Yuvraj Singh and Andy Symonds

[marc71178]

Ormond and Dawson are rubbish, yes, but not that much more rubbish than the cannon-fodder Chopra's faced in his career.

Execpt this "cannon fodder" is actually a list of good bowlers.

Just because you seem to have decided that they're not good (eg your proclamation on the entire NZ attack) is irrelevant.

 

[marc71178]

And Jacob Oram, whose one person has constantly tried to use to prove me wrong and so far has failed miserably.

Don't think he has actually.

As I've stated, you are using the assumption that Zimbabwe's attack is inferior to all, when in fact it is every bit as strong as those which Chopra has faced.

Codswallop

The 2 Zimbabwean attacks he's faced have been:

Streak, Paul Strang, Flower, Olonga, Murphy, Campbell, Rennie, Viljoen, Nkala and Brian Strang in the first series (172 @ 52.33)

Price, Streak, Flower, Watambwa, Friend and Gripper in the second series (149 @ 49.66)

Streak and Price aside, it's a case of spot someone who would make a success in County Cricket, let alone Internationally.

And you reckon those are as good as the Australians, New Zealanders and Pakistanis that Chopra's faced?

 

[tooextracool]

Mark Richardson, who has scored lots of runs on wickets that have offered something to the seamers, yes, sure, he's proven me wrong..

marc richardson has scored in a series full of seamer friendly wickets, when several others failed to get into double figures. that is no fluke. and how many seamer friendly wickets has he played on in the first place?not many i can assure you

As I've stated, you are using the assumption that Zimbabwe's attack is inferior to all, when in fact it is every bit as strong as those which Chopra has faced.

id like to see how many people on here will agree with you on that one.....everyone whos watched them bowl knows their worse, while richard here comes in after reading some useless match reports and calls them equal

No, I didn't see it - and I didn't need to to know what happened.
The fact is Das scored 51 for once out - it doesn't matter how many runs anyone else scored - that is a reasonable performance. And it is perfectly sufficient to avoid the disgrace of failing against Bangladesh - so I'm sorry, but you can't throw that one at him.

rubbish, when its convenient you say that chopra failed while the rest of the indian side cashed in but when das does the same against a bangladesh attack you call it 'reasonable'

Oh, and if Chopra hadn't played every innings in which he scored a decent score his average would be at Andre Nel's level. Haven't you got the picture yet - you can't cherry-pick out stuff unless it's an exception. Das' runs against Zimbabwe and Chopra's lack of runs in his entire career have been against comparable attacks.

and as i have said earlier the attacks were not comparable

And of course, despite the fact that I mentioned Vaas' career is far longer than Oram, we can only look at the last 1.5 years... because that suits you best.
In a short part of Vaas' long career, maybe.

ive only used the last 1.5 years, because thats the time since oram has really been a consistent player in the side and it would seem fair if we looked at performances amongst common time.well heres what i will do, i'll go on looking at vaas' performances from 2000 onwards,quite frankly i dont have the time to go over every performance in the 10 yrs of his career

singer triangular series
vs pak 1/38(9)- a poor performance i might add on a seamers pitch,considering that he was the only bowler in the entire side to go for over 4 runs an over
vs SA 0/27(6)- once again 4.50 which by your methods is useless,especially considering that his ER was more than the SA run rate
vs pak 1/44(8)- another useless performance
vs SA 0/29(7) - indeed the only good performance in the series

vs england
all the pitches were seamer friendly so really there is no point taking into account his performances bu for the record his figs were 1/26,1/22,3/13

