-out, and a not-out cannot be a failure.
Excluding that Kenya innings his average at four is 35.38, still pretty good.

no 35 is extremely ordinary by any standards in ODI cricket today, he would be struggling to get into the side with that average!

And the fact that he failed in all of WC99 at four (and I can't believe he wouldn't have scored quite a few against anyone else on that Kenya day had he got the chance) is of what relevance? Given that he's succeeded since.
We do not know that India would have won WC2003 if he'd batted at four at all, but they'd have had a better chance if you ask me.

conveniently ignoring the string of 6 failures in his last 6 innings. its not succeeding when you dont help your team batting 2nd!

Yes, so they have. He's still not done very well when batting at four..

and he would do better if he was given more chances....regardless im not batting him at 4 im batting him at 5.

So you would really prefer Kaif to Laxman?

thats the problem with the indian side IMO....theres only place for one of them and i guess laxman bats ahead of kaif.

And the fact that very few players get the chances they did suggests to me that Chopra should be among the majority, not the minority.

nope the fact that several players who have shown similar potential have got more chances than him says that hes been extremely unlucky.

And looking at the number of Indian opening-batsmen with averages in the late 40s or early 50s who've not done much in Test-cricket, no, he doesn't. And AFAIK the only one to average in the high 50s doesn't even get a look-in.

no you said that the reason you would give waugh more chances was because he had a good domestic record, if chopra also has a very good record then he too should get more chances, just like ramesh and das did!

Exactly - not many. And the fact that he's failed in most of them suggest to me that he is a flat-track bully.

and the fact that you havent shown me instances of his failings suggests to me that you cant prove it.

So why couldn't Sri Lanka finish New Zealand off, then? If it was such an extravagant turner, they should have been able to win three-and-a-half days, against such relatively poor players of spin.

much the same way that india couldnt finish off england in that motera test you might say?
no you once again show your ignorance, because 5 whole sessions of the match were washed out, so its quite conceivable that if it hadnt rained we would have seen a result.

Probably, given that your best attempt at dismissal of anything I write is as such..

considering most of it is b/s im not doing too much wrong then am i?

More easy to look at is when he has scored runs:
99 vs Zimbabwe, on a pitch where New Zealand made 465 and Zimbabwe scored 370 in their follow-on. Suggests to me it was pretty good for batting.
77 vs South Africa at Bloemfontein which is notorious for slow, low wickets with no seam-movement. This one, I can tell you having watched the game, was no different.
60 at St. George's Park vs South Africa - typical wicket here, too, slow, low and seaming - scoring runs wasn't easy, he did it pretty well.
75 at Basin Reserve vs Zimbabwe, 19 wickets fell in the entire game, impossibly slow pitch, nothing in anywhere for any bowlers.
59 vs Pakistan at Eden Park, nothing in the wicket for any bowlers. The Sami-instigated collapse was one of the worst ever seen.
119 for once out at Christchurch, on a wicket as dead as anything you'll see - the drop-in experiment hadn't yet been honed.
106 at WPT Park, Hamilton, out of a total of 407 for 4. Barring that declaration, it would probably have been 600 or 700. A pretty good batting wicket, something makes me think.
57 vs Aus at The Gabba - second-innings, flat wicket but he still deserves credit for playing in a style unsuited to him in a short run-chase.
143 and 83 vs Bangladesh - "Bangladesh" - that's all we need to know there. Though I'm assured the wickets were very flat, in a Bond discussion.
76 vs Eng at Christchurch - absolutely plumb lbw on 33.
60 at Basin Reserve - dropped 3 times.
95 and 71 vs WI at St.George's, Greneda, 1099 runs for 25 wickets in the match. Pretty flat wicket, methinks.
113 for once out vs India at Basin Reserve - excellent performance on one of the best seamers' wickets you'll see.
91 for once out vs SL at PSS, flat a wicket as you'll see, Vaas on off-day.
55 and 55 at Kandy, seemingly yet more dispute over whether the pitch was turning or not.
145 at Mohali, flat as any wicket you'll see.
82 and 41 vs Pak at Basin Reserve - very flat wicket, only Shoaib's genius forced a result.
93 and 101 at Lord's - very little in that pitch for the bowlers.
73 and 49 at Trent Bridge - good performance, that pitch offered no little turn.
Of course, only on the England games can I remember off the top of my head whether there were any let-offs, and I can't be bothered to dredge through all the reports to find-out.
It's highly unlikely there won't have been some somewhere, though.

how does this prove anything at all?i've said time and time again that richardson hasnt played much on seaming or turning wickets so the point of bringing his successful performances would be? show me a list of failures on seamers or turners, that would prove something.

Err, yes, any fool can see that.
Seam, conventional-swing, reverse-swing, cutters, turn, drift, loop. None of which are much use without a certain amount of accuracy and bounce.

most of those rely on the pitch, the point is what can a bowler do when he doesnt get help from the pitch and only accuracy,bounce and reverse swing can help you in those situations.

Yep, and there are plenty more.
From the lot I've seen, all down to poor strokes, some from tail-enders, some from top-order.

once again rubbish, its not possible for someone to get all his wickets from poor strokes.

 

[Richard]

how does it not prove anything?the fact that he had been successful in many more series than ramprakash was early on must say something!

What on Earth are you on about now?
The thing that doesn't prove anything is year-by-year averages.
Who had been successful in many more series than Ramprakash early on? Stephen Waugh? If so, that would probably be because Stephen Waugh was a far, far better player than Ramprakash has ever been.

and it wasnt a failure for the period as a whole.....steve waugh even managed to get that average upto 40 in mid 89 just so you know it. you cannot say that someone who was averaging in the 40s in 89 as a failure in his first 4 years.

All right, I'll admit I don't actually have a clue what Stephen Waugh's early series-by-series record is like, I've just gone by people who said his breakthrough came in the 1990\91 series against England.