Yuvraj Singh and Andy Symonds

[marc71178]

And every Chopra-Sehwag opening stand has ended in 3 figures, has it?

More have than any other recent Indian opening pair.

If Chopra was so bad then how did he tick around so long while the partnership added those runs?

 

[marc71178]

Check-out most of those wickets and you'll find-out that statement you just made is absolutely right.

You really are so blinkered it's unbelievable.

You don't like him, so it's impossible that he is actually a good bowler.

Much like you like a player so it's impossible he has a flaw in his technique.

 

[Richard]

More have than any other recent Indian opening pair.

If Chopra was so bad then how did he tick around so long while the partnership added those runs?

Because he's good enough to stick around while those runs are added.
A few other openers of recent times have been good enough to do the same, for example Shiv Sundar Das. Just that they haven't had Sehwag at the other end.
Hence Chopra has had the right man at the other end, while others haven't. So his substandard achievements have been championed while those of others haven't.

 

[Richard]

You really are so blinkered it's unbelievable.

You don't like him, so it's impossible that he is actually a good bowler.

Much like you like a player so it's impossible he has a flaw in his technique.

Ah, surprise surprise, marc resorts to his when-all-else-fails comments!
In spite of the fact that their inexplicability has been stated time and again.

 

[Richard]

Or, the Chopra option as it is more commonly known?

Or the Das option, or the Ramesh option.

Right place at right time?

He's played 15 innings in Tests - 5 times out in single figures, and the rest he's made at least 20. In fact he's made 5 in single figures, 2 in the 20s, 2 in the 30s, 4 in the 40s, and 2 half centuries.

That is shocking batting! He's been championed becasue he's been part of a successful partnership (Cricket is a team game, no matter what you think) and that partnership has made some great starts for India where all others have failed.

He is a consistent player who does not deserve to be dropped and certainly doesn't deserve the accusations you point at him, but then again as soon as you decide a player is bad, we all have to agree don't we, in spite of the evidence.

What accusations, then, do I point at him? That he's a woefully substandard Test-batsmen and there have been many of recent times who have done a better job? No! Yet again it's just marc trying to put words onto my keyboard in order to attempt to devalue my words.
He is less consistent than a couple of other Indian openers of recent times, and he's had the benefit of some of his better efforts coinciding with some phenominal-sized innings at the other end.
Because he's been lucky enough to be playing with someone successful, he's been part of a partnership to which he has made a small contribution. Something others who, individually, have done a little better than him, have not have had the benefit of.

 

[tooextracool]

No, I'm not, I assure you. And I might point-out that even if Chopra was one of the best short-legs ever, and he's not, it doesn't make any compensation for substandard batting.

it makes an average test player look better.....jonty rhodes?

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

as proven by giles a trent bridge.....or by saqlain mushtaq in australia

And no matter how slow the turn, if there's enough of it good spin bowlers will take cheap wickets.

yes and on wickets that offer slow turn theres always a chance for even a decent bowler to get wickets....and with kumble and harbhajan in the side i dont see any reason why akash chopra wont be an asset

No, catches at short-leg can only ever come from batting error. Batting error does not constitute good bowling. It is batting error resulting in catches at short-leg that happen less nowadays, now that batsmen are properly protected from body blows..

good balls tend to lead to poor shots....if bowlers like harmison can get excessive bounce off a wicket then there is always a chance of catches at short leg.....and as i said earlier, just because wickets come off poor strokes it doesnt mean you dont try to get them!

My point is anyone could "work well" with Sehwag if he gets the figures he's been getting recently.

no the fact is that if someone got 20 runs in a partnership of 50 with sehwag it wouldnt be half as successful as chopra getting 20 with a partnership of 80-100

A misjudged shot is throwing your wicket away. And there are not going to be many good balls flying around when the like of Lee, Bracken, Williams, Sami, Tuffey and Butler are bowling on wickets like Chopra's games were played on..

and he hasnt yet played a good bowling side on non flat wickets.....if he fails then, then he should be dropped

He has done badly and he has had a fair stint - something like 18 innings is a fair time to judge people.

no hes been decent....he hasnt been brillliant and yet hes done better than all the other openers in recent times.

 

[tooextracool]

Das and Ramesh's averages are considerably higher.
It's not coincidence, but it says far more about Sehwag than Chopra.

das failed miserably abroad and/or against the better bowling attacks.
avg
das vs australia(in india) 28.83
das vs SA(in SA) 18.00
das vs WI(in WI) 15.50

 

[Richard]

it makes an average test player look better.....jonty rhodes?

Rhodes in Test-cricket from 1998 onward was easily worth his place as a batsman. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been picked.

as proven by giles a trent bridge.....or by saqlain mushtaq in australia

And these two anomalies are totally meaningless:- one game (it just happens to be a recent one) will, let me assure you, be forgotten very quickly once West Indies start hammering Giles to all parts. And Saqlain's "success" in Australia was hardly convincing.

yes and on wickets that offer slow turn theres always a chance for even a decent bowler to get wickets....and with kumble and harbhajan in the side i dont see any reason why akash chopra wont be an asset

Yes, but no more of an asset than plenty of other short-leg fielders would be.

good balls tend to lead to poor shots....if bowlers like harmison can get excessive bounce off a wicket then there is always a chance of catches at short leg.....and as i said earlier, just because wickets come off poor strokes it doesnt mean you dont try to get them!

