***Official*** India in England

[Pratters]

No-one doubts that Jaffer can play big innings, just not when the ball does things. As I say, he's been around for ages now and that weakness has always been apparent. He, indeed, has toured England before and despite swing in that summer (and the next 4) being distinctly hard to come by, he still managed to struggle against it and was replaced by Sanjay Bangar who ended-up doing much better.

He's scored runs since his comeback against attacks that couldn't do much with the ball, and continued to fail against those that could.

What are you on about regarding Jaffer. He handled swing conditions well in the first inning and could have easily gone on to play a big inning had he not gone into a defensive mindset at the end of the day. He had done the tough part of being set against some very challenging swing conditions. Don't tell me Anderson and Sidebottom are not good bowlers for that is irrelevent to the point of contention here. They were swinging the ball very well and were bowling well and he handled them. So you can't make such a sweeping statement like he can't score big runs when the ball is doing some thing.

What is in question right now regarding Jaffer is more whether he can show some brain and not get himself out like say he did in the second inning in absolutely flat conditions playing a rash stroke or by getting into a defensive mindset like he did in the first inning than his skill aspect.

 

[silentstriker]

Chopra Chopra, where art thou?


Good writer, him.

 

[Richard]

What are you on about regarding Jaffer. He handled swing conditions well in the first inning and could have easily gone on to play a big inning had he not gone into a defensive mindset at the end of the day. He had done the tough part of being set against some very challenging swing conditions. Don't tell me Anderson and Sidebottom are not good bowlers for that is irrelevent to the point of contention here. They were swinging the ball very well and were bowling well and he handled them. So you can't make such a sweeping statement like he can't score big runs when the ball is doing some thing.

Sidebottom coerced him into an edge to the keeper before he'd made double-figures.

That's hardly handling it well to me.

 

[Pratters]

Sidebottom coerced him into an edge to the keeper before he'd made double-figures.

That's hardly handling it well to me.

Erm but that was not the whole inning.

 

[Richard]

Chopra Chopra, where art thou?


Good writer, him.

Yeah, very impressive TBH.

Never thought too much of him as a batsman though.

 

[Richard]

Erm but that was not the whole inning.

It was, however, something that demonstrated him not handling the stuff well.

 

[Pratters]

Chopra Chopra, where art thou?

He was watching at least parts of the game at Lords. The spin part he mentioned of Tendulkar is spot on. Tendulkar played for the turn (he mentioned the same in an interview) not that he should have got himself into the position he did.

 

[Pratters]

It was, however, something that demonstrated him not handling the stuff well.

Doesn't mean much if he has handled the stuff well over the inning.

 

[Richard]

Doesn't mean much if he has handled the stuff well over the inning.

Of course it does - the rest of the innings wouldn't even have happened but for that missed chance.

 

[Pratters]

Of course it does - the rest of the innings wouldn't even have happened but for that missed chance.

So you remove every thing which happened after a chance he gives to analyse a player and how he fared against some quality swing bowling? Ridiculous.

 

[Raghav]

some funny quick posts from Pratyush and Richard

 

[Richard]

So you remove every thing which happened after a chance he gives to analyse a player and how he fared against some quality swing bowling? Ridiculous.

No, I just look at the fact that he didn't fare too well when he edged one to the wicketkeeper.

That counts for something, to me. It's not worth looking only at what happened afterwards.

I'd not be at all surprised if such things happened again.

 

[Pratters]

No, I just look at the fact that he didn't fare too well when he edged one to the wicketkeeper.

That counts for something, to me. It's not worth looking only at what happened afterwards.

I'd not be at all surprised if such things happened again.

You raised that he cannot play a big inning when the ball does some thing.

1) The ball did a fair bit.
2) He showed the skill to handle the moving ball 99.99% of the inning.

So why make a sweeping statement like he can't score a big inning when the ball moves. I am not sure whether you watched the full inning. Had you, you wouldn't make a sweeping statement like you did because 156 balls should usually be enough to convince any one regarding handling the moving ball.

 

[Raghav]

You raised that he cannot play a big inning when the ball does some thing.

1) The ball did a fair bit.
2) He showed the skill to handle the moving ball and 99.99% of the inning.

So why make a sweeping statement like he can't score a big inning when the ball moves. I am not sure whether you watched the full inning. Had you, you wouldn't make a sweeping statement like you did because 156 balls should usually be enough to convince any one regarding handling the moving ball.

Fair comment Pratyush. Completely agree

 

[Richard]

You raised that he cannot play a big inning when the ball does some thing.

1) The ball did a fair bit.
2) He showed the skill to handle the moving ball 99.99% of the inning.

So why make a sweeping statement like he can't score a big inning when the ball moves. I am not sure whether you watched the full inning. Had you, you wouldn't make a sweeping statement like you did because 156 balls should usually be enough to convince any one regarding handling the moving ball.

I didn't watch the whole thing, no, but I did watch some, and there's no doubt he played some deliveries well.

However, doing so once, when you should have been out early on in the course of the matter, does not convince me.

When I say someone cannot play such-and-such, it does not mean they never, once will, just that they can't play them often enough for consideration. I'm sure he's played the odd one before Lord's, too.

 

[Raghav]

I didn't watch the whole thing, no, but I did watch some, and there's no doubt he played some deliveries well.

However, doing so once, when you should have been out early on in the course of the matter, does not convince me.

When I say someone cannot play such-and-such, it does not mean they never, once will, just that they can't play them often enough for consideration. I'm sure he's played the odd one before Lord's, too.

That sums up everything

 

[Richard]

Well, yeah, it does, given that you just quoted the whole post.

 

[Raghav]

Well, yeah, it does, given that you just quoted the whole post.

Good enough for others to understand

 

[nightprowler10]

That sums up everything

Indeed.

 

[shankar]

Of course it does - the rest of the innings wouldn't even have happened but for that missed chance.

Every time I discuss this with you, you admit that the part of the innings after the drop cannot be disregarded in judging the batsman. Yet you finally go back to the same old - 'Everything after the drop didn't happen' nonsense.