England 30 man squad for icc championships

[Richard]

Lets face it, even if a poll ended 200-1, against you, you'd just write the 200 off as anomalies and insist you're right.

Do you actually understand what an anomaly is? Because this would suggest not.
If not, I'll explain it - in such an example as the above, the 1 - not the 200 - would be the anomaly.
If a poll ended in 200-1 against me in this instance, I would then be inspired to go and find the evidence that the 200 were all wrong to make the assumption they made.

 

[tooextracool]

And now he's moved back the the middle-order he's looking the million-dollars again - just like he didn't in 2002 because most of his big scores needed a tremendous amount of luck. He scored a chanceless century at three (Pakistan, 2001), another one at four at Lord's then 87 in the second-innings. In nearly twice the innings, he's passed 50 chancelessly just 6 times.

if you look at some of the older threads you will see that i suggested long before that vaughan should be batting at 4. but thats besides the point. the point is that if vaughan failed for 3 years, miserably with averages of 15 odd would you keep him in the side because he scored 1481 runs in 2002? i doubt england would and im sure you wouldnt either.

I'm not "sitting back" on Ramprakash's performances in 1998, I'm simply saying that they allow his subsequent performances which kept him in the side did so perfectly legitimately..

2 years of poor performances doesnt allow for anything. mind you his performances pre 98 dont allow for anything like this, he should be showing a hell of a lot of improvement to try and make up for that, not averaging in the 20s. the selectors did the right thing by dropping him, and now they have a much better no 6 in flintoff!

Wrong - he averaged in the 40s from 1998 to 2001, in the 30s from 1999 to 2001 and all but 30 from 1999 to 2002.
Not outstanding, but still enough to keep him in the side without any questions asked until two dismal failures against New Zealand...

wrong.....he averaged 48 in 98, 22 in 99,13 in 00,36 in 01(considering he played on some very docile wickets in india that isnt very good) and 15 in 01.
only a fool would retain someone with those averages.....

No, they weren't. That's just you trying to misrecall stuff, as per usual....

im only giving you a taste of your own medicine.....

Not especially amazing that I left-out Parore's wicket - anyone who watched that series closely would remember that he batted in a manner that was very, very distracted for the first two games, explained by his subsequent retirement. He played down the wrong line of a reasonable (but not wicket-taking) ball and Giles had another wicket.
The pitch didn't offer turn, the footholds did - Giles got Astle with one that turned out of the footholds.
I didn't say spinners can't take wickets from turn just out of footholds, that's just the usual instance of you trying to manipulate my words - I said rarely do footholds that make fingerspinners dangerous occur. And this was one of those instances where fingerspinners weren't dangerous - that was the only wicket of the match that fell to turn out of a foothold

the pitch didnt offer turn except from the foot holds. and as much as you would like not to believe, giles bowled well. just because it was outside the sub continent it doesnt mean that finger spinners cant bowl well.

Yes, and you have been known to "watch every ball" of stuff before and come-out with stuff that's completely false, so you'll forgive me for noting that you have done so again here.
The fact is, Giles bowled Kumble with a ball that turned square (as well as drifting and dipping). That pitch offered plenty of turn, I saw with my own eyes Giles, Kumble and Harbhajan turning the ball plenty (and none of them ever turn the ball much on normal surfaces).

what part of 'slow' turn do you not understand?every wicket in the sub continent offers turn, but very few offer turn and bouce. im not going to let you get away with this, ive watched every ball in this series and im certain about it. the wicket offered absolutely nothing for the bowlers on the first 2 days, when england scored 407. the next 3 days there was turn,slow turn that wont worry too many batsman and while england hoped desperately that the pitch would deteriorate, it didnt. which was why india only lost 3 wickets in that final innings. about the giles ball as i said, theres always the odd ball that will do something different, the pitch on the whole was flat, so stop making excuses when ramprakash failed.
regardless why didnt ramprakash score in the 1st innings when the wicket had absolutely nothing in it and england managed 400?

