Yuvraj Singh and Andy Symonds

[Tom Halsey]

I'm afraid to say I don't get your last post...

 

[marc71178]

No, I was talking about the first-innings.

Oh, a whole 5 overs then.

 

[biased indian]

Yes, but I'm trying to discover how NZ "hammered" Giles at Lords when he bowled that long, accurate spell that I think will actually give him another lease of life in Test Cricket.

he only know one way of bowling bowl to the leg side of the batsmen
and pack the feild in the on side.ya he is accurate in that thing

 

[tooextracool]

Why not? Flintoff was retained for 5 years despite an average not even remotely as good as Rhodes; sometimes selectors just do that sort of thing. In both cases, it happened to pay-off, but mostly players don't get anywhere near that long.

i'll reming you that flintoff was only a consistent player in the english side post 2001....rhodes played every game in those 6 years(barring injury)
and what makes you think that it wont pay off for chopra?or do these anomalies not work for players you dont like?

No, I've never said Oram's record has anything to do with trends and exceptions - in fact there are two trends, very few exceptions - Oram's bowling on good bowling wickets tends to produce good figures, on less good bowling wickets far less impressive figures.

nope when i showed you times that oram did in fact bowl well when the conditions werent ideal for bowling you called them exceptions etc and then completely ignored everything else. of course since you've probably only watched the natwest series and the ind-nz series i would expect you to say that.

That WACA wicket certainly was a turner, I watched the whole game, it was so hard and dry that the ball turned almost from the off. The reason Warne didn't take as many wickets as Vettori did (in the first-innings) was probably the same reason he's hardly taken a wicket in India in his career, or the reason he only took about 6 when Tufnell took 11 at The Oval in 1997: because no matter how good a bowler, no-one is going to exploit friendly conditions every single innings.

it wasnt a turner until the last day! for the first 4 days it was extremely flat,vettori used drift and flight quite brilliantly in that test match rather than turn and bounce. besides this does refute your point that wickets aborad dont provide something for finger spinners.

Anomalies do not happen very often, that's the whole point of them. Give me something that I have labelled an anomaly that has in fact happened even one eighth of the time and you'll have some ammo for your use of anomalies when they're inappropriate. Until then, give it up.

if i did bring up something that wasnt an anomaly you would call that an anomaly to the anomaly.

Rubbish, no-one can catch anything that close off the middle of the bat except by pure fluke. Human reactions are not fast enough, even if your name is Aakash Chopra.

i said he is most likely to, reason being he has one of the best reflexes that you'll ever see.

If someone bowls a good ball, a wicket-taking ball, it's good enough anyway so as not to need a poor shot. Indeed, a poor shot can stop a wicket-taking ball taking a wicket - if you play down the wrong line you can end-up keeping-out a ball a better player would not have..

that isnt much of a point at all......

Yes, all three of them have been out very occasionally, so have hundreds of others, so occasionally that it is not worth basing a field-placing on them.

if you bowl to a plan they are likely to get out there....the fact is that even if it is only a 5% chance i would definetly have a short leg out there at the start of their innings because thats when they are most vulnerable.

Because as I said earlier, most players don't get anything like that amount of time. Rhodes and Flintoff are - yes, you guessed it - anomalies. Most players who fail for even 2 years get dropped without trace, let alone those who fail for 5.

and what makes you think that chopra isnt one of those "anomalies"?

There are - Das and Ramesh to name a couple. Both averaged higher than he has and received far less credit.

yes and as i mentioned earlier.....the number of opportunities both das and ramesh got were far far more than what chopra has,yet both of them failed to take that step forward , in fact das got worse. if chopra is given as many opportunities as das did and didnt manage to convert those scores then yes he should be dropped

 

[marc71178]

he only know one way of bowling bowl to the leg side of the batsmen and pack the feild in the on side.ya he is accurate in that thing

No, he actually knows more than that, it's just he has been asked to bowl that line before by the captain, and as it happened it proved reasonably successful at times.

He knows his limitations, and bowls within them.

 

[tooextracool]

actually despite what most of the commentators say, hes better off bowling over the wicket. the problem with giles when he bowls around the wicket is that with the angle he isnt capable of turning the ball enough to get the outside edge of the bat, even on turners.

 

[Richard]

I'm afraid to say I don't get your last post...

Imperceptive as well as lazy...

 

[Richard]

Oh, a whole 5 overs then.

Yep, a whole 5 overs.

 

[Richard]

i'll reming you that flintoff was only a consistent player in the english side post 2001....rhodes played every game in those 6 years(barring injury)
and what makes you think that it wont pay off for chopra?or do these anomalies not work for players you dont like?

