I guessed as much.
Yeah, I shouldn't have said that pace bowling = reverse swing. Idiotic generalisation on my part. I do often find that pacier bowlers generate it more frequently than bowlers of lesser pace, though, assuming that both have the correct wrist position and grip. There's no point being fast and attempting to bowl reverse swing if you lack the wrist position and grip necessary. For instance, I've found that Mitchell Johnson generates more of it than RP Singh - or at least, he did throughout the summer.
I did. However, it was most noteworthy during that little passage in Melbourne.
It can if the bowler doesn't generate a great deal of conventional swing.
Indeed.
RP's economy rate was also infinitely higher than Sharma's. While Sharma demanded respect several times, RP did not seem to. If the Australian batsmen had paid him the respect they showed Sharma (or even Pathan), he would've taken less wickets. Like I said, Sharma was also unfortunate with umpiring decisions and deliveries beating the bat; RP Singh was not.
He wasn't a superstar, but he was pretty damn unlucky. A mid-30's average would've been more reminiscent of how well he bowled.
OK, but he didn't bowl well
often enough (I can only recall him bowling two impressive/effective spells, early on in Sydney and Perth). A lot of the time, he was more or less cannon fodder, on the Anderson level.
OK, but SR is lowered as economy rate rises. A good SR means little by itself. I mean, look at Patterson Thompson's SR!
Fair point, but I thought that we were discussing his performances during the Aus/Ind test series in question (which I felt were often acceptable, at the very least).
His pace and bounce may cause problems once in a while, but not often enough to really make him a Test force.
If we denigrate Johnson's performances based on the 'poor strokes' argument, we should also do the same to RP Singh, as he was often treated with reckless contempt by the Australian batsmen (explaining quite a few of his wickets).
Really? I personally felt that the selection was inexplicable (and I'm a Symonds fan).
He barely played domestic cricket during 2006/07, AFAIK.
Possibly, yeah. I don't know who could've come in at #6 in 2005/06 - I'd have to consult the domestic averages.
Truth be told, I did sense that Mike Hussey had something special - even from the lone 2003/04 ODI that he played in. There was just a poise with which he chased down those runs at his home ground that got me more interested in him. I wasn't as surprised as most when he carved up in New Zealand in 2004/05.
Why?
I reckon he'd be in contention in swing-friendly conditions (like Brisbane 2005/06), but nowhere else. He simply lacks the pace to trouble the batsmen, who can simply leave his more guileful deliveries (like his cutters) if they don't happen to be hitting the stumps.
I question the bold statement, given his raising on the 1990's WACA pitch (a far different beast from the 2000's version). Indeed, some questioned his natural ability against spin. I, too, often get the feeling that it was acquired.
Was he the pick of the Lords batsmen? I would've thought that Michael Clarke's innings was more pivotal than Martyn's. Martyn's was pretty good, but probably not the best.
A lack of confidence wouldn't have helped, but that would've exaggerated his technical deficiences; in other words, his disintegration was caused by two factors, not just one.
You mean like Mohammad Sami has?
(Of course, Sami isn't good enough to do it regularly)
Fair call.
They were correct over the context of that series (I should've clarified this earlier). I didn't like the Hodge>Hussey decision, either, nor the 'Katich as opener' thing, but both worked. They may not work in India (and I still disagree with both calls in general) but it just shows that theory doesn't always work out in practice.
No, it doesn't, but it is just about impossible to prove otherwise in that event. Again, theoretical outcomes do not always work in practice. It's a salient point.
This is little more than conjecture, really. Moreso, conjecture which is impossible to prove or disprove. Maybe, maybe not.
Yeah, as I said, Jaques would have been the better prospect, given Katich's mixed ODI record during that summer and Jaques 94*...a quite different situation to the Hodge/Hussey affair above.