I'm afried while you might be able to pull the wool over the eyes of some who are keen to see me discredited, but you can't change my memory. It is far more typical of you to deny blatant fact than for me to make-up stories that didn't happen - such as "Ealham didn't bowl in the first 15 in ODIs very often" when he did. We can add "Giles, Harbhajan and Kumble didn't turn the ball" when they very clearly did.

of course they turned the ball, every wicket in the sub continent offers turn. it was slow turn which isnt lethal or in any way threatening for any quality batsman. yes its difficult to score runs on those wickets, but its a bit pollockesque, economical but no wickets, and if you look at the run rates you'll see that im right india batted for nearly 100 overs to score 197,england despite trying to play aggressively in the 2nd innings and still took 83 overs to get 257. im sure you didnt watch the match,because only someone who looked at the scorecards would come up with rubbish like this.
and what about the first test?once again on wickets that offered very little assistance for the bowlers, ramps failed. but of course that doesnt count

Flintoff didn't bat better than Ramprakash - he succeeded once where Ramprakash failed, he failed four times where Ramprakash also failed (though one of those failures owed exclusively to a poor decision, for both batsmen incidentally).
Ramprakash might have been the worst batsman in New Zealand but the fact is, if the pitches had been better he'd still quite possibly have done enough to keep his place safe, while the like of Thorpe, Butcher, Trescothick and Vaughan may (or may not) have excelled..

what?why should the pitches be made to suit ramprakash???
if hes a good enough player he would be able to score on any wickets.
regardless he got to play on seaming conditions in NZ and failed, and then got flat conditions in india and failed again!

No, he was dropped because he averaged 16 in his first 6 years as a Test-player and averaged 13.57 as an opener..

and the fact that other than in 98 he hadnt done anything of significance in any of the other years

There is something else to it, meanwhile - if someone averages 10 in a series where they weren't at fault for 4 out of 6 of their dismissals it's extremely foolish to say their failure shows much about a lack of ability.

what rubbish, he was at fault for most of his dismissals in india and NZ...



I

ncidentally, I'd like to see the others that apparently scored quick runs (ie the rate that the team were hoping for, about 4 to 5-an-over) in that second-innings at Motera. ...

ive explained that above.....its extremely similar to the 2nd test in SL where england couldnt chase down 280(?) odd runs on the last day but settled for the draw.

And it wasn't much of a poor shot against Harbhajan in the first-innings at Mohali, it was just a leading-edge that went very close to the ground and 9 times out of 10 would not have been caught...

this is total rubbish, you are clutching at straws here. several players in that series would have been dismissed in similar fashion and yet averaged more, the fact is he failed, whether or not the catch was brilliant or the shot was poor doesnt count, the fact that he hit it to the fielder just goes to show that hes out and is not good enough to play for england

Yes, and it's why Chopra has apparently been dropped - because, as far as the selectors were concerned, he'd not shown the potential to succeed....

in that case let me inform you that you are making stupid generalisations of something you know nothing about. let me inform you that chopra was dropped because they felt that there was a better player in yuvraj singh who would have to miss out if chopra played. so its no fault of chopra that he was out, its just that there was another player who had accomplished more in his short career to date, who the selectors felt should not miss out.

The England selectors believed that Smith hadn't shown the potential to succeed either.....

yes i know so he failed, and should be added to the list of countless names that have succeeded in county cricket and failed at the intl level.

So you think that Chopra has potential in Tests and you don't think Matthew Maynard did.
I can only assume you've never seen him bat.

ROFLMAO! if you had watched even an hour of chopra bat you would not be saying that he didnt have any potential.
and yes i have watched maynard bat....at the international level.....and let me assure you from what i saw he disgraced himself.

