tooextracool said:
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.
tooextracool said:
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.
tooextracool said:
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.
tooextracool said:
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.
tooextracool said:
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.
tooextracool said:
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.
tooextracool said:
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.
tooextracool said:
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.
tooextracool said:
or how good he was in the 2 ODI series prior to that......
Which, as I've stated, were not part of a trend.
tooextracool said:
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).
tooextracool said:
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.
tooextracool said:
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!
tooextracool said:
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.
tooextracool said:
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.