Yuvraj Singh and Andy Symonds

[Richard]

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.

And do other openers who have done exactly the same job in the past deserve the same amount of credit? Even though their partners have not swelled the partnerships to the same degree?
If his job is to average 28 in Test-cricket then it sure is a poor person scripting the job-descriptions.

 

[Richard]

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

For probably the same reason Flintoff was retained in the England Test side without a murmer, for five years, before he started producing the goods. And he sure showed a hell of a lot more potential than Flintoff did in his first 5 years.

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

No, I call anomalies and exceptions to rules anomalies and exceptions to rules. It is those who seek to use them to show something that have been proved wrong, because exceptions do not show anything. Vettori in 1999 was nowhere near as successful as everyone seems to remember, and Vettori in Australia exploited a turning wicket at The WACA and did not much else all series. The fact is that most typical wickets outside the subcontinent offer nothing to fingerspinners and there is no point picking them.

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

No, he's not - and even if he were, it's hardly likely that he'd play any significant part by catching 3 catches a game that others wouldn't get near.

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?

No, but if someone plays a poor shot to a poor ball from me and it results in a wicket I don't kid myself I've deserved it. So I apply that philosophy to all other bowlers.

so kirsten,waugh and fleming arent good batsmen then?

No, they are all good batsmen - but like everyone, they do play poor shots sometimes. They just score rather a lot of runs in between them. Just because they happen to have been caught at short-leg a few times, it does not matter as these are exceptions to the rule.

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

Why did you say it was "whoever scores 20" then? So if Chopra scores 20 off 80 balls and Das scores 20 off 100 balls, has Das batted better then? And if Chopra is likely to score more as he plays more, surely it's about time to expect it to start? In fact, surely it's long past that time?

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

What part of "Chopra has failed" do you not understand?

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

The same amount that wasn't given to others who didn't have a partner who made the partnership a success?

 

[Richard]

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

Yes, it does, but Chopra failed against three poor quality attacks.

 

[Richard]

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.

But performing such a simple role is hardly admirable. Lots of others batted for far, far longer, and mostly it was his fault he didn't bat for longer.

 

[marc71178]

Like they did at Lord's;

You mean when he bowled 35 overs in one spell and took something like 3-75?

Yes, I can see how they got a hold of him there

 

[marc71178]

No, he's not - and even if he were, it's hardly likely that he'd play any significant part by catching 3 catches a game that others wouldn't get near.

So 3 wickets a team wouldn't otherwise have got, and you think that wouldn't be significant?!

Yet if Jonty Rhodes (one you seem to like) were to do similar and get 3 wickets the team wouldn't have got, you'd say it's proof that he should be in the team...

 

[tooextracool]

For probably the same reason Flintoff was retained in the England Test side without a murmer, for five years, before he started producing the goods. And he sure showed a hell of a lot more potential than Flintoff did in his first 5 years.

rubbish...no one plays every game for 6 years with an average in the low 30s unless he had something else up his sleeve.

No, I call anomalies and exceptions to rules anomalies and exceptions to rules. It is those who seek to use them to show something that have been proved wrong, because exceptions do not show anything. Vettori in 1999 was nowhere near as successful as everyone seems to remember, and Vettori in Australia exploited a turning wicket at The WACA and did not much else all series. The fact is that most typical wickets outside the subcontinent offer nothing to fingerspinners and there is no point picking them.

yes whenever you are proved wrong it is always anomalies or exceptions. just like oram's ODI record you might say?
oh and the WACA wicket definetly wasnt a turning wicket....im quite sure you didnt watch that match either because i remember distinctly that it was the hardest wicket i have ever seen....almost like a rock. and remind me howcome warne didnt take more than 2 wickets in that match if it was such a spinners paradise?
and what about the series in NZ in 99 against australia where he took 12 wickets in the match?was that also an "anomaly" or do these anomalies just seem to happen oh so very often?

No, he's not - and even if he were, it's hardly likely that he'd play any significant part by catching 3 catches a game that others wouldn't get near..

no hes very likely of pulling off a blinder of an excellent flick shot of a well set batsman....and if that cant change a game what can?

No, but if someone plays a poor shot to a poor ball from me and it results in a wicket I don't kid myself I've deserved it. So I apply that philosophy to all other bowlers.

so if someone bowls a good ball and a batsman plays a poor shot what do you do then? as a captain you have to set a field for poor shots and/or batsman's weaknesses

No, they are all good batsmen - but like everyone, they do play poor shots sometimes. They just score rather a lot of runs in between them. Just because they happen to have been caught at short-leg a few times, it does not matter as these are exceptions to the rule.

all 3 of them have been out on several occasions at short leg or silly point....regardless of whether it is a poor shot or not i would have a short leg out there to try and get them out.