Yet it wasn't anywhere near good enough to suggest he'd be a success in international cricket..

if he maintained his domestic record at the international level he would have kept his place in the side i can assure you. thats why the selectors picked him...not because they thought he would do better than what he did in domestic cricket but because they thought he would maintain his performances...which he didnt

No, of course they don't always - in fact, who has been a consistently successful bowler for England in the last 20 years? Fraser has come the closest, and even he was foiled eventually by injury.
How many seamers around The World at the moment can move the ball on wickets that don't offer seam, incidentally? I can't think of very many. That's why there are so many massive scores and hugely inflated batting-averages around ATM.

its interesting you say that and then say that tuffey and bond were useless because they couldnt bowl outside of seaming conditions!
mullally was useless in tests period, thats why he was dropped

Actually in the last 3 years of his Test-career in the middle-order he averaged 29.60, not 22.

yes that is brilliant! perhaps we should pick graeme hick too?he has a much better average.

In those last 3 years he had two bad series, and two reasonable ones considering what had gone prior..

he had 2 pathetic series(worst in the side remember),1 bad series(vs NZ at home) and 1 decent series. which makes him in no way a certainity for any side.

If Ramprakash hadn't been forced to open the batting when he was I'd be surprised if he wasn't still in the side now...

perhaps in your imaginary side that would have das and ramesh as openers, with tendulkar,waugh,mcgrath,flintoff,harmison all carrying the drinks

Incidentally, I've never actually said that he should have been retained after the New Zealand 2001\02 series - you've just assumed that because I've defended him from misunderstood criticism....

no but you've said that he wasnt a failure.....

But it's funny how his middle-order average of 33.56 over the time between 1999 and 2001 kept him completely devoid of any question over his place whilst he was playing..

err he was dropped after his poor shows as an opener in 00.....
he had 1 decent series(or rather 1 good knock at the oval) that got the critics to push the axe a bit higher but after 2 series of pathetic performances he was dropped.

Incidentally, both his average from 1999 to 2001 and 1999 to 2002 are better than Chopra's career average, so your attempted criticism of my methods is kinda void there...

yes and if we look are going to look at averages selectively like that then if we look at chopras average after the NZ series we find that his average is 46, which surprisingly is far better than what ramprakash could manage in any series post 99.

No, if you look at the stats correctly, he averaged 41.21 after 15 innings.
Number of matches are not an accurate comparison - innings are....

that doesnt matter, you would have dropped him anyways.....

And of course there are so many fantastic players playing anyway, aren't there?

yes and can you imagine what it would have been like if a pedant like you were selecting sides devoid of these players? it just goes to show how much your opinion counts for.

 

[Richard]

not bad?he was by far the worst player in the side!

So? As I've said, being the worst player in your side doesn't mean sod-all if you aren't very poor to start with - which Ramprakash wasn't, given the conditions, he was just not as good as he had been previously.

thats the stupidest explanation ive ever heard, its all so convenient that it stopped seaming and swinging after ramprakash got out!

No, it's only stupid because it needs to be otherwise you'll be disgraced!
You cannot show that it wasn't, because on past evidence I shouldn't think you were watching closely enough.

the conditions got better yes, but it happened a lot later than when flintoff played his first ball i can assure you, both thorpe and flintoff showed application which ramprakash was incapable of .

Flintoff didn't need to show any application, he got such generous helpings of Half-Volleys and Long-Hops so as to make batting ridiculously easy - if he scored runs in those days, batting was easy, any fool could see that!

actually flintoff,hussain and thorpe(to an extent) were all brilliant.
trescothick,butcher were average
vaughan was poor
and ramprakash was pathetic
and you dont get to be retained in the side after 2 pathetic series like that.....

Like I've shown, the India series wasn't pathetic, it just wasn't brilliant.
Thorpe was brilliant only in one innings, which wouldn't have happened but for a dropped catch. In fact, he was every bit as poor as Ramprakash. And while Vaughan wasn't quite as bad, he was poor enough to sum-up the fact that neither Thorpe nor Ramprakash totally disgraced themselves by averaging in the mid-teens.
Butcher and Trescothick were pretty reasonable given the conditions.

