Yuvraj Singh and Andy Symonds

[Richard]

Yet the fact remains that on a given particular occasion, one or two runs (or the 10 or 20 runs saved by dismissing a set batsman in the 49th over) could make the difference. Hence it is of importance.

Yes, of course they could, and hence it's worth getting right, but because it matters so little there's hardly much credit to be had for getting wickets in the last 2 or 3 overs.

 

[Richard]

There are?

At the end of the day, that is the only thing that matters, not what a batsman that someone has decided is bad and has weaknesses scores or wht a bowler someone has decided is poor has conceded.

No, it's not the only thing that matters.
Player success wouldn't be celebrated if it was totally irrelevant.
Ways of deciding success, hence, are quite important.

 

[marc71178]

At the end of the day, what is more important than the final result?

 

[Richard]

no he hasnt....why did das and ramesh get almost 3 times as many chances as he did when all of them didnt do any better(by your standards) outside of the sub continent

Because they did well on the subcontinent. Unlike Chopra, who did poorly in Pakistan.
And also due to the fact that the surfaces Das and Ramesh played on outside the subcontinent tended to offer a bit more than those in Australia did.

what are you talking about?so a player who shows potential for 8 games despite not having an avg of 40+ should be dropped? if you had been a selector for the indian team you would have dropped tendulkar years ago....along with attapattu and steve waugh if you had been a selector of the respective sides.

I'm talking about the fact that Chopra has not shown potential in everyone's opinion - he just has in yours and some others'. Hence you can't say "he's shown potential so he must have more chances".
Those in charge believed Atapattu, Stephen Waugh and some others (though not especially Tendulkar) had shown potential and they were proven right. There have been plenty of instances where selectors have believed some players have shown potential, given them more chances than they've earned, and been proven wrong.

total tripe...the quality of bowlers that das scored against was far far worse than the quality of bowlers that chopra failed against. if chopra had played all his tests against NZ at home he would probably be averaging 46 odd

Yeah, right. His shot-selection isn't anywhere near good enough to average 46 over a sustained period IMO.

lets not look at select bowlers, look at the entire bowling attacks that das was successfuly against....streak,price,friend,watambwa,blignaut,murphy,olonga,hassibul hossain,naimur rahman,rafique,ranjan das,bryan strang,paul strang,nkala, viljoen.

as opposed to chopra.....gillespie,lee,bracken,williams,macgill,tuffey,butler,akhtar,sami,vettori,wiseman,styris,oram

if you think those attacks are equal then you are obviously out of your mind.....

Like I have said countless time and as you are unable to accept because it kind of destroys any remnants of a case you may have, the presence of any Bangladeshi bowlers made an impact of 0.43 on his average, so doesn't matter.
Price, Friend, Blignaut, the Strangs, Blingaut, Watambwa, Murphy and Olonga are roughly the same in standard IMO to Lee, Bracken, Williams, MacGill, Tuffey, Butler, Sami, Wiseman, Styris and Oram. Streak and Gillespie are IMO about the same and an injured, palpably sub-par Akhtar is quite a bit worse.
If you can't think of anything better than "you are obviously out of your mind", then you clearly have a ridiculously high opinion of the latter set of bowlers.

how in the world could you call a pitch on which more than 600 runs were scored as bowler friendly? or another in which pakistan scored abt 280 ?as usual you are passing judgement on matches that you yourself admit that you havent watched.

You seem to have mixed-up matches I was talking about to suit yourself again.

rubbish, stop making a fool of yourself and ignoring the facts .SL scored 272 on a dry wicket that was definetly not a seamers paradise. and in the NZ-WI game, there was a little bit in the wicket for the first 10 overs or so thats it, and oram didnt even bowl in those overs.

Ditto my last comment.

that just proves my point......if he got 2 genuine wickets then isnt that better than 'buying' his wickets in the slog overs.....to go at 5.1 runs an over despite bowling a large number of bowlers in the death is a pretty good performance particularly on a flat pitch

Reasonable, but doesn't make-up for how poor he was in the first games.

what do you not understand from the words "quality finger spinner?'.....the number of times that finger spinners have got good figures in the 3rd and 4th innings is about the same number as the times leg spinners have. if finger spinners were so useless then why are they far far more finger spinners in the world than leg spinners,especially in places like SA and england?

