Yuvraj Singh and Andy Symonds

[Tom Halsey]

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.

To be fair, they aren't much better.

If he'd faced McGrath and Warne, I think his argument would be invalid.

But Willians and the like are not good at all.

 

[Waughney]

I would still say Gillespie, Lee and MacGill would be better than Streak, Price and Hondo....

 

[Richard]

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.

No, I've not twisted anything at all, I've demonstrated why you were wrong to suggest I had, and interestingly, you've simply continued to state that "you have twisted it - because I say you have" rather than explaining why my explanation of how I have not twisted anything is invalid.

 

[Richard]

I would still say Gillespie, Lee and MacGill would be better than Streak, Price and Hondo....

I'd much prefer have Price in my team than MacGill, I'd prefer not have Lee and Hondo in my team with equal revulsion, and I'd snap off the hand of anyone who offered me Gillespie or Steak with equal vigour.

 

[Richard]

To be fair, they aren't much better.

If he'd faced McGrath and Warne, I think his argument would be invalid.

But Willians and the like are not good at all.

If Chopra had faced McGrath, Gillespie, Warne, Akram, Waqar, Shabbir and Shoaib when all were bowling at their best then I'd be amazed if he made double-figures once.
Indeed, if he faced McGrath and Gillespie bowling at their best I'd be amazed if he faced Warne.

 

[Richard]

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

This thread went off it's title topic a long, long time ago!

 

[Richard]

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.

Yes, Tuffey and Hoggard are very comparable bowlers - no, Chopra's performance against Tuffey and Das' against Hoggard are not comparable, because in Bangalore Das faced Hoggard when he had the conditions he needs - Chopra faced Tuffey when he didn't.
Likewise, Giles and Vettori are very comparable - but at Motera (whatever you may attempt to recall incorrectly) Giles had the conditions he needs, not once did Vettori enjoy such benefits.
White bowled every bit as well in India as he did in Pakistan - he just didn't bowl as much. If he'd bowled more, I'm very confident he'd have got more wickets. All White said was he wasn't as fast then as he was a year before (and quite true) - he did not say "I'm no longer a Test-class bowler".
Flintoff and Oram's bowling was similar in the first two Tests, but Flintoff moved the ball more in Bangalore than Oram would ever have done - hence Das again faced a tougher Test.
So, while the respective New Zealand and England bowlers are very similar, the difference in conditions meant a far more stern test for Das than Chopra.

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

Yes, and as Mr. Halsey has said, the point is that far lower average can be allowed for by the extremely more vigorous challenge posed to Das.

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

Because the other evidence (ie how they cashed-in against weaker attacks) suggests Das can do what Chopra can't.

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

I've just answered that.

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!

There is no reason why they should have been given as many chances as they were - most people aren't. Who knows what other players might have become phenomenons after initial failure? Ed Smith might have taken Test-cricket by storm if England's selectors hadn't thoughtlessly discarded him the way they did (please remember that you cannot, no matter how hard you try, prove that this is beyond the realms of possibility).
The fact is that there are many players who have been given no more than their fair chance, failed to take it, and been dropped. It is almost certain that some would have gone on to achieve what Waugh and the like achieved.
Chopra will likely become one of that band. But you can't make him out to be anything special - that's all he is, one of those who didn't take his fair chance and can only have his potential next-stage-of-Test-career guessed at.

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

No, of course it doesn't devalue the partnership - but it does mean that the player who only scored 30 hasn't done much to be proud of.

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.

No, there are plenty (seemingly including the Indian selectors) who believe he has not shown sufficient potential to be given a run beyond what he has earnt.
As I've said - a few times - there will never be players who have shown no potential in anyone's eyes. Just because you think Ed Smith didn't show any potential and Chopra did does not make that fact!

 

[Richard]

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)

Yes, of course he did, that's why he only took 5 wickets in the match - less than Miller and Vettori, and equal with Wiseman, and took them at a cost of nearly 150.
Warne, comparatively, failed in that match - not as badly as he failed at The WACA - but he failed nonetheless, and it simply shows that both games were played on turning pitches, but that Warne doesn't bowl well every game. No-one can do that.

