Yuvraj Singh and Andy Symonds

[marc71178]

I wonder what our Kiwi friends would make of that.

For me they underperformed in the recent Test series, and I feel a lot of that was to do with injuries.

For you to write them off as "very weak" is very harsh.

 

[Mingster]

In a word, yes - very.

Not with Bond, no. It's fair for you to say, after watching on the England series, to judge on the NZ are a "very weak team".

Butler (whom you rate below all of the Bangladeshi bowlers), Bond, Tuffey, Franklin, Oram is potentially an attack that is above very weak. the

Did you watch NZ during the summer series against PAK and SA? I guess not then.

 

[Nate]

WEAK?? you have to be kidding!! Natwest series ANYONE? kiwis won it i might recall...

 

[marc71178]

I think he's talking Test matches, but still it's not a "very weak" attack.

 

[tooextracool]

And really, how often has the middle-order needed protecting from mighty bowlers such as Sami, Butler, Tuffey, Bracken, Williams and Lee? Not very often, I'd guess.

yes the same middle order that needed protection against those amazing bowlers like dillon,cuffy,blignaut and the like

 

[tooextracool]

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.

no the fact is that there are players who have had poor starts to their test career, yet have improved to make their record a lot better. in the same way why should chopra be dropped when he has impressed technically.

Those other openers who have cashed-in against some of the weak attacks they have faced, instead of failing miserably like Chopra has

i dont know how highly you rate williams,tuffey etc but the fact is that they are still far far better than the bangladeshi and zimbabwian attacks that das seemed to do so very well against!

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.

yes so being one of the most economical bowlers in the 2nd game doesnt count does it?and im sure 3/51(10) in the 4th game were poor figures too especially considering that he was bowling in the death.
oh wait what about the 2/28(10) against pakistan in the first ODI in NZ?or the 2/28(10) against pakistan in the last ODI in NZ when pakistan scored 303? or his 2/33(10) in the 1st ODI in pakistan when pakistan scored 292 in 48 overs?or in the 2nd ODI when he had an E/R of 4.22, pakistan scoring 281, or the 5th ODI where he went for 23 runs of 6 overs, pakistan scoring 277(btw he only played 3 matches in that series so he was pretty consistent too),or his figures in the world cup?
i look forward to seeing how you get out of this mess, probably by calling all of them anomalies.......

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 subcontient", 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.

you said "There is no point in playing fingerspinners outside the subcontinet." i think that pretty muich sums it up.....

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.
There is no point in playing fingerspinners outside the subcontinet.

so vettori getting 12 wickets in NZ against australia was also an anomaly then?fact is that almost every wicket all over the world provides something for the 'quality' finger spinner on the last couple of days. and can you even spell subcontinent??

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.

lighting quick reflexes doesnt make you a brilliant batsman either....see jonty rhodes...

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.

so what would you call the ball that got richardson out in the 2nd inning at headingly(off hoggard)....would every batsman have got out to that? or was it not a wicket taking delivery at all?

Good players are never so vulnerable to the short-ball that they'll regularly get caught at short-leg..

no the point is that they you could place that short leg anywhere else on the field, but the fact is that a batsman who has been vulnerable at short leg is more likely to get out at forward short leg early on in the innings than in any other position on the field.

 

[tooextracool]

...and what about yuvraj?? are you saying its fair to drop a guy who averages 51 from 6 tests???? compared to chopras amazing stats...

you dont bat him in the wrong position because of that......

 

[tooextracool]

And he has faced three weak attacks in his career - out of all the bowlers he's faced, there are two decent ones - Shoaib and Gillespie, both of whom were sub-par in the respective series.

yet alot better than the attacks that das and ramesh were succesful against...

 

[tooextracool]

WEAK?? you have to be kidding!! Natwest series ANYONE? kiwis won it i might recall...

yes im sure that is something to be proud about......lets see they beat a woeful ODI team and another very ordinary ODI outfit.

 

[tooextracool]

Not with Bond, no. It's fair for you to say, after watching on the England series, to judge on the NZ are a "very weak team".