 

[Richard]

no it was seaming all over the place until somewhere in the middle of the thorpe flintoff partnership.....

Looks like you've failed to heed my suggestion that you recall the match with an open mind and continued on your not-so-merry way of recalling things as you'd like them to have happened.

 

[tooextracool]

Looks like you've failed to heed my suggestion that you recall the match with an open mind and continued on your not-so-merry way of recalling things as you'd like them to have happened.

actually your just stating your own useless claim......there was movement even while thorpe and flintoff batted, of course it didnt last very long but the fact is both thorpe and flintoff got through the difficult period while ramps didnt......

 

[Richard]

well lets see some proof then?

im sure that if we had any evidence of who bowled in the death, we would see that mullally bowled far more often in the death than ealham

As I've said, I suggest you go and find the evidence concerned - because you are the one who is wrong, and I already know I am right.
Ealham hardly ever had a spell where he didn't bowl in the first 15, bowled at the death enough for it to have an effect on his economy-rate and almost never bowled 10 overs straight from over 20 to over 40.
The more you keep insisting otherwise the more stupid you will feel when you finally find-out you are wrong.
And your suggestions of straw-polls kinda suggest to me that you actually know you're wrong and are trying something completely ludicrous which would not prove anything but that you could attempt to show proved you right.

no it would show that you are the only one that has such inane opinions about bowlers who were very ordinary....

If it showed what you hope it might show it would simply demonstrate that lots of people have ill-informed ideas!

actually no, you are the only one who thinks that ealham did bowl several times at the death when the fact is that he didnt. obviously you refuse to have a poll because you know you will be proved wrong if we did

No, obviously I suggest a poll wouldn't be much of an idea because the point of a poll is to find-out people's opinions, not whether they recall facts correctly.
So a poll in which every single person said they thought Ealham hardly ever bowled at the death wouldn't prove me wrong at all, because they'd all be mistaken the way you are!

 

[tooextracool]

So? As I've said, being the worst player in your side doesn't mean sod-all if you aren't very poor to start with - which Ramprakash wasn't, given the conditions, he was just not as good as he had been previously..

no he was not as good as we was in 98, other than that his career was a disgrace. even ramprakash would tell you that he didnt deserve to be in the side after those performances.

No, it's only stupid because it needs to be otherwise you'll be disgraced!
You cannot show that it wasn't, because on past evidence I shouldn't think you were watching closely enough.

i can assure you that i watched that game....there was still plenty of movement initially and both thorpe and flintoff thought that the best way to play was to play aggressively to get as many runs as possible before the conditions would eventually get them out. fortunately for them, after 0 overs or so it become extremely flat, and they scored heavily. ramprakash must consider himself a fool for not being able to apply himself till then.

Flintoff didn't need to show any application, he got such generous helpings of Half-Volleys and Long-Hops so as to make batting ridiculously easy - if he scored runs in those days, batting was easy, any fool could see that!.

i'll give you that, the bowling was poor, fleming himself admitted that after days play. but the fact is that it was the same bowling that ramprakash failed to capitalise on!but of course when he came in the bowling just got magically better!

Like I've shown, the India series wasn't pathetic, it just wasn't brilliant.!

it was the worst in the side in flat conditions...how can it not be pathetic?

Thorpe was brilliant only in one innings, which wouldn't have happened but for a dropped catch. In fact, he was every bit as poor as Ramprakash.

and if there was a fielder in a catching position when ramp played his characteristic cut shot in the first test ramps would have averaged less than 10......

And while Vaughan wasn't quite as bad, he was poor enough to sum-up the fact that neither Thorpe nor Ramprakash totally disgraced themselves by averaging in the mid-teens..

no he averaged 7 runs higher than ramps which makes him not considerably better but not in the same degree of disgracefulness as ramps.....

 

[Tom Halsey]

and if there was a fielder in a catching position when ramp played his characteristic cut shot in the first test ramps would have averaged less than 10......

That's pretty pointless, as there wasn't, that's all that matters.