Flintoff most certainly was not a consistent player in the English Test side post 2001, he started to bowl accurately in the one-day side from the winter of 2001\02 (and even then he still got hammered quite a bit because batsmen used their feet to him), and started to score Test runs only in the summer of 2003, 5 years after his debut.
Who's to say I "like" Flintoff, or Rhodes for that matter. It matters not whether I "like" any player, and I don't, because to "like" or "dislike" players is an intensely foolish.
The fact is their cases are very unusual and whatever I think of them it doesn't alter the fact that most players don't get a free-ride for 5 ot 6 years. Chopra has no reason to get one.

nope when i showed you times that oram did in fact bowl well when the conditions werent ideal for bowling you called them exceptions etc and then completely ignored everything else. of course since you've probably only watched the natwest series and the ind-nz series i would expect you to say that.

I did not call the times Oram has got good figures exceptions at all, because they have happened about half the time. Incidentally, I didn't watch the 2002\03 Ind-NZ series, the first time I've ever seen in full a match in which Oram bowled was this summer, before I've only ever seen highlights. I've just judged by the vast majority of cases that show Oram has got good figures when the pitches have helped seamers and not when they haven't.

it wasnt a turner until the last day! for the first 4 days it was extremely flat,vettori used drift and flight quite brilliantly in that test match rather than turn and bounce. besides this does refute your point that wickets aborad dont provide something for finger spinners.

Let me assure you, Vettori was turning the ball very big on the third day, the ball that got Gilchrist caught at short-leg being an example. And no, it does not refute my ascertation that wickets abroad "do not" suit fingerspin, because, yes, you guessed it, I have never said such a thing. For the most part, they don't, but grounds in the Caribbean have produced fingerspin-friendly wickets sometimes, The SCG does almost every year, and there have even been occasions in England when grounds have produced fingerspin-friendly wickets (like The Oval in 1997).

if i did bring up something that wasnt an anomaly you would call that an anomaly to the anomaly.

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense.

i said he is most likely to, reason being he has one of the best reflexes that you'll ever see.

So why isn't he one of the best batsmen you'll ever see? The fact is, being a good short-leg isn't that difficult.

that isnt much of a point at all......

And why not?

if you bowl to a plan they are likely to get out there....the fact is that even if it is only a 5% chance i would definetly have a short leg out there at the start of their innings because thats when they are most vulnerable.

The chance is considerably less than 5%, and that is so small that it doesn't merit the placing of a short-leg. That fielder would be far better placed somewhere the early vulnerability could be exploited.

and what makes you think that chopra isnt one of those "anomalies"?

He might be - but you can't just presume someone is going to do what about 1 in 500 people do!

yes and as i mentioned earlier.....the number of opportunities both das and ramesh got were far far more than what chopra has,yet both of them failed to take that step forward , in fact das got worse. if chopra is given as many opportunities as das did and didnt manage to convert those scores then yes he should be dropped

Yes, I know they both had plenty more opportunities, you just said there weren't any "others", and I said there were.

 

[Richard]

actually despite what most of the commentators say, hes better off bowling over the wicket. the problem with giles when he bowls around the wicket is that with the angle he isnt capable of turning the ball enough to get the outside edge of the bat, even on turners.

You clearly haven't watched the Pakistan-England Tests at Lahore, Faisalabad and Karachi, the Sri Lanka-England Test at The SSC (all 2000\01), the India-England game at Ahmedabad a year later or the two Sri Lanka-England games at Galle and Kandy 2 years after that.
Giles is perfectly capable of turning the ball enough to hit the outside-edge on turners, and turning it a long way past as well (as exemplified by his deliveries to dismiss Inzamam-Ul-Haq in Lahore and Kumble in Ahmedabad).
He just can't on wickets that don't turn significantly, the same way no other fingerspinner can. And because these wickets don't occur very often there isn't any point playing Giles or any other fingerspinner very often. And because people use the "variation" excuse Giles often ends-up bowling over-the-wicket for long spells when he gets picked erroneously.

 

[marc71178]

Flintoff most certainly was not a consistent player in the English Test side post 2001

I think tec meant consistently selected in the side.

 

[marc71178]

Yep, a whole 5 overs.

So ignore the 35 or more he bowled in the second innings, they're just an exception?

