India's opening pair

[Richard]

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.

So? He still played a very large part in victory.
Relevance on the result isn't the sole thing that matters to whether an innings is good or not, I might add.

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

Who, Vaughan? He's:
a) up to it and
b) not a failure

 

[Neil Pickup]

I don't actually have a clue

I love journalism.

 

[Richard]

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

Well it average is suspiciously similar to Ramprakash's average between 1998 and 2002 when the opening innings are mistakenly included.

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

Eh?

They are surely extensions as well.

Can't have it both ways.

There is something of a difference in removing a first series containing an average of 12 (or something like that) in which the following series produced an average of 42 and removing something which was merely an extension of a promising period where several times big scores were threatened.

 

[Richard]

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

Exactly, the point was one is the result of another.

 

[Richard]

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

Why on Earth not?

 

[marc71178]

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.

1989 series don't you mean?

 

[Richard]

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

Oh, yes, believe it or not I did notice that when I looked-up what I looked-up.
And wholly impressive it certainly is.
But tooextracool was trying to say that when batting four and chasing he has been a conclusive failure.
And, as often, he is stating that things happened in a way they did not.

 

[marc71178]

Well it average is suspiciously similar to Ramprakash's average between 1998 and 2002 when the opening innings are mistakenly included.

If you want to doubt it, look at the run of innings you yourself trumpetted - you'll find that I am indeed talking about those same ones.

And he's still rubbish if you apply similar selective culling as you like to do when it suits you.

 

[Richard]

1989 series don't you mean?

Yes, I may well do.
Like I say, I couldn't actually remember, but now I do - he scored something remarkable in 1989, didn't he?
That was his breakthrough.
Or was it? I'm still sure he was dropped in 1990\91 for Mark, though...

 

[marc71178]

1989 was just about my first taste of Cricket - I remember that swine so well from it.

Actually I think I did watch some in 88 (seem to remember a wicket-keeper who allegedly couldn't bat making his debut against a woeful SL side)

Had the selectors gone for a pure keeper, he'd have most likely broken all records

 

[Richard]

If you want to doubt it, look at the run of innings you yourself trumpetted - you'll find that I am indeed talking about those same ones.

Oh, I don't doubt it, I was just saying why I made the initial mistake.

And he's still rubbish if you apply similar selective culling as you like to do when it suits you.

Well do it if you want - if you consider it selective what's the point?
I don't consider the things you consider selective as such, that's why I believe they show certain bowlers as substandard.

 

[Richard]

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.

I know that, his poor New Zealand series meant no-one could really have many qualms about his axing when it came the second time.

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.

Yes, and there have been plenty of great players who've been successes far more quickly. It wouldn't have helped that he played his first international at 16.
However, the fact is I imagine Tendulkar would have got plenty more chances even if he had been dropped after 8 games. Like Stephen Waugh, in fact.

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

I would - given that they were taken at an average of 37.78.

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.

If 37.78 is OK then that's acceptance of mediocrity in the extreme.

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.

And because he had a poor average in one and a no-more-than-reasonable average in the other neither of them show him to be an especially outstanding bowler, especially given how poor the rest are.

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

This is one of the biggest pieces of rubbish I've ever heard - of course anyone can take wickets without bowling well. It happens so often it's beyond belief.

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

Well, he might have done, the only fact is that he got wickets at a good average in them.
I highly suspect, given the evidence of most of his other full series against competant Test opposition, that he would have averaged much higher than he did had SA had the chance to face him again.

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.

No, I never said they should be totally ignored, but a poor average is by far the most important thing, even if a strike-rate is below 60.
The other bowlers in the side don't influence how good or poor a certain bowler is, either. Exactly the same way Sehwag doesn't influence Chopra's paucity.

 

[Richard]

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

No, he's not, because he need not do both jobs if he can only do the more important one and do it more regularly.

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.

Don't count? Or you don't want them to count?
And you know perfectly well that averaging 37 doesn't mean you score 37 every innings.

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

Unless, of course, he'd do better doing very well in the middle than sensationally at the top when others could do an equally good job in the first 15.

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

Rubbish, look at how many ODI players average 35. Even one of India's finest, Yuvraj Singh, doesn't.

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

Oh, no, I didn't ignore them at all - if I had the average would have been considerably higher, and so would the innings:not-out ratio.