If there was, he likely wouldn't have played the shot.

 

[Richard]

yes you did....gooch,stewart,ambrose,walsh and a few others that you mentioned....

No, Gooch and Stewart were the only ones who got significantly worse. And Stewart got worse because he was opening the batting too much, not because he was becoming an inferior player.
Once Stewart was moved back down the order he didn't do anywhere near as badly, though not as well as he or I would have liked.

rubbish so tendulkar isnt an opener then?

No, he's not - he's someone who's batted as an opener a lot, a number-four a lot and very occasionally elsewhere.

okay then i'll look at players at 7 and 8 then(the same list that you chose to ignore in the post)

at 7 at 8
razzaq 35 45
moin 25 25
harris 31 48
pollock 24 22
boucher 25 26
klusener 32 64

the argument is lost yet again....but of course they are all anomalies.

Funny how it's "yet again" when I've won everything so far. You have had to resort to stating that things happened as they did not time and again.

he averages about 7 runs higher at 7 than ealham.....and richardson wasnt even much of a batsman.
and the average doesnt have anything to do with the side...if anything the opportunities he would have got to play a long innings would have been seldom as opposed to ealham...yet he has a 50 to his name.

Wow, one single half-century - all that proves is there was one day where he played better than Ealham ever did.

err no, go back and look at the argument. i said that ealham couldnt translate his domestic performances to the ODI games and you said that nobody batting at 8 could be successful and asked me to show you a list of successful players at 8. the latter of which ive shown and now you change the argument by saying he wasnt a klusener,boucher or kaif, personally i agree with that but i would also add that hes a bit of a rikki clarke.....

His domestic one-day batting average is quite a bit higher than Clarke's. Clarke is yet another example of mistaken selection with a very poor county record.
Whether that changes we'll have to wait and see.
Well fine, it is something of a surprise that there are that many players who have done as exceptionally and as reasonably as they have. You've shown me something I didn't expect.
Still, you can't prove that Ealham massively underachieved as I've shown when he was dismissed and it's certainly not comparable to the situations he regularly found himself in for Kent.

why should he not be considered?we had a better bowler sitting on the sidelines playing for some useless county side while someone like ealham was bowling in his place rather pathetically at the international level!

Because the fact is, his matches were mostly played before Ealham.
That is what I said - for the most part, Fraser was before Ealham's time.
I did not say that he should not have been considered while Ealham was doing his good work.
An attack of Caddick, Fraser, Gough, Ealham and Mullally would be quite some prospect.
Yet again you have tried to put words onto my keyboard to try to prove me wrong.
Sorry, but there's nothing there to prove wrong about, and anyone who wants to see that can see it.

yes at 33 a piece(largely due to performances against zim,b'desh and kenya) as opposed to caddicks 28 a piece.

I wasn't talking about taking wickets, I was talking about bowling in the first 15 overs. Which you will, surely, soon realiese that Ealham did most of the time.

OMG you are so deluded its not funny! caddick had a marginally better economy rate and a better average, so it adds to my point that he could do a better job than ealham at the international arena!! bowling in ODIs doesnt have to do solely with being economical, it also has to do with picking up wickets.

This was what I was arguing against, this is the start of this exchange:

No, you said you thought it would. And even if it would, it doesn't matter, because Ealham is not a death bowler and not being one is no slight. There are many who are not.

and those bowlers had better stats than ealham its that simple. england have younger bowlers capable of doing what ealham did and perhaps bowl at the death, why should he be given another chance

Not once did you mention average, you were trying to say that there were lots of bowlers with better economy-rates than Ealham at the same time as his career. And you tried to bring in Fraser and Caddick, and I pointed-out why you couldn't in order to prove anything in this context.
Once again, you are far closer to being deluded it's not funny - you have yet again lost the thread.

dont be a fool, gough is ahead of ealham by a country mile. only an idiot would consider ealham to be equal with gough who was one of the best english ODI bowler ever(perhaps the best). goughs higher ER had primarily to do with bowling nearly half his overs every game in the death.
im sure that if we had a straw poll to see who was better not one person(bar a lunatic) would pick ealham ahead or even on level terms with gough.
and white too was better, he has a very similar average and ER to gough, once again largely to do with bowling in the death.