ARY gold cup
vs pak 1/47(10)- not good enough
vs NZ 0/32(5)- An appalling performance considering that NZ only got 163
vs pak 1/47(9)- useless
vs NZ 1/57(9) - useless
vs pak 3/36(6) - indeed another useless performance and a disgraceful series

coca cola cup(sl)
vs NZ 1/36(7)-hammered again
vs ind 1/22(7)- finally a good performance
vs nz 0/24(6) - decent performance
vs ind 2/47(10) - not good enough
vs nz 3/20(7) - seamer friendly wicket so doesnt count, despite that he was the most expensive bowler in the side
vs ind 2/35(9) - good performance
vs ind 2/41(9)- not quite good enough,was the most expensive bowler in the side again

khaleej times trophy(vs pak only)
0/24(7) - seamer friendly wicket
1/40(10) - good performance
1/35(10) seamer friendly wicket

LG triangular(vs WI only)
0/40(8)- poor performance
0/23(7) - good performance

sharjah cup
1/31(8)- seamer friendly wicket
0/43(6)- hammered
2/8(7)- good performance
1/58(10)- obliterated

natwest series
2/58(9)-hammered
2/38(10)-good
2/39(6)-hammered
2/26(10)-seamer friendly wicket
0/29(6)-not good enough
1/64(10)- useless

morocco cup
1/61(10)-useless again
0/28(7)- decent
3/30(9)-seamer friendly wicket
2/33(10) - good performance

ICC champions trophy
vs pak 1/27(10)- seamer friendly wicket
vs aus 1/31 - seamer friendly wicket
vs ind 0/0(1)- rained off
vs ind 1/24(4.4)- rained off but not looking too good

vs SA(in SA)
1/23(8) - seamer friendly wicket
0/48(10)- by your standards not good enough
2/39(10) - good performance
1/42(9) - not good enough
1/37(10)- good performance

vb series
1/49(10)-again not good enough
3/36(10)-good performance
0/47(7) - useless
1/29(6) - not good enough
0/54(9) - hammered
0/38(10)- good performance
2/54(10)- again hammered

so vaas has been just about as inconsistent as oram yet of course because of his fine performances against zimbabwe,kenya,netherlands and the lot he has to be the best ODI bowler in the world while oram is useless.
you're clutching at straws here richard, the argument is lost, and you and everyone else here knows it

It's interesting, however, that we find Vaas is much best at exploiting seaming conditions when previously it has been insisted by you that he can only exploit dry, dusty ones.

i see how you conveniently change topic but i'll go along with it.....its one day cricket mind you and anyone fast bowler can do well on seamer friendly wickets in ODIs because a little bit of accuracy and pressure will get you wickets. the fact is that vaas lacks penetration in those conditons and that is why he struggles to get wickets in eng and SA in tests

 

[tooextracool]

No, I have not been proven wrong time and again - indeed, my relentlessness seems to have driven you to distraction in this thread. You have mixed posts, and are now resorting to "you have been proven wrong because I said so". Despite the fact I have provided answers to anything anyone has come-up with.

i doubt it....id like to see how many people on these boards think im losing this argument because time and time again ive come up with counter arguments worthy enough to prove you wrong while you have dismissed them off as anomalies,exceptions and basically have been clutching at straws.

If anyone thinks a quality spinner uses flight to achieve loop and drift and make themselves dangerous with these in themselves they are no expert on cricket.
Because we've seen, almost without fail, that significant turn is a neccesity to defeat top-class batsmen and get them out cheaply, regularly.

you seem to think that every team has 11 top class batters in their side. whiles its true that exceptionally good players of spin are rarely troubled outside of turning pitches, the fact is that there have been times where good finger spinners have got them and a lot of other players out.
and while quality finger are better bowlers on turning wickets than on wickets with bounce, there have been several bowlers who have adapated to conditions outside the sub continent and been able to get wickets there. the point here is that a finger spinner is just about as dangerous as a leg spinner anywhere in the world

I'd like to see some examples of spinners who've got good career records despite playing regularly in conditions that render them unable to turn the ball.
Of course, it goes without saying that the more bounce you get, the more dangerous any sideways-movement becomes.
But neither extravagant (but consistent) bounce, or loop, or drift, are a dangerous weapon to decent batsmen when they are used without turn. They are simply additional pieces of an armoury that make turn more dangerous.

so how about derek underwood then? or lance gibbs?
a ive said earlier, there are several wickets outside of the sub continent that offer something for the quality finger spinner on the 4th and 5th day and you only have to look at most of the recent series to realise that.