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

No, you think he would do better if he was given more chances. And it's possible he might. But personally I'd much prefer VVS, even if he's not as good a ground-fielder.

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

I guess so too - spectacularly.

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

And the fact that many, many players have "shown similar potential" in the eyes of many (just not the selectors) and been axed never to be seen again says that he's one of a large crowd.

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!

And Stephen Waugh's domestic record is exceptional - not very many averaged 50 in Australian domestic cricket in those days (there are rather a lot who do ATM). Chopra's domestic record is very, very good, but it's one of quite a few, so it doesn't stand-out the way Waugh did.

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

But I have shown that very few of his failures have come when conditions have helped seam or 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.

Oh, no, if you look closely you'll see that I showed no ignorance at all - my referance to "three-and-a-half days" rather than "five" suggests that I actually noticed that there was lots of time lost. But for that, there would have been a result beyond reasonable question.
And I think you might mean England finish India off - that might have something to do with the fact that India's batsmen are rather better players of spin than New Zealand's.

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

You wouldn't be, if most of it was b\s. Sadly for you, not that many actually think so when they've considered it.
You and marc are very much in a minority in finding hardly any time for my ideas after a while.

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.

The point would be that they've rarely come in conditions which have offered anything to the bowlers.
This suggests a flat-track bully to me.

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.

No, cutters can help you a hell of a lot more than high bounce.
I'd much prefer have someone like White who can cut the ball to off and leg than someone like Flintoff who can bang the ball into the pitch and get smashed through square-leg by competant players of the short-ball.

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

Of course it's possible - and if you look at McGrath on non-seaming wickets in the last 3 years you'll see how true it is.
Of course, the chances are you won't remember much with great accuracy so it won't help much.
And you've said plenty of times that most of Warne's wickets on non-turners have been due to poor batting.

 

[marc71178]

Well do it if you want - if you consider it selective what's the point?
I don't consider the things you consider selective as such, that's why I believe they show certain bowlers as substandard.

In that case you must also accept that Ramprakash was substandard even in his best run of form.

 

[marc71178]

Of course it's possible - and if you look at McGrath on non-seaming wickets in the last 3 years you'll see how true it is.

Anthony McGrath has hardly played and isn't a bowler, so what's your point?

 

[Bas]

Are we so quick to forget Sehwag's 309 against Pakistan? And his 195 on the first day against Australia? He is supremely talented but surely his scoring record shows that he is making good use of that talent in the opening position. He has made five centuries (including a triple) and four half-centuries in 18 matches as opener.

So what if he is not a specialist opener. I doubt any supposed specialist (or non-specialist) could beat that kind or record. Sehwag is the man for the job.

For me, Chopra is the ideal foil for sehwag's flamboyance. In the Australia, India's batting performances were made possible by Sehwag and Chopra who saw of the new ball with solid partnerships of 50+ in most innings.

 

[Richard]

In that case you must also accept that Ramprakash was substandard even in his best run of form.

No, he wasn't, he just wasn't scoring enough half-centuries.
Before the New Zealand series there was no pressure on his place, because he'd done perfectly acceptibly (not substandard, not exceptional) in those two series.

 

[Richard]

Are we so quick to forget Sehwag's 309 against Pakistan? And his 195 on the first day against Australia? He is supremely talented but surely his scoring record shows that he is making good use of that talent in the opening position. He has made five centuries (including a triple) and four half-centuries in 18 matches as opener.

So what if he is not a specialist opener. I doubt any supposed specialist (or non-specialist) could beat that kind or record. Sehwag is the man for the job.

We are not quick to forget the 309 and 195, but we are quick to remember that they would have been 77 and 42 but for dropped-catches.
Sehwag is nowhere near as good an opener as he's been made to look.

For me, Chopra is the ideal foil for sehwag's flamboyance. In the Australia, India's batting performances were made possible by Sehwag and Chopra who saw of the new ball with solid partnerships of 50+ in most innings.

And any fool could have played Chopra's role, there are God-knows-how-many Indian openers who have done a similar thing but not had the benefit of having batted with Sehwag and being involved in massive partnerships, thus having their substandardness papered-over.

 

[Richard]

Anthony McGrath has hardly played and isn't a bowler, so what's your point?

Glenn McGrath.

 

[marc71178]

A World Class bowler.