Regardless, Ealham's economy-rate was better.
And White was nowhere near as good as his average might make him seem.

and as ive said time and time again you are wrong. and im sure plenty of people agree with me on that.....

And it doesn't matter who agrees with you, even in the unlikely event that plenty do - they'd all be wrong because this is not something which can be proven by majority and minority.
Anyone who says "that ball wasn't a dot-ball" when a ball where no runs has been scored has just been bowled is wrong, simple as, because the rules of cricket say so.
Likewise, the fact is Ealham did bowl lots where you think he didn't, and whoever thinks the same way as you is as wrong as you.

well if you have been watching the match today you would have seen thorpe drop a sitter at gully. he also dropped a catch last test match of banks(an absolute sitter at mid on) and then one of gayle in the same match,although it wasnt an easy one and dropped plenty of catches in the carribean and in the series against NZ(the one of papps at headingly comes to mind)

A sitter, you really don't have much grasp of the game, do you? While a good fielder would expect to catch that (Thorpe will doubtless be disappointed he didn't) it can in no way be described as a sitter!
So he dropped a sitter off Banks in the last match - wow, that sure as hell means he's a crap fielder!

well lets see some proof then?

I can't show you the proof, I don't know how to transpose videos onto here, and even if I did you'd probably just say something stupid like "you've just made that up".
I have got that evidence - can't you just accept that you're wrong about Ealham not being a good fielder? And plenty who have actually watched him closely have also said he's far better than you might assume by looking at him.

but how far are they from the top 8 teams ? zimbabwe in 99 were extremely competitive and perhaps not the worst ODI side around. post 2000 however they are far from the standard of the other 8 sides in the world.
the fact that chaminda vaas' record against them improves immensely after 2000 only goes to show that they have gotten a lot worse.
chaminda vaas vs zimbabwe pre 2000 averages 27.24 at 3.82
chamind vaas vs zimbabwe post 2000 averages 18.18 at 3.55

Yes, very true that the Zimababwe side of: Johnson, Grant Flower, Wishart, Campbell, Goodwin, Andy Flower, Carlisle, Guy Whittall, Streak, Brent, Olonga, with back-up from Paul Strang, Bryan Strang, John Rennie, Gavin Rennie, Andy Whittall and some others was a very good side, capable of challenging as shown by them contesting very hotly with full-strength England and South Africa sides in a very high-quality Standard Bank Series in 1999\2000.
But only Andy Whittall, Johnson, Goodwin and Paul Strang were lost up to WC2003 - they then lost all but Grant Flower, Carlisle, Wishart, Streak and Brent, and subsequently they lost them and some others too. Fortunately, they've had their playing reduced after that.
Of course, the fact that Chaminda's record improves immensely against them post-2002 couldn't possibly have to do with the fact that he's bowled some of his best spells in that time, naturally. And I might remind you that the stuff you've come-up with includes the ODIs against the substandard Zimbabwe of WC2003 onwards.

 

[Richard]

actually your just stating your own useless claim......there was movement even while thorpe and flintoff batted, of course it didnt last very long but the fact is both thorpe and flintoff got through the difficult period while ramps didnt......

Keep saying it, you never know, you might actually change what happened one day!
Somehow I doubt it, though.

 

[Richard]

no he was not as good as we was in 98, other than that his career was a disgrace. even ramprakash would tell you that he didnt deserve to be in the side after those performances.