 

[tooextracool]

Fine, amend that to three (Kumble is hardly an orthodox wristspinner). What I mean is that, since Benaud (ie the last 40 years - which is what I said), Abdul Qadir, Warne and Murali have been the only decent wristspinners.

what rubbish, why shouldnt kumble be considered a wrist spinner?its a bit like saying chanderpaul shouldnt be considered a batsman because he has an unorthodox technique.he bowls with a leg spinners action, turns the ball away and bowls several googlies, that qualifies as a leg spinner

You'd think so, would you? Despite the fact that in the limited-overs cricket that dominates recreational cricket provides the need for accuracy above all else - better accurate fingerspinner than inaccurate wristspinner. Hence, the fingerspinner is much the most developed bowler, because everyone knows that controlled wristspin is a rare gift.

limited overs cricket has only started to dominate recreational cricket recently, the fact is that there have been far many more finger spinners than wrist spinners over the last 50 years.

I don't give a damn who believes what about Rhodes' reflexes - the fact is, if they were superior to everyone else, he would be a superior batsman to everyone else. And he wasn't. Because the best batsman of all-time had reflexes exactly comparable to millions of others. There is a peak for reflex success, and all batsmen of decent club standard reach that peak..

this is rubbish....good reflexes doesnt make someone a better batsman than someone else. as you yourself mentioned, its concentration,technique and several other factors that matter

No, it was not playable - all you can hope to do at a good ball is play-and-miss - sometimes you will, sometimes you will nick it.
If you nick it, there's no discredit to you, if you play-and-miss, you forget it and live to fight another day.
The point I am making is that you cannot expect every good ball to be wicket-taking, but once one is then the batsman does not deserve discredit.

once again you state both sides of the argument.
first you state that every wicket taking ball must take a wicket now you say it doesnt have to. its just typical of you

 

[tooextracool]

That England attack, incidentally, was far more testing than any Chopra has yet faced: Giles, turning it in the last two Tests; Hoggard, bowling well in excellent conditions for seam and swing in the Third; White, capable of bowling well in any conditions; Flintoff, bowling uncharecteristically well in the Third. Ormond and Dawson are rubbish, yes, but not that much more rubbish than the cannon-fodder Chopra's faced in his career.

tuffey is a better bowler than hoggard,and that is represented by the stats,vettori is just abt as good as giles, while white was not the same bowler that he was a yr ago.....he himself admitted that. flintoff bowled well perhaps but nly marginally better than oram. fact is that the attack chopra played against NZ was just about as good as the one das played against england and guess who came out with the better average.

Chopra in his two series in the subcontinent has done no better than Das did in his home series and that in Sri Lanka. Das, both in the subcontinent and outside it, has faced far more challenging circumstances (harder conditions despite mostly equally poor bowling) than Chopra and still done better..

and das has averaged far lower than chopra in those series against better attacks

And they almost certainly would have had successful partnerships had Sehwag scored the way he has when opening with them.
And yes - the outside-subcontinent surfaces offered something more to the bowlers in Ramesh and Das' cases (South Africa) - hence the reason for them averaging some 10 less than Chopra (Australia).

yes so if they averaged lower albeit against better attacks how can you call them better than chopra?

I

have watched all of his Tests from Australia onwards. He has shown he can sometimes make it to the 40s. That, to me, isn't showing especial potential. He's had his fair share - now IMO it's time to give someone else a go.

no, das couldnt get past 40 either and yet he was given 3 times as many chances

Waugh, Atapattu and suchlike were retained because their selectors believed in them - whether it appeared right or wrong, it was proven right. The Indian selectors have chosen not to take that gamble - they have given Chopra his fair chance and nothing more. Because it is a gamble - not all players given a run beyond what they have earnt have repaid the selectors..

and why shoud chopra not be given as many chances as they did?you cant guarantee that chopra will fail....of course most people who make debuts for their countries tend to fail but does that mean since such a high proportion of debutants fail that they shouldnt be any debutants at all!