What do you not understand about the words "quality fingerspinners don't have much success away from the subcontinent"? Because it doesn't take a genius to work-out that that's the case. Non-quality fingerspinners don't even tend to have success in favourable conditions.
The reason there are so many fingerspinners around The World, especially in England and South Africa, is because wristspin is just a little difficult to bowl. That is why there have been so few quality wristspinners down the years.

err what?when i said that chopra had one of the best reflexes you will ever see you responded by saying "why isnt he such a great batsman then?"
i have not once stated that good reflexes=good batsman yet you seem to keep ignoring all my posts and bringing up irrelevant facts. and i didnt rubbish the factors that you mentioned for a good fielder, i rubbished the fact that you said rhodes didnt have great reflexes.

The point I was making when I said "why isn't Chopra one of the best batsmen in The World if his reflexes are better than everyone else's" was that Chopra's reactions aren't any more exceptional than anyone else's, because if any batsman had exceptional reflexes it would have been Bradman and he didn't.
That is the relevance of it.

oh you are such a joker....you have been proved wrong yet you come up with useless arguments to save yourself.....richardson didnt play a poor shot at that ball, he did what any batsman would have done and unfortunately with the form that he was in he managed to get a bit of bat on a near unplayable ball. how can you possibly say "if he had missed it it wouldnt have been a wicket taking ball" the fact is that he edged it, not many other batsman would have hence called "wicket taking"

No, you have tried to prove me wrong, I have stopped you doing so and so you have to brand the arguments I have used to prove myself right useless.
I never said Richardson played a poor shot at the ball, so stop deliberately misunderstanding what I said.
If he had missed the ball it wouldn't have taken a wicket - a ball that didn't take a wicket cannot be a wicket-taking ball. Though a ball that did isn't neccesarily one.
He did hit the ball, it was a good ball, so hence it was a wicket-taking ball. But it had far more to do with the pitch than Hoggard.

yet he seemed to get out there so often.....as i said, you can do a statistic and you'll find that kirsten got out just about as often at short leg/silly point as he did at any one slip position

Let's see it then?

 

[Richard]

At the end of the day, what is more important than the final result?

Oh, nothing is more important - if you look carefully you might see I didn't say that.
All I said was that the result isn't the only thing of significance.

 

[Richard]

yes since you didnt watch either of those 2 games in which vettori did well(along with the rest), they must have been blatant turners!!

The one in New Zealand must have, yes - because, believe it or not, a fingerspinner got lots of wickets on it, and fingerspinners don't tend to get lots of wickets against quality batting-line-ups on wickets that don't turn lots!
And I'm not sure which one the other of those "either" you referred to was.

 

[marc71178]

Price, Friend, Blignaut, the Strangs, Blingaut, Watambwa, Murphy and Olonga are roughly the same in standard IMO to Lee, Bracken, Williams, MacGill, Tuffey, Butler, Sami, Wiseman, Styris and Oram.

Of course they are.

In your opinion, what colour is the Sky, is it Green or is it Lilac?

 

[Richard]

It depends, of course - sometimes it's grey, sometimes white, sometimes blue.
Like many things in cricket, it depends which variables are in place.

 

[Nate]

Price, Friend, Blignaut, the Strangs, Blingaut, Watambwa, Murphy and Olonga are roughly the same in standard IMO to Lee, Bracken, Williams, MacGill, Tuffey, Butler, Sami, Wiseman, Styris and Oram.

bahahaha... i cannot disagree much more.

and to prince ews who said that blignaut is as good as bracken, lee and williams in tests... ur a nut . bracken has not proved himself as yet (and probably will never get the chance) but the other two have done enough IMO. and if we compare fc records, then blignauts should be better (playing in zimbabwe rather then aussie)... but theyre not!! cause he isnt really that good.