Butler (whom you rate below all of the Bangladeshi bowlers), Bond, Tuffey, Franklin, Oram is potentially an attack that is above very weak. the.

Did you watch NZ during the summer series against PAK and SA? I guess not then.

look at it in context....most of those bowlers didnt play in india and the pitches that they played on were so dead that any fast bowler would have made to look inneffective.

 

[Prince EWS]

...and what about yuvraj?? are you saying its fair to drop a guy who averages 51 from 6 tests???? compared to chopras amazing stats...

Yuvraj's omition wouldnt be a dropping, because he was in to fill a space left becuase of injury.

For him to be left out is not getting dropped.

Also, hes not an opener. It makes just as much sence to leave Patel or Balaji out for Yuvraj.

 

[Richard]

Not with Bond, no. It's fair for you to say, after watching on the England series, to judge on the NZ are a "very weak team".

Butler (whom you rate below all of the Bangladeshi bowlers), Bond, Tuffey, Franklin, Oram is potentially an attack that is above very weak. the

Did you watch NZ during the summer series against PAK and SA? I guess not then.

No, I didn't, and how many of the bowlers covered themselves in glory then, eh? Martin for 2 Tests, anyone else? Oram averaged 32.83 in those two series; Butler took one 6-for and averaged 71 besides; Tuffey averaged 39.75.
So what enlightenment would those series provide, then?
Likewise, how is it so certain that Bond, who has bowled well in two authentic Test-series (one of them on the most seaming pitches seen for a long time) and very poorly in two others, would make such a difference?

 

[Richard]

yet alot better than the attacks that das and ramesh were succesful against...

Indeed? I don't think so, personally.

 

[Richard]

yes the same middle order that needed protection against those amazing bowlers like dillon,cuffy,blignaut and the like

I think not.
Somehow I think they just underperformed.
No-one needs protection from those bowlers. Not if they're batsmen worth their salt.

 

[tooextracool]

Indeed? I don't think so, personally.

err what?you think the likes of manjural islam,blignaut etc were as good as akhtar,williams,lee,gillespie and sami?

 

[tooextracool]

I think not.
Somehow I think they just underperformed.
No-one needs protection from those bowlers. Not if they're batsmen worth their salt.

strange isnt it how they underperform when the openers fail and then suddenly perform brilliantly when they succeed?

 

[Richard]

Chopra did not succeed in a way Das and Ramesh failed. Das' record against Zimbabwe is excellent.
And surely no-one has denied that Bangar, Dasgupta and Jaffer failed for the most part in West Indies?
This is irrelevant in any case:
Even if every opener was out 1st ball in every innings, it does not alter the fact that the likes of Cuffy, Dillon, Blignaut and the like are not proficient at using a new-ball.
So therefore it's no more difficult or easy to face them whenever they're bowling at you.
So yes, it is just coincidence.

 

[Richard]

err what?you think the likes of manjural islam,blignaut etc were as good as akhtar,williams,lee,gillespie and sami?

Das and Ramesh have played one Test each against Bangladesh, neither performing exceptionally.
The bowlers against which they scored their runs were far stronger than routine Bangladeshi standards.
And yes, I don't believe Lee, Sami, Williams, Bracken, Tuffey or Butler are any better than Blignaut.

 

[Richard]

no the fact is that there are players who have had poor starts to their test career, yet have improved to make their record a lot better. in the same way why should chopra be dropped when he has impressed technically.

Just having a good technique doesn't matter if you haven't got the shot-selection, for instance Daren Ganga.
And as I've said, most players don't get as long as Stephen Waugh and Rhodes got to become successes. It is highly unlikely that Chopra will do so.

i dont know how highly you rate williams,tuffey etc but the fact is that they are still far far better than the bangladeshi and zimbabwian attacks that das seemed to do so very well against!