If that is potential what isn't? Being part of a partnership, as I've said God-knows-how-many times now, doesn't mean you've done well if your average is still poor and most of the partnership has been made by your partner.

and as i have said on countless occasions in the past....it doesnt matter who scored what in a partnership. if a partnerhsip gets 200 and one guy scored only 30 it still doesnt devalue the partnership

He has shown potential if you ask you - if you ask me, he hasn't shown the potential to be anywhere near as good as the three examples you give. See above, as you've repeated the same question.

as i said earlier....he has shown more potential in every ones eyes except yours....so really i dont think that you could make much of a claim with that.

 

[tooextracool]

And i wasn't talking about the game at The WACA, I was talking about Eden Park. As you will be able to see if you follow the sequence:.

actually the sequence was broken a long time ago.....around the time when i said that warne failed in that test match(warne did relatively well in eden park)

So, as you should have realised, I was talking about the Eden Park wicket - and you should also have realised it because I stated that you were wrong to assume I didn't watch the WACA game. I can make deductions about the Eden Park wicket (and read Wisden to confirm) and I can use my eyes to analyse the WACA match.

i can guarantee you that the WACA didnt offer much turn on the first 3 days. the fact that it was a rock hard wicket made it bouncy and that was what vettori used to his advantage. for those who have seen vettori in his prime know that vettori primarily uses bounce and drift rather than turn and that is represented by the fact that he usually struggles on sub continental wickets.

You have not shown plenty - you have attempted to show a few, and I have shown instead that they were all on blatant turners, without needing in some cases to have watched them.
Of course, it is inevitable that there must have been some game, somewhere, where a fingerspinner got some wickets on a pitch that hasn't offered turn - after all, that sort of wicket has existed for about 70 years. However, if we think about the number of games that have been played we can see that these are exceptions\anomalies.

nope the fact that they have been these exceptions have occured about as many times as they have for leg spinners outside the sub continent only says one thing......any quality finger spinner is just about as capable as any quality leg spinner outside the subcontinent.

This particular post seems to demonstrate that you are losing the thread... maybe you should read more carefully before making your next series of replies.

seems odd that someone who says this "And of course, despite the fact that I mentioned Vaas' career is far longer than Oram, we can only look at the last 1.5 years..." would accuse someone else of 'losing the thread'

 

[Richard]

Execpt this "cannon fodder" is actually a list of good bowlers.

Just because you seem to have decided that they're not good (eg your proclamation on the entire NZ attack) is irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant.
I've decided they're not good on considered evidence.
Wiseman - Test average over 45.
Styris - Test average over 50.
Williams - Test average over 45.
Bracken - Test average nearly 60.
Sami - Test average all but 47.
Butler - Test average over 35 in any case, nearly 45 if one spell is excluded, and it's perfectly valid to do so as it wasn't part of the overall trend.
Lee - Test average since June 2001 over 38.
Abdur\l Razzaq - Test average 36.
Saqlain Mushtaq - averaging 71 in authentic Test-matches (ie excluding the Bangladesh one), in the last 2 years.
Tuffey - I've already explained this in another thread - see http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8531&page=5, post 173
Oram - career average when debut series is removed (for obvious reasons - it was on pitches any seamer worth his salt would expect to excel on) all but 43.
MacGill - in his entire career, he's had 2 excellent and 1 acceptible series - remove these (for reasons I'll explain in a second) and his career average is 36, not as bad as some but still pretty poor. One of his good series was against Bangladesh, a team almost all bowlers have done pretty well against and who are universally accepted to be a substandard Test team; the other was against England, who in those days were appalling whenever confronted with anyone who could remotely turn a ball. The reasonable series was early in his career, in Pakistan, and does not match the rest of his career so can reasonably be called beginner's luck. He's also done OK in two one-off Tests against South Africa, which show about as much as a single Test can ever show.
Bichel - has had 3 decent Test-series in his entire career (rest of career average 42), one against the excuse for a Test-team provided by Zimbabwe in 2003\04, the others against teams who simply couldn't make any runs in the respective series because they were filled with substandard batsmen (Pakistan 2002\03, West Indies 2000\01).
Sure, that's a list of good bowlers, isn't it?
It's a list of cannon-fodder, like it or not. And Chopra couldn't take advantage.
Shabbir Ahmed, Shoaib Akhtar, Danish Kaneria and Jason Gillespie are the only Test-class bowlers he has faced. And it's not as if any of them distinguished themselves in their series against India.