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.

And how often has Vettori been presented with the proverbial dustbowl?
I don't give a damn what you attempt to gurantee to anyone - I saw it with my own eyes, I saw Vettori turning the ball considerably whenever he was given the chance. And that is why he was so succesful.
I'm getting rather sick of you simply stating that things which happened did not.

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.

So let's see the number of times Warne, Murali, Abdul Qadir and Mushtaq Ahmed failed outside the subcontinent then, and compare it to every fingerspinner to bowl from the early 1970s onwards...
Fancy that?

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'

And who said to look at the last 1.5 years... you did.
You most certainly are losing the thread if you accuse me of doing something which was in fact carried-out by you.

 

[Waughney]

This thread went off it's title topic a long, long time ago!

Yeah, something like 18 pages ago. Seems as though my attempt to get it back on topic has failed miserably. Oh well....

 

[marc71178]

No, I've not twisted anything at all,

So removing good performances from bowlers then quoting a different average to what they've got isn't twisting anything then?

 

[marc71178]

Because the other evidence (ie how they cashed-in against weaker attacks) suggests Das can do what Chopra can't.

One sided evidence though seeing as Chopra hasn't played against one of these "weaker attacks" yet.

 

[Richard]

One sided evidence though seeing as Chopra hasn't played against one of these "weaker attacks" yet.

Oh, yes he has - you just refuse to accept it.

 

[Nate]

This thread went off it's title topic a long, long time ago!

that happens with a lot of threads... at least this one has stayed interesting.

 

[Richard]

So removing good performances from bowlers then quoting a different average to what they've got isn't twisting anything then?

It depends - if you cherry-pick them out here and there for no good reason then that's twisting stuff. Removing Bangladesh series is not twisting anything, it's much more a case of straightening it out.
As I say, in the largest number of cases I've not needed to remove anything, I've just shown the thing as a whole.
If you just remove the start (which I have done in MacGill, Lee and Oram's cases) that isn't ludicrous at all - it is simply pointing-out that someone's beginning has caused their average from then on to be lopsided - and in Oram's case the reason for such a phenominal start is very obvious.
If you categorise things, which I've done with Tuffey, that is perfectly legitimate. Tuffey has, with one exception, got poor figures on pitches that haven't helped seamers. There is nothing twisted about pointing this out.
As I have said in the past, you can't validly complain about this because you did exactly the same thing to show that Ashish Nehra hadn't bowled anywhere near as well in WC2003 as some thought.

 

[Richard]

that happens with a lot of threads... at least this one has stayed interesting.

It's called evolution of discussion. It happens in all fields.
You mean you've followed the whole thread, and understood what's happening? Impressive achievement if so.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, something like 18 pages ago. Seems as though my attempt to get it back on topic has failed miserably. Oh well....

No point trying that - like I say, it's long since gone.
Anyway, it seemed like the original topic had something to do with one-day players in who couldn't find a slot in Test-cricket, then it evolved into a pro\anti Aakash Chopra thing, then all the variables had to be debated upon, etc. etc...

 

[marc71178]

Oh, yes he has - you just refuse to accept it.

No he has not.

He has only played against New Zealand, Australia and Pakistan - those 3 nations have much stronger attacks than a team with only one half decent bowler in.

 

[Nate]

It's called evolution of discussion. It happens in all fields.
You mean you've followed the whole thread, and understood what's happening? Impressive achievement if so.

get a life rich. if you cant do anymore than post crap, attacking "humour", then bugger off.

 

[Richard]

No he has not.

He has only played against New Zealand, Australia and Pakistan - those 3 nations have much stronger attacks than a team with only one half decent bowler in.

No, they do not. You just use the assumption that they must do to your advantage.
And the fact is, there have been times when all have had much stronger attacks than any Zim attack in history.
The series which I refer to, however, were not among these, and I've shown why, and your only response has been "they have stronger attacks - because I say so".

 

[Richard]

get a life rich. if you cant do anymore than post crap, attacking "humour", then bugger off.

Yes, well, whether or not I have a life is not either relevant to you or something you know anything about.
So I'd leave it there if I were you.