As I've said, Das scored 50 for once out in his only Test against Bangladesh - that won't have had much impact on his average. So it doesn't matter that they're a bit better than the Bangladeshi bowlers.
And no, I don't think Tuffey, Oram, Butler, Lee, Bracken, Williams, Sami and suchlike are any better than Blignaut, Price and such. And certainly none of them are anywhere near as good as Streak.

yes so being one of the most economical bowlers in the 2nd game doesnt count does it?and im sure 3/51(10) in the 4th game were poor figures too especially considering that he was bowling in the death.
oh wait what about the 2/28(10) against pakistan in the first ODI in NZ?or the 2/28(10) against pakistan in the last ODI in NZ when pakistan scored 303? or his 2/33(10) in the 1st ODI in pakistan when pakistan scored 292 in 48 overs?or in the 2nd ODI when he had an E/R of 4.22, pakistan scoring 281, or the 5th ODI where he went for 23 runs of 6 overs, pakistan scoring 277(btw he only played 3 matches in that series so he was pretty consistent too),or his figures in the world cup?
i look forward to seeing how you get out of this mess, probably by calling all of them anomalies.......

Well, not sorry to disappoint you, but no mess exists.
Oram's 3 lots of good figures in Pakistan were odd occasions out - wholly inexplicable ones, yes, but odd nonetheless. The World Cup, as I've stated countless times, proves me wrong in nothing because I've never said Oram can't get good figures on bowler-friendly wickets, almost all of which New Zealand's World Cup games were played on. And yes, the 10-51-3 were poor figures - wickets in the slog overs, expensive. For the most part, Oram was poor in the South Africa series, then achieved redemtion towards the end.

you said "There is no point in playing fingerspinners outside the subcontinet." i think that pretty muich sums it up.....

There is no point playing fingerspinners outside the subcontient - mainly. Because no rule is without exceptions.
Mostly, fingerspin-suited surfaces occur only in the subcontient, but never have I said they never occur anywhere else. Hence there is not much point planning to play a fingerspinner unless you're touring the subcontinent.

so vettori getting 12 wickets in NZ against australia was also an anomaly then?fact is that almost every wicket all over the world provides something for the 'quality' finger spinner on the last couple of days. and can you even spell subcontinent??

Can't you spell subcontinent? (see above) Can't you even spell "much"? (also see above) Until your spell-checking is anything like as good as mine you've got no grounds to quibble about irrelevancies such as that anyway. Now corrected, incidentally.
And again, complete rubbish. Yes, Vettori getting 12 wickets in New Zealand (against Australia) was also an anomaly. I can't imagine the pitch wasn't a big turner all the way through. This is an anomaly - it is massively in the minority and even if you manage to find every single instance of fingerspinners getting big wicket-bags outside the subcontinent it won't change the fact that they're in the minority and I could probably name 100 examples to the contrary.

lighting quick reflexes doesnt make you a brilliant batsman either....see jonty rhodes...

Jonty Rhodes' reflexes were no better than any other good batsman. What made him as good a fielder as he was was doing the basics all but perfectly, superb anticipation, athleticism almost unrivalled and of course fantastic hands.

so what would you call the ball that got richardson out in the 2nd inning at headingly(off hoggard)....would every batsman have got out to that? or was it not a wicket taking delivery at all?

They might have done, they might not have done. No delivery is ever certain to get a wicket. The fact is, however, Richardson got out to it and you couldn't blame him for doing so, so it was a wicket-taking ball.
But it had far more to do with the pitch than the ability of the bowler.

no the point is that they you could place that short leg anywhere else on the field, but the fact is that a batsman who has been vulnerable at short leg is more likely to get out at forward short leg early on in the innings than in any other position on the field.

Rubbish. Any half-decent batsman is always far more likely to get out caught slip to a seamer than short-leg, at any stage in any innings.

 

[Nate]

Das and Ramesh have played one Test each against Bangladesh, neither performing exceptionally.
The bowlers against which they scored their runs were far stronger than routine Bangladeshi standards.
And yes, I don't believe Lee, Sami, Williams, Bracken, Tuffey or Butler are any better than Blignaut.

then you my friend, are WHACKED!!