 

[Richard]

Don't think he has actually.

Then I suggest you take a closer look.

Codswallop

The 2 Zimbabwean attacks he's faced have been:

Streak, Paul Strang, Flower, Olonga, Murphy, Campbell, Rennie, Viljoen, Nkala and Brian Strang in the first series (172 @ 52.33)

Price, Streak, Flower, Watambwa, Friend and Gripper in the second series (149 @ 49.66)

Streak and Price aside, it's a case of spot someone who would make a success in County Cricket, let alone Internationally.

And you reckon those are as good as the Australians, New Zealanders and Pakistanis that Chopra's faced?

So, once you remove the part-timers (who are no worse than New Zealand, Australia or Pakistan's part-timers), the bowlers who are so crap were:
Paul Strang, Olonga, Murphy, Viljoen, Nkala, Bryan Strang, Watambwa, Friend.
I've already demonstrated why the bowlers Chopra faced are so poor. Even if those 9 all averaged 50 in Test-cricket, their superiority wouldn't be significant. Given that none do, it's pretty clear they're all as crap as each other by international standards. IMO all could have a pretty good shot, if they worked hard, at making themselves good enough for most domestic competitions around The World where their conditions previal.
And Streak did as poorly as Gillespie, Kaneria, Shabbir and Shoaib, too. Price didn't have the surfaces for the most part, so he's no better than the 9 above.

 

[nookie_lk]

both of them are crap right now...but Yuvraj still will be my pick...

 

[marc71178]

I've already demonstrated why the bowlers Chopra faced are so poor.

No, you've removed series where these bowlers have succeeded, and posted misleadingly high averages.

Those 3 attacks are considerably stronger than any Zim attack in history.

 

[Richard]

No, I've very rarely cherry-picked - I've looked at stuff from one point onwards (Oram, Lee, MacGill, Saqlain Mushtaq); I've divided things into two perfectly legitimate categories (Tuffey), and in some cases (interestingly, the highest number) I've simply stated the thing as a whole without needing to remove anything to prove the point (Styris, Wiseman, Bracken, Williams, Sami, Razzaq).
The only cases where I've cherry-picked out good performances are Butler (one innings, which makes such a huge difference you'll agree, surely, that it's perfectly valid to remove) and Bichel (where I've stated why the reasons for removal are valid), plus MacGill given that it involved Bangladesh, and I'm sure no-one could possibly be stupid enough to claim that Test-matches involving Bangladesh deserve that title?
And I've shown, to anyone willing to keep an open mind rather than defend generalisations such as that Zimbabwe have to be massively inferior to the rest because it's always been assumed as such, that these attacks are very, very poor.

 

[marc71178]

Right...

Of course the actual quality of bowling is of course irrelevant then?