 

[tooextracool]

Because they did well on the subcontinent. Unlike Chopra, who did poorly in Pakistan.

no das only played well against zimbabwe in the sub continent, against australia he averaged 28,against england 32, and in SL 36. whereas chopra averaged 46 at home against NZ

And also due to the fact that the surfaces Das and Ramesh played on outside the subcontinent tended to offer a bit more than those in Australia did.

yes those WI pitches on which das played offered a lot more didnt they?
and even if you take that into account they averaged significantly lower outside the sub continent(and zim) than chopra. das averaged 18 in SA and 15 in the WI...ramesh averaged 20 in australia

I'm talking about the fact that Chopra has not shown potential in everyone's opinion - he just has in yours and some others'. Hence you can't say "he's shown potential so he must have more chances".

how about we have a straw poll to see how many people believe that chopra doesnt have potential? and even you have admitted that he doesnt have any flaw in his technique ATM

Those in charge believed Atapattu, Stephen Waugh and some others (though not especially Tendulkar) had shown potential and they were proven right. There have been plenty of instances where selectors have believed some players have shown potential, given them more chances than they've earned, and been proven wrong.

so what your point?if some players with potential succeeded while some didnt then why should chopra not be given his chance to show them whether he is good enough or not?

Yeah, right. His shot-selection isn't anywhere near good enough to average 46 over a sustained period IMO.

and can you guarantee that?your opinion doesnt really count for anything after harmison proved you as wrong as he did......the stats say that at home he averages 46, which is better than das and ramesh.

Like I have said countless time and as you are unable to accept because it kind of destroys any remnants of a case you may have, the presence of any Bangladeshi bowlers made an impact of 0.43 on his average, so doesn't matter.

yes as a matter of fact when i looked up his stats against them it turns out that he actually failed against bangladesh as well.......he only score 20 odd in the 1st innings when everyone else cashed in and then another 20 odd not out chasing a small total in the 2nd inning

Price, Friend, Blignaut, the Strangs, Blingaut, Watambwa, Murphy and Olonga are roughly the same in standard IMO to Lee, Bracken, Williams, MacGill, Tuffey, Butler, Sami, Wiseman, Styris and Oram. Streak and Gillespie are IMO about the same and an injured, palpably sub-par Akhtar is quite a bit worse.
If you can't think of anything better than "you are obviously out of your mind", then you clearly have a ridiculously high opinion of the latter set of bowlers.

rubbish, everyone on these forums(except you) agree with me that the latter attack is far better than the former. you are the one who has a ridiculously high opinion about the former set of bowlers.

You seem to have mixed-up matches I was talking about to suit yourself again.

Ditto my last comment.

no, i brought up about 15 occasions in the last 1.5 years or so in which oram has bowled brilliantly on non seamer friendly wickets, yet somehow you ignored most of them and called the rest of them as few and far between.you seem to think that a bowler must have brilliant performances every game. if youd look at some of your beloved chaminda vaas' figures you'd find that hes been just about as inconsistent on non seamer friendly wickets as oram as.

Reasonable, but doesn't make-up for how poor he was in the first games.

or how good he was in the 2 ODI series prior to that......

What do you not understand about the words "quality fingerspinners don't have much success away from the subcontinent"? Because it doesn't take a genius to work-out that that's the case. Non-quality fingerspinners don't even tend to have success in favourable conditions.

as i said...if you brought up 100 occasions in which 'quality' finger spinners failed outside the subcontinent, i could bring up another 100 occasions where quality leg spinners failed outside the sub continent. IMO both spinners are just about as capable.

The reason there are so many fingerspinners around The World, especially in England and South Africa, is because wristspin is just a little difficult to bowl. That is why there have been so few quality wristspinners down the years.

it seems quite usual to bring up useless points to try and save yourself....you yourself said that most wickets outside the sub continent dont offer anything for finger spinners, then why exactly are there so many finger spinners playing domestic cricket in england, SA, NZ etc when they dont get any assistance from the pitch? of course its much easier to bowl on pitches that dont help finger spinners than to just become a leg spinner isnt it?