 

[tooextracool]

Flintoff most certainly was not a consistent player in the English Test side post 2001, he started to bowl accurately in the one-day side from the winter of 2001\02 (and even then he still got hammered quite a bit because batsmen used their feet to him), and started to score Test runs only in the summer of 2003, 5 years after his debut.
Who's to say I "like" Flintoff, or Rhodes for that matter. It matters not whether I "like" any player, and I don't, because to "like" or "dislike" players is an intensely foolish.
The fact is their cases are very unusual and whatever I think of them it doesn't alter the fact that most players don't get a free-ride for 5 ot 6 years. Chopra has no reason to get one.

i meant that flintoff was picked consistently in the test side post 2001 or more accurately after the ind-eng series in india. rhodes on the other hand played every test match from 92 to 98 without performing much at all. surely he was retained for those 6 years due to his remarkable fielding ability......
chopra might not deserve a free-ride for 6 years.... he should at least get another 2 series like some of the other openers in the past have

I did not call the times Oram has got good figures exceptions at all, because they have happened about half the time. Incidentally, I didn't watch the 2002\03 Ind-NZ series, the first time I've ever seen in full a match in which Oram bowled was this summer, before I've only ever seen highlights. I've just judged by the vast majority of cases that show Oram has got good figures when the pitches have helped seamers and not when they haven't.

and despite my trying to show you that he has bowled well in pakistan, against SA at home, in the wc and in a few other series you still wont admit that you have been proved wrong.

Let me assure you, Vettori was turning the ball very big on the third day, the ball that got Gilchrist caught at short-leg being an example. And no, it does not refute my ascertation that wickets abroad "do not" suit fingerspin, because, yes, you guessed it, I have never said such a thing. For the most part, they don't, but grounds in the Caribbean have produced fingerspin-friendly wickets sometimes, The SCG does almost every year, and there have even been occasions in England when grounds have produced fingerspin-friendly wickets (like The Oval in 1997)..

nope i dont agree with you that the perth wicket turned that much on day 3 and there doesnt seem to be a way to prove that that was the case.....regardless you stated that finger spinners were useless outside the sub continent, so perhaps you'd like to alter that statement by saying that they are useless outside wickets that offer something for them....as are most spinners for that matter.

So why isn't he one of the best batsmen you'll ever see?

now thats just plain stupid.......

The fact is, being a good short-leg isn't that difficult.

yes im quite sure that having lightning quick reflexes and safe hands isnt that difficult......

And why not?.

it just shows that there are times when wicket taking balls dont take wickets....which quite refutes your theory

The chance is considerably less than 5%, and that is so small that it doesn't merit the placing of a short-leg. That fielder would be far better placed somewhere the early vulnerability could be exploited.

it is more likely that placing a short leg against a player who is vulnerable to the short ball would fetch wicket than placing him anywhere else on the field

He might be - but you can't just presume someone is going to do what about 1 in 500 people do!

Yes, I know they both had plenty more opportunities, you just said there weren't any "others", and I said there were.

yes and the others were given far more opportunities to change that....if chopra continued to get out in the same vein for another couple of series then yes he should be dropped like the others were. the fact is that chopra despite being just about as impressive hasnt been given half as many opportunities as the others were.

 

[Prince EWS]

Tell me, how is someone who has an average in the mid-20s a successful Test-match batsman?

He protects the middle order from the new ball.

Also, its unfair to bring up his average when he hasnt even played 15 tests yet!

Chopra is a great player, and shouldnt be dropped for anyone.

 

[Nate]

until he can play a bloody shot more than once, he IS NOT a great player.

 

[Prince EWS]

until he can play a bloody shot more than once, he IS NOT a great player.

What does that have to do with Chopra?

Ive seen himplay the same forward defensive shot a million times!

But seriously, I think you are overreacting. He is there to see off the new ball, and that he did. He was scoring more runs than those that were put down next to his name. He created opportunities fro Dravid, Tendulkar, Laxman etc. to score runs against the older ball.

 

[Nate]

patel got a shot at opening and he got 67 or 69!! why not give him more chances? escpecially since he can keep.

 

[Deja moo]

patel got a shot at opening and he got 67 or 69!! why not give him more chances? escpecially since he can keep.

Patel has enough problems sorting out his keeping . The team would do well to keep him away from the opening slot unless Chopra is the regular opener and India is chasing quick runs to set the opposition a target .

 

[marc71178]

Keeping and opening long term with this amount of cricket would lead to early burnout.

 

[Nate]

yea actually, good point. regardless, with the amount of talent in Indian batting at the mo i find no need to put chopra up there, unless he becomes more agressive. a s/r of even only 40 and an average of about the same would be sufficient. maybe put ganguly opener? just not the current chopra.