 

[Richard]

marc richardson has scored in a series full of seamer friendly wickets, when several others failed to get into double figures. that is no fluke. and how many seamer friendly wickets has he played on in the first place?not many i can assure you

A series full of seamer-friendly wickets, yes - I really must question how closely you have been watching, yet again. The only wicket in that series which favoured the seamers was Headingley, and surprise surprise, he failed there.
How many seamer-friendly wickets has he played on in his career - not many, exactly. On the rare occasion he has, more often than not he's failed.

id like to see how many people on here will agree with you on that one.....everyone whos watched them bowl knows their worse, while richard here comes in after reading some useless match reports and calls them equal

Anyone who disagrees with me, with or without watching them bowl, like you, is simply sticking determinedly to the generalisation that they must be worse because everyone says they are. I've provided comprehensive evidence as to why all the bowlers Chopra has faced I have denounced as woefully sub-par are so. Just like the Zimbabwean attack Das profited from so many times.

rubbish, when its convenient you say that chopra failed while the rest of the indian side cashed in but when das does the same against a bangladesh attack you call it 'reasonable'

If Chopra had scored 51 for once out against Bangladesh I'd be the first to say "he did what he needed to, but it really doesn't prove much and nor does it have any real affect on his average".
Which, funnily enough, is exactly what I've said about Das. I never said he deserves any real credit for scoring 51 for once out against Bangladesh - but it does not fall into the category you attempted to place it in, ie "failing against Bangladesh".

and as i have said earlier the attacks were not comparable

As I say above, I've provided comprehensive evidence as to why they are, very comparable. Until you can provide denouncement of that from which I can make no comeback you have lost the argument - Das' Zimbabwe were no worse than Chopra's New Zealand, Australia and Pakistan.

ive only used the last 1.5 years, because thats the time since oram has really been a consistent player in the side and it would seem fair if we looked at performances amongst common time.well heres what i will do, i'll go on looking at vaas' performances from 2000 onwards,quite frankly i dont have the time to go over every performance in the 10 yrs of his career

singer triangular series
vs pak 1/38(9)- a poor performance i might add on a seamers pitch,considering that he was the only bowler in the entire side to go for over 4 runs an over
vs SA 0/27(6)- once again 4.50 which by your methods is useless,especially considering that his ER was more than the SA run rate
vs pak 1/44(8)- another useless performance
vs SA 0/29(7) - indeed the only good performance in the series

vs england
all the pitches were seamer friendly so really there is no point taking into account his performances bu for the record his figs were 1/26,1/22,3/13

ARY gold cup
vs pak 1/47(10)- not good enough
vs NZ 0/32(5)- An appalling performance considering that NZ only got 163
vs pak 1/47(9)- useless
vs NZ 1/57(9) - useless
vs pak 3/36(6) - indeed another useless performance and a disgraceful series

coca cola cup(sl)
vs NZ 1/36(7)-hammered again
vs ind 1/22(7)- finally a good performance
vs nz 0/24(6) - decent performance
vs ind 2/47(10) - not good enough
vs nz 3/20(7) - seamer friendly wicket so doesnt count, despite that he was the most expensive bowler in the side
vs ind 2/35(9) - good performance
vs ind 2/41(9)- not quite good enough,was the most expensive bowler in the side again

khaleej times trophy(vs pak only)
0/24(7) - seamer friendly wicket
1/40(10) - good performance
1/35(10) seamer friendly wicket

LG triangular(vs WI only)
0/40(8)- poor performance
0/23(7) - good performance

sharjah cup
1/31(8)- seamer friendly wicket
0/43(6)- hammered
2/8(7)- good performance
1/58(10)- obliterated

natwest series
2/58(9)-hammered
2/38(10)-good
2/39(6)-hammered
2/26(10)-seamer friendly wicket
0/29(6)-not good enough
1/64(10)- useless

morocco cup
1/61(10)-useless again
0/28(7)- decent
3/30(9)-seamer friendly wicket
2/33(10) - good performance