The point I was making when I said "why isn't Chopra one of the best batsmen in The World if his reflexes are better than everyone else's" was that Chopra's reactions aren't any more exceptional than anyone else's, because if any batsman had exceptional reflexes it would have been Bradman and he didn't.
That is the relevance of it.

what are you talking about?.....you just said that great reflexes doesnt necessarily mean that someone is a great batsman so how can you say that chopra doesnt have great reflexes just because he isnt a great batsman.....and perhaps you'd also like to start a poll to see how many people believe that jonty rhodes didnt have great reflexes?

No, you have tried to prove me wrong, I have stopped you doing so and so you have to brand the arguments I have used to prove myself right useless.
I never said Richardson played a poor shot at the ball, so stop deliberately misunderstanding what I said.
If he had missed the ball it wouldn't have taken a wicket - a ball that didn't take a wicket cannot be a wicket-taking ball. Though a ball that did isn't neccesarily one.
He did hit the ball, it was a good ball, so hence it was a wicket-taking ball. But it had far more to do with the pitch than Hoggard.?

pretty much every wicket-taking delivery relies on how much assistance the pitch gives them.....if that wasnt the case then good bowlers should be bowling plenty of wicket-taking deliveries on those dead wickets in the sub continent. the fact is that just like that delivery off hoggards might not have got most batsmen out there have been other such occasions where bowlers have bowled wicket-taking balls, but just that the batsman have played poor shots or were simply just not good enough to get an outside edge on it.

Let's see it then?

there are no websites that analyse every dismissal of a batsman....IMO if there was you would see that kirsten was just about as likely to get out at short leg/silly point in the first few overs as he was at any 1 slip position

 

[tooextracool]

The one in New Zealand must have, yes - because, believe it or not, a fingerspinner got lots of wickets on it, and fingerspinners don't tend to get lots of wickets against quality batting-line-ups on wickets that don't turn lots!

of course because it goes against your imaginary theory that they cant do well unless there is turn

And I'm not sure which one the other of those "either" you referred to was.

the one in perth where warne got 2 wickets in the entire match.....oh the leg spinner failed but the finger spinner succeeded.

 

[Richard]

bahahaha... i cannot disagree much more.

and to prince ews who said that blignaut is as good as bracken, lee and williams in tests... ur a nut . bracken has not proved himself as yet (and probably will never get the chance) but the other two have done enough IMO. and if we compare fc records, then blignauts should be better (playing in zimbabwe rather then aussie)... but theyre not!! cause he isnt really that good.

Lee and Williams have done enough to show they're woefully sub-par - you could almost call them worse than Blignaut on current evidence.
I make the prediction here and now that Blignaut will improve quite a bit now he's playing and, more importantly, practising with an Australian side.
First thing he needs to do is sort his run. 11 no-balls in 11 overs on his Durham debut, ridiculous. That's 22 runs given away, plus a load of extra deliveries.
And if you cannot disagree much more I suggest you check the career records of the relevant players, and also watch them bowl some.

 

[Richard]

of course because it goes against your imaginary theory that they cant do well unless there is turn

Yes, it does - and that theory is rock-solid, as demonstrated by the fact that wicket was a big turner and so have been just about every other wicket in which fingerspinners have got big wicket-bags in the history of the game.
They used to occur rather more in the past, though.

the one in perth where warne got 2 wickets in the entire match.....oh the leg spinner failed but the finger spinner succeeded.

And that's not as ridiculous as you're trying to make it sound - as I've mentioned, it's happened before, eg The Oval 1997 (Tufnell), Kolkata and Chennai 2001 (Harbhajan Singh) being examples.
No matter how good Warne or any other wristspinner is, they are not going to bowl well every single innings and inevitably there are going to be occasions where fingerspinners outbowl them.
There are anomalies in almost every pattern.

