Richard said:
Well I've seen all three and they're all about the same if you ask me.
and you call yourself a good judge of the game?
Richard said:
1, the subcontinent is supposed to be spin-friendly. How many proper dustbowls have we seen recently?
so? the wickets have been slow and spinners have been bowling the bulk of the overs in the series. surely on these wickets where the run rate tends to be slow you would slip in a forward short leg and try to get the batsman out!
Richard said:
2, no, they're not, it's just most captains and commentators seem to have the misguided notion that they are. Good batsmen don't get caught at short-leg off seamers very often.
not every team happens to have 7 good batsman, and good bowlers can get a batsman out caught at short leg if they bowl the right length ie fast and into the rib cage. ive seen kirsten get out there several times,along with steve waugh and more recently fleming....and im quite sure they are all not good batsman and/or the bowlers were lucky
Richard said:
Because you change it for the better, one man scores 110, the other scores 110 as well. Which would you prefer.
except in the last 15 years there hasnt been a single opening pair capable of doing the above on a consistent basis in india(or even as well as sehwag and chopra have been).your argument is a bit ridiculous....its like saying would you rather have a batsman who averages 50 or a batsman who averages 70,conveniently forgetting that there arent any players who do average 70, and averaging 50 isnt that bad
Richard said:
Cricket isn't built around partnerships, it's built around individuals. That's why individual averages are rather more often quoted than partnership averages.
yes cricket is a game with individuals,but its how they work together that counts.
Richard said:
The "potential" excuse is used many times... maybe Chopra does have potential, but you'd think after three series it would start being revealed.
in 1 series he averaged 46....in another he was instrumental in the success. so hes really had only one awful series. regardless potential isnt the number of the runs you score.....its about for how long and how well you played to score those runs
Richard said:
He's got a very obvious chink in his armour - his shot-selection is not up to scratch.Just because his dismissals don't have any particular similarity about them - so what? The fact is, he keeps getting himself out without scoring significant runs. That is a chink in the armour if you ask me.
its a chink in his armour,but theres not a problem with his technique. the same could have been said about flintoff a couple of years ago, and it doesnt take 3 series to get that sorted out