ICC champions trophy
vs pak 1/27(10)- seamer friendly wicket
vs aus 1/31 - seamer friendly wicket
vs ind 0/0(1)- rained off
vs ind 1/24(4.4)- rained off but not looking too good

vs SA(in SA)
1/23(8) - seamer friendly wicket
0/48(10)- by your standards not good enough
2/39(10) - good performance
1/42(9) - not good enough
1/37(10)- good performance

vb series
1/49(10)-again not good enough
3/36(10)-good performance
0/47(7) - useless
1/29(6) - not good enough
0/54(9) - hammered
0/38(10)- good performance
2/54(10)- again hammered

so vaas has been just about as inconsistent as oram yet of course because of his fine performances against zimbabwe,kenya,netherlands and the lot he has to be the best ODI bowler in the world while oram is useless.
you're clutching at straws here richard, the argument is lost, and you and everyone else here knows it

Maybe you want to believe it, maybe a few others would love to believe it.
A few things to pick-out - your ignoration of Zimbabwe is invalid, because their batting was no inferior to anyone else's before WC2003.
The only seamer-friendly wicket in the England series in 2000\01 was at Galle.
The sum total is:
Substandard performances (whether poor or abysmal): 26
Good performances on seamer-friendly wickets: 10
It should be added here that the summing-up of seamer-friendly wickets cannot ultimately be trusted given that two of the three few occasions where I can provide a second opinion have shown to be incorrect.
Good performances on wickets which have been surmised as not-especially-seamer-friendly: 17
To the last two we can obviously add a few performances against Zimbabwe that have been overlooked on the excuse of generalisation because they might wreck the argument.
So, we see the general picture that he has been good more often than he has been poor (once the Zimbabwe games are added), and some of these good performances can be attributed to seamer-friendly wickets. Not, at a guess, as many as have been in this above list.
We can add those other games post-2002\03
Maybe a cumulative, post-2002 analogy can be provided.
But it seems the summing-up has not proved anything as conclusively as some might have hoped.

i see how you conveniently change topic but i'll go along with it.....its one day cricket mind you and anyone fast bowler can do well on seamer friendly wickets in ODIs because a little bit of accuracy and pressure will get you wickets. the fact is that vaas lacks penetration in those conditons and that is why he struggles to get wickets in eng and SA in tests

I haven't changed topic, I've just made a side-comment and said you're now claiming that Vaas can only bowl well in certain conditions whereas you've previously said he could only bowl well in other conditions. It was a jibe, and for once your explanation is perfectly valid.

 

[Richard]

Right...

Of course the actual quality of bowling is of course irrelevant then?

Er, no, where on Earth did you get that idea?
I've just summed-up the quality of the bowling.

 

[Richard]

i doubt it....id like to see how many people on these boards think im losing this argument because time and time again ive come up with counter arguments worthy enough to prove you wrong while you have dismissed them off as anomalies,exceptions and basically have been clutching at straws.

I've come-up with counter-arguments worthy enough, too - basically it will eventually all come back to differing attitudes and values. Some will want to believe what you're trying to show, some will see my point-of-view.
Most, however, will probably have lost track of the real thing ages ago. I'm almost certainly the only one who's maintained a grip on things. Neil would doubtless claim to differ, but he's not here ATM.

you seem to think that every team has 11 top class batters in their side. whiles its true that exceptionally good players of spin are rarely troubled outside of turning pitches, the fact is that there have been times where good finger spinners have got them and a lot of other players out.
and while quality finger are better bowlers on turning wickets than on wickets with bounce, there have been several bowlers who have adapated to conditions outside the sub continent and been able to get wickets there. the point here is that a finger spinner is just about as dangerous as a leg spinner anywhere in the world

No, not so.
Of course there have been fingerspinners and non-big-spinning wristspinners who have got wickets away from the subcontinent - jees, Kumble's got plenty.
It's not the number of wickets you get, it's the rate you get them at, ie the number of runs you concede and, to a lesser extent, the number of balls you have to bowl.
So even if you get a good player out a few times, if he scores lots of runs in between it doesn't really matter.

so how about derek underwood then? or lance gibbs?
a ive said earlier, there are several wickets outside of the sub continent that offer something for the quality finger spinner on the 4th and 5th day and you only have to look at most of the recent series to realise that.