 

[Swervy]

can I remind you that big turning wickets are no good for any bowler if there is no pace in the wicket...bounce for the spinner is just as lethal..and this is a reason why a finger spinner can do well on a wicket with little turn( when combined with subtle variations in flight and angle)

There is a lot more to the art of spin bowling than big turn

 

[Richard]

no das only played well against zimbabwe in the sub continent, against australia he averaged 28,against england 32, and in SL 36. whereas chopra averaged 46 at home against NZ

And 17 in Pakistan... albeit one of the wickets offered some seam-movement but that still didn't impact on either of his dismissals. Against England and Sri Lanka Das mightn't have done especially well but he still did better than Chopra has.

yes those WI pitches on which das played offered a lot more didnt they?
and even if you take that into account they averaged significantly lower outside the sub continent(and zim) than chopra. das averaged 18 in SA and 15 in the WI...ramesh averaged 20 in australia

The surfaces in South Africa certainly offered something to the seam-bowlers, so did those in Australia in 1999\2000 and Zimbabwe. Hence Das and Ramesh have something more to excuse them than Chopra did in Australia.

how about we have a straw poll to see how many people believe that chopra doesnt have potential? and even you have admitted that he doesnt have any flaw in his technique ATM

It doesn't matter who thinks he does and who thinks he doesn't - the point is so far he hasn't demonstrated any decent run-scoring ability. You could make a case for almost everyone having potential, and certainly some who hardly anyone thinks has potential can have bags of the stuff.
The important thing is whether selectors think he's got potential, and that results in whether or not he gets more chances than he's earnt.

so what your point?if some players with potential succeeded while some didnt then why should chopra not be given his chance to show them whether he is good enough or not?

Because he's already been given a fair chance and blown it. That's the point. He showed the potential by averaging 50 domestically, was given the chance and didn't repeat the feat at international level.

and can you guarantee that?your opinion doesnt really count for anything after harmison proved you as wrong as he did......the stats say that at home he averages 46, which is better than das and ramesh.

And because there has been one instance of a player who I've said is rubbish turning himself into one who isn't rubbish that automatically means I have to be wrong on everything else, even though the fact is I'm hardly ever wrong... hardly any players have ever done what I have said they are incapable of and anyone who names the anomalies in this trend and tries to prove they mean something is clutching at straws.
And it doesn't matter what Chopra averages at home, the surfaces all over have been little different to those in those two games and so what matters is his overall average, which is inferior to both Das and Ramesh and even Dasgupta.
No-one can gurantee anything but so far I've been proven right - Chopra's shot-selection hasn't been good enough for Test-cricket.

yes as a matter of fact when i looked up his stats against them it turns out that he actually failed against bangladesh as well.......he only score 20 odd in the 1st innings when everyone else cashed in and then another 20 odd not out chasing a small total in the 2nd inning

No, he hasn't failed against Bangladesh, he scored 51 for once out. That just means he hasn't had big success. And even if he had failed against them, it still wouldn't have had much impact on his average and certainly wouldn't drag it down to Chopra's level.

rubbish, everyone on these forums(except you) agree with me that the latter attack is far better than the former. you are the one who has a ridiculously high opinion about the former set of bowlers.

No, you have a ridiculously high opinion of the latter set.
There is at least one person who has stated his agreement with me, one who has stated disagreement (clearly without looking at the facts) and most others haven't commented so you can't claim that everyone except me agrees with you.

no, i brought up about 15 occasions in the last 1.5 years or so in which oram has bowled brilliantly on non seamer friendly wickets, yet somehow you ignored most of them and called the rest of them as few and far between.you seem to think that a bowler must have brilliant performances every game. if youd look at some of your beloved chaminda vaas' figures you'd find that hes been just about as inconsistent on non seamer friendly wickets as oram as.

Rubbish, in ODIs Chaminda has largely been a model of consistency and that's why his record is by some distance better than Oram's over a much longer career.

or how good he was in the 2 ODI series prior to that......

Which, as I've stated, were not part of a trend.

as i said...if you brought up 100 occasions in which 'quality' finger spinners failed outside the subcontinent, i could bring up another 100 occasions where quality leg spinners failed outside the sub continent. IMO both spinners are just about as capable.