Why did you say it was "whoever scores 20" then? So if Chopra scores 20 off 80 balls and Das scores 20 off 100 balls, has Das batted better then?

yes he has batted better if he did the same...the fact is that towards the end of his short career das didnt and one must remember that das got far more opportunities than chopra despite doing pretty much of the same!
if chopra were given as many opportunities as das and still failed to convert then i would be just as agreeable as you are to kick him out.

And if Chopra is likely to score more as he plays more, surely it's about time to expect it to start? In fact, surely it's long past that time?.

i would give him another couple of series.....if flintoff and apparently rhodes were maintained for 6 yrs then why shouldnt chopra?

The same amount that wasn't given to others who didn't have a partner who made the partnership a success?

except that there arent any "others" who you seem to refer to

 

[tooextracool]

Yes, it does, but Chopra failed against three poor quality attacks.

he didnt fail.....he was average, but he showed 'potential' and was part of a successful partnership.

 

[tooextracool]

You mean when he bowled 35 overs in one spell and took something like 3-75?

Yes, I can see how they got a hold of him there

marc giles is an appalling bowler when the conditions dont suit him.....the only reason he is in the side is because he is the best of a bad bunch. if NZ had vettori at trent bridge i can assure you england wouldnt even have come close to winning.

 

[marc71178]

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.

 

[Richard]

So 3 wickets a team wouldn't otherwise have got, and you think that wouldn't be significant?!

Yet if Jonty Rhodes (one you seem to like) were to do similar and get 3 wickets the team wouldn't have got, you'd say it's proof that he should be in the team...

You have clearly misunderstood what I said, whether deliberately to try and pick non-existant faults or accidentally I don't know.
What I meant was it is hardly likely Chopra is so good at short-leg that he would do something three times a game - catch a catch others wouldn't at short-leg.

 

[Richard]

You mean when he bowled 35 overs in one spell and took something like 3-75?

Yes, I can see how they got a hold of him there

No, I was talking about the first-innings.

 

[Richard]

marc giles is an appalling bowler when the conditions dont suit him.....the only reason he is in the side is because he is the best of a bad bunch. if NZ had vettori at trent bridge i can assure you england wouldnt even have come close to winning.

It is far more true to say that Giles is part of a bunch of bowlers who are appalling when conditions don't suit them - fingerspinners.

 

[Richard]

rubbish...no one plays every game for 6 years with an average in the low 30s unless he had something else up his sleeve.

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.

yes whenever you are proved wrong it is always anomalies or exceptions. just like oram's ODI record you might say?
oh and the WACA wicket definetly wasnt a turning wicket....im quite sure you didnt watch that match either because i remember distinctly that it was the hardest wicket i have ever seen....almost like a rock. and remind me howcome warne didnt take more than 2 wickets in that match if it was such a spinners paradise?
and what about the series in NZ in 99 against australia where he took 12 wickets in the match?was that also an "anomaly" or do these anomalies just seem to happen oh so very often?

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.
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.
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.

no hes very likely of pulling off a blinder of an excellent flick shot of a well set batsman....and if that cant change a game what can?

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.

so if someone bowls a good ball and a batsman plays a poor shot what do you do then? as a captain you have to set a field for poor shots and/or batsman's weaknesses

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.

all 3 of them have been out on several occasions at short leg or silly point....regardless of whether it is a poor shot or not i would have a short leg out there to try and get them out.

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.

yes he has batted better if he did the same...the fact is that towards the end of his short career das didnt and one must remember that das got far more opportunities than chopra despite doing pretty much of the same!
if chopra were given as many opportunities as das and still failed to convert then i would be just as agreeable as you are to kick him out.

Well you'd think with the like of Sriram in the ranks, with First-Class averages in the 60s, there are others who deserve a chance, just like there were in Das' case.

i would give him another couple of series.....if flintoff and apparently rhodes were maintained for 6 yrs then why shouldnt chopra?

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.

except that there arent any "others" who you seem to refer to

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

 

[Tom Halsey]

Agreed - I don't rate Vettori any higher than Giles.

EDIT: That was aimed at Richard's post above the above - he posted before me.

 

[Richard]

Why not just edit in a quote of my former post?
That's what I do in that situation.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Could have, but meh.

 

[Richard]

Gor, these lazy beggers...

 

[Tom Halsey]

What do you expect? I'm from Essex!

 

[Richard]

So, for most of his life, has been Nasser Hussain...
You people will use any excuses. Even go so far as to blame your geography.