In Underwood and Gibbs' days turning wickets weren't restricted to the subcontinent - they occurred here, there and everywhere, as long as it rained. Only after 1970 did they begin to reduce in number, and even then water sometimes seeped under the early excuses for covering.
You are really running-out of options if you have to try and put words onto my keyboard that I've never typed - I've never said turning wickets have been mostly confined to the subcontinent in the entire history of the game.
That only applies from the '70s onwards.

 

[Richard]

what rubbish, why shouldnt kumble be considered a wrist spinner?its a bit like saying chanderpaul shouldnt be considered a batsman because he has an unorthodox technique.he bowls with a leg spinners action, turns the ball away and bowls several googlies, that qualifies as a leg spinner

Oh, Kumble is a wristspinner all right, and a leg-spinner too - but he's hardly an orthodox one. He imparts about as much spin as a routine fingerspinner.
Hence he can be categorised with them when the need for amount of turn in the pitch is considered.

limited overs cricket has only started to dominate recreational cricket recently, the fact is that there have been far many more finger spinners than wrist spinners over the last 50 years.

Limited-overs cricket has been with us for a good deal of time now, let me assure you.
The first 20 of those last 50 years are irrelevant, because fingerspin was every bit as dangerous at all levels of cricket up to 1970 everywhere in The World as it is mostly just in the subcontinent nowadays. Uncovered wickets meant fingerspinners could turn deadly just after a shower wherever one may have occurred.
Even today, do you think most clubs have covering? Fingerspin is still easily more effective if you can bowl accurately in recreational cricket. Where it's not, the limited-overs game means inaccurate wristspin is a no-no.

this is rubbish....good reflexes doesnt make someone a better batsman than someone else. as you yourself mentioned, its concentration,technique and several other factors that matter

Of course good reflexes make someone a better batsman than someone else, the reason I'm such a shockingly poor batsman is because my eyesight and hand-eye-coordination isn't anywhere near as good as that of the best batsmen at my club.
However, good reflexes don't determine who is better from a certain level up, because from a not-especially-high level they're all equal.

once again you state both sides of the argument.
first you state that every wicket taking ball must take a wicket now you say it doesnt have to. its just typical of you

No, it's typical of you - you can't find anything wrong with what I've said so you have to try and manufacture something.
I never said a ball that doesn't take a wicket isn't a wicket-taking ball. I said it's a good ball, but only becomes wicket-taking when it takes a wicket.
I'll try to explain it one more time: -
Away-swinger, play-and-miss - good ball, well bowled - but try again, eh, that didn't do the batsman any harm.
Away-swinger, outside-edge nicked, ball goes to wicketkeeper - well bowled, you got the batsman out with a good ball. That was a wicket-taking ball, it took a wicket. Bad lack, bat, you couldn't have done much about that.
Wide Long-Hop, smashed to cover-fence - oh, bad luck mate - try again, you'll get him next time - everyone goes for four sometimes.
Wide Long-Hop, smashed right out of the middle of the bat, but straight to cover who takes the catch - you jammy b***ard, that wasn't a wicket-taking ball, you didn't deserve that - but it helps the team and the batsman's punished for a crap shot, so let's try to pretend you deserved credit for it.
Wide Long-Hop, right out of the middle of the bat, but straight to cover who drops the ball - you jammy b***ard bat - by all rights you're out, that was a crap shot and but for that fielder's ineptitude you would be back in the pavilion. And you, bowler - don't you dare look so disappointed, you wouldn't have deserved a wicket with that pie.

 

[marc71178]

Er, no, where on Earth did you get that idea?
I've just summed-up the quality of the bowling.

No, you've twisted it this way and that to try and make it seem that the attacks Chopra's faced are worse than the Zimbabwe attack.

 

[Waughney]

A bit more on the topic of the thread:Symonds pased fit to play Champions Trophy

 

[Tom Halsey]

except that das and ramesh averaged some 10 runs less than chopra did and didnt have any successful partnerships either.

I think Richard was saying they have an excuse for that though.