There have been so few quality leg (or, more accurately, wrist) spinners in the game's history that that's a totally ridiculous ascertation.
There have only been 2 in the last 40 years (Warne and Muralitharan).

it seems quite usual to bring up useless points to try and save yourself....you yourself said that most wickets outside the sub continent dont offer anything for finger spinners, then why exactly are there so many finger spinners playing domestic cricket in england, SA, NZ etc when they dont get any assistance from the pitch? of course its much easier to bowl on pitches that dont help finger spinners than to just become a leg spinner isnt it?

Yes, it is - what matters is not how many play but how many are successful. And the sum total is... six or seven at most. And believe it or not, there do happen to be a few non-international grounds, certainly in England and probably elsewhere, that do offer help for the fingerspinners.
Spinners who have achieved any semblence of success in English domestic cricket are: Jason Brown, Graeme Swann, Robert Croft, Ashley Giles, Gareth Batty. Only two of these have career averages even under 30. In England there are three grounds which regularly produce fingerspin-friendly surfaces: Wantage Road, Sophia Gardens and New Road. Only one has hosted international cricket outside World Cups and even then it amounts to just a handful of ODIs, never more than one a year.
Most fingerspinners who ply their trade away from the subcontinent and West Indies are benefactors of poor selection.

what are you talking about?.....you just said that great reflexes doesnt necessarily mean that someone is a great batsman so how can you say that chopra doesnt have great reflexes just because he isnt a great batsman.....and perhaps you'd also like to start a poll to see how many people believe that jonty rhodes didnt have great reflexes?

No, I said reflexes superior to peers would make someone a great batsman. But what makes great batsmen isn't superior reflexes - it's other superior factors. Reflexes of all remotely good batsmen are equal - as proved by the fact Bradman's eyes weren't superior to anyone else's.
And I never said Rhodes didn't have great reflexes, about as good as you can get in fact.
I simply said they weren't any better than the millions of other club-standard batsmen around The World. And Rhodes' batting is most certainly better than club standard!

pretty much every wicket-taking delivery relies on how much assistance the pitch gives them.....if that wasnt the case then good bowlers should be bowling plenty of wicket-taking deliveries on those dead wickets in the sub continent. the fact is that just like that delivery off hoggards might not have got most batsmen out there have been other such occasions where bowlers have bowled wicket-taking balls, but just that the batsman have played poor shots or were simply just not good enough to get an outside edge on it.

Yes, and if not then the ball wasn't wicket-taking, it was just very good.
Anything which seams, turns or bounces unevenly is of course dependant on the amount which the pitch is offering - the difference is seam and turn are widely considered to be "fair" advantages - uneven bounce is much more widely interpreted as "unfair" - if I had a quid for every time I've heard someone say something along the lines of "well, swing and seam's one thing, indifferent bounce is quite another" I'd be a rich man. And hence any good wicket must be even in bounce and the less uneven bounce we see the better off cricket will be.

there are no websites that analyse every dismissal of a batsman....IMO if there was you would see that kirsten was just about as likely to get out at short leg/silly point in the first few overs as he was at any 1 slip position

You will be able to find-out an accurate summary of every Kirsten dismissal in at least the last 6 years if you look hard enough. And believe me, he won't have got caught at short-leg very often.

 

[a massive zebra]

That post is way too long Richard!!!!!!!!!

 

[Richard]

can I remind you that big turning wickets are no good for any bowler if there is no pace in the wicket...bounce for the spinner is just as lethal..and this is a reason why a finger spinner can do well on a wicket with little turn( when combined with subtle variations in flight and angle)

There is a lot more to the art of spin bowling than big turn

As I've gone through with seamers, high bounce cannot in itself create danger to decent batsmen, it can only exaggerate the dangers of sideways-movement. Uneven bounce, on the other hand, can make any bowler dangerous regardless of sideways-movement.
Yes, of course there is a lot more to the art of spin bowling than big turn but you won't get far without it.

 

[Richard]

That post is way too long Richard!!!!!!!!!

Don't know whether that's a compliment or an insult.

 

[marc71178]

Against England and Sri Lanka Das mightn't have done especially well but he still did better than Chopra has.

In that Chopra hasn't played them?

 

[Richard]

No, in that he did better in those series than Chopra has done in his career.