And as I said earlier, if someone is bowling for poor shots they are very average indeed.
As I also said earlier, good batsmen won't often be troubled by the odd ball bouncing a bit.

no the fact is that if someone got 20 runs in a partnership of 50 with sehwag it wouldnt be half as successful as chopra getting 20 with a partnership of 80-100

And if someone got 20 runs in partnership of 80-100 with Sehwag? What then? The fact is, whoever scores 20, whatever Sehwag does at the other end, it's still not an especially good innings.

and he hasnt yet played a good bowling side on non flat wickets.....if he fails then, then he should be dropped

A rather bizarre comment - more derision is deserved for failing against attacks that can't exploit the conditions than failing when they do exploit them.

no hes been decent....he hasnt been brillliant and yet hes done better than all the other openers in recent times.

No, he hasn't, he's batted while another opener has been in the team and he has done better than all other openers of recent times.

 

[Richard]

das failed miserably abroad and/or against the better bowling attacks.
avg
das vs australia(in india) 28.83
das vs SA(in SA) 18.00
das vs WI(in WI) 15.50

West Indies, better? You've got to be joking.
Das failed the same way Chopra has failed. He just didn't have a fast, heavy scorer at the other end so that his elongated failings were part of big partnerships and got credit they didn't deserve.

 

[marc71178]

And these two anomalies are totally meaningless:- one game (it just happens to be a recent one) will, let me assure you, be forgotten very quickly once West Indies start hammering Giles to all parts.

Like NZ did you mean?

 

[marc71178]

West Indies, better? You've got to be joking.
Das failed the same way Chopra has failed. He just didn't have a fast, heavy scorer at the other end so that his elongated failings were part of big partnerships and got credit they didn't deserve.

You can't be part of a big partnership if you can't stay in, therefore he deserves credit for doing his job.

Had he not stayed in, there would've been no big partnerships, but there were, so he deserves credit.

 

[Eclipse]

You can't be part of a big partnership if you can't stay in, therefore he deserves credit for doing his job.

Had he not stayed in, there would've been no big partnerships, but there were, so he deserves credit.

But Chopra actualy did bugger all and thats why he has been droped.

Sehwag did all the scoring. Do you really expect him to keep that form up?

Jason Gillespie has a good enough deffense and to be honest he could have done almost just as good but would you consider him a test opener ?

At some stage in Chopra's potential test carear he is going to have to stand up and score some runs himself but so far on what I have seen he is not capable of doing that.

 

[tooextracool]

Rhodes in Test-cricket from 1998 onward was easily worth his place as a batsman. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been picked.

so why was he retained in the side until 98 then?

And these two anomalies are totally meaningless:- one game (it just happens to be a recent one) will, let me assure you, be forgotten very quickly once West Indies start hammering Giles to all parts. And Saqlain's "success" in Australia was hardly convincing.

Oh what rubbish....whenever you are proven wrong, you call them anomalies or exceptions to the rule......i can come up with several other examples as well.....vettori in australia and vettori in england. fact is that that most wickets around the world do offer something particularly on the last 2 days for the "quality spinners". and thats when short legs come into play

Yes, but no more of an asset than plenty of other short-leg fielders would be.

except that this man is by far the best short leg around.

And as I said earlier, if someone is bowling for poor shots they are very average indeed.

as as i have said repeatedly.....if players play poor shots it doesnt mean that you dont try to get them out.... what would you do if a batsman played a poor shot and got out?call him back because the bowler didnt deserve the wicket?

As I also said earlier, good batsmen won't often be troubled by the odd ball bouncing a bit..

so kirsten,waugh and fleming arent good batsmen then?

And if someone got 20 runs in partnership of 80-100 with Sehwag? What then? The fact is, whoever scores 20, whatever Sehwag does at the other end, it's still not an especially good innings.

no its not "whoever scores 20" its about whoever bats for longer periods of time.... fact is that chopra has been able to survive for long periods and as he gets more experienced, hes more likely to go on to score more runs as well

rather bizarre comment - more derision is deserved for failing against attacks that can't exploit the conditions than failing when they do exploit them..

what do you not understand from 'the partnership hasnt failed'?

No, he hasn't, he's batted while another opener has been in the team and he has done better than all other openers of recent times.

and some amount of credit must go to him for hanging on for that partnership to be a success.

 

[tooextracool]

West Indies, better? You've got to be joking.
Das failed the same way Chopra has failed. He just didn't have a fast, heavy scorer at the other end so that his elongated failings were part of big partnerships and got credit they didn't deserve.

doesnt that make it worse then?the fact that das failed against a poor quality attack.

 

[marc71178]

But Chopra actualy did bugger all and thats why he has been droped.

I hardly call batting for over 2 hours in every game (3 hours for 3 of the 4) bugger all.

He had a role and performed it admirably.

 

[Eclipse]

I hardly call batting for over 2 hours in every game (3 hours for 3 of the 4) bugger all.

He had a role and performed it admirably.

I would have though you know being a batsman and all his job was to score some runs ?

 

[marc71178]

With that middle order, his role is to see off the new ball and keep rotating the strike for Sehwag.

That benefits the team more than him getting out in the first half hour for the same number of runs.

 

[Eclipse]

With that middle order, his role is to see off the new ball and keep rotating the strike for Sehwag.

That benefits the team more than him getting out in the first half hour for the same number of runs.

Well maybe thats not his role ? maybe the selectors would actualy rather he scored some runs. If they thought he was doing his job then obviously he would not have been droped.

 

[tooextracool]

nope the selectors obviously believe that yuvraj can do a better job.....ie score the runs and last as many balls....it does get a bit greedy sometimes

 

[Richard]

Like NZ did you mean?

Like they did at Lord's; like West Indies did in the Caribbean; like Sri Lanka did at The SSC; and like South Africa did almost all last summer.
The only time Giles has got good figures is in the First and Second Sri Lanka Tests, where conditions were suited to his style of bowling. Before that Trent Bridge game, that is, which like I say, will be forgotten when it's made clear it was a one-off.