Oh, and I've never said he had a right to complain when he was dropped after either of the New Zealand series. When you have as poor a start to his career as Ramprakash did, you can rarely afford even a single bad series.
You've just assumed that I think he shouldn't have been dropped because I've pointed-out that he didn't do anywhere near as badly as most people assume.

i can assure you that i watched that game....there was still plenty of movement initially and both thorpe and flintoff thought that the best way to play was to play aggressively to get as many runs as possible before the conditions would eventually get them out. fortunately for them, after 0 overs or so it become extremely flat, and they scored heavily. ramprakash must consider himself a fool for not being able to apply himself till then.

Oh, I don't doubt you watched the game, I just doubt - for the umpteenth time - that you watched it and took it in. Given your rather frequent propensity to state that things happened in a way they didn't.
Fortunately for them, after 0 overs or so it became flat - it seems you have admitted what I have been saying all along in this instance, though.

i'll give you that, the bowling was poor, fleming himself admitted that after days play. but the fact is that it was the same bowling that ramprakash failed to capitalise on!but of course when he came in the bowling just got magically better!

No, it wasn't! If Ramprakash had received the bowling Flintoff did I'd be surprised if he wasn't still in the side now.

it was the worst in the side in flat conditions...how can it not be pathetic?

Because an average of over 30 can never be pathetic.

and if there was a fielder in a catching position when ramp played his characteristic cut shot in the first test ramps would have averaged less than 10......

And that's a typical ill-thought-out response to any quoting of first-chance scores.
You can say that any time. You can say that any shot which went in the air could have gone to a fielder. You cannot say that any shot which went in the air to a fielder at anything other than lightening pace can be expected not to result in a wicket.
Good batsmen hit the ball in the air away from fielders; bad batsmen hit the ball in the air to fielders. But they don't deserve credit for any dropped catch.

no he averaged 7 runs higher than ramps which makes him not considerably better but not in the same degree of disgracefulness as ramps.....

You just don't seem to get the important thing - no average can possibly be a disgrace in circumstances as testing as those.
Vaughan was poor, Ramprakash was poorer, but neither were disgraceful.

 

[Richard]

if you look at some of the older threads you will see that i suggested long before that vaughan should be batting at 4. but thats besides the point. the point is that if vaughan failed for 3 years, miserably with averages of 15 odd would you keep him in the side because he scored 1481 runs in 2002? i doubt england would and im sure you wouldnt either.

Yes, but Ramprakash didn't. He failed in two series out of four - Vaughan failed in five consecutive series after 2002.

2 years of poor performances doesnt allow for anything. mind you his performances pre 98 dont allow for anything like this, he should be showing a hell of a lot of improvement to try and make up for that, not averaging in the 20s. the selectors did the right thing by dropping him, and now they have a much better no 6 in flintoff!

And he didn't average in the 20s - he averaged in the 30s for all but two series from 1998 onwards, excluding opening innings which have no significance.

wrong.....he averaged 48 in 98, 22 in 99,13 in 00,36 in 01(considering he played on some very docile wickets in india that isnt very good) and 15 in 01.
only a fool would retain someone with those averages.....

His average in 2000 is irrelevant because all innings' were as an opener, his average of 36 in 2001 is perfectly acceptible after a year of tough cricket averaging 48, then a year which included a sum total of 4 Test-matches.
You get the picture, surely, that the years of failure included little cricket, the years of success included a lot.

im only giving you a taste of your own medicine.....

And yet I've always recalled things exactly as they happened, you have many times stated that things happened in a way in which they very clearly did not.

 

[tooextracool]

That's pretty pointless, as there wasn't, that's all that matters.

If there was, he likely wouldn't have played the shot.

its just about as pointless as saying that if thorpe had been caught on 2 he would have averaged 15 odd.....

 

[Richard]

Wrong.
Catches are expected to be taken.
When the ball goes in the air to where there is no fielder, a wicket is not going to happen under any circumstances (barring a run-out, of course).

 

[Tom Halsey]

its just about as pointless as saying that if thorpe had been caught on 2 he would have averaged 15 odd.....

No, because that is a dropped catch - it should have been taken.

Unfortunately, if a fielder was there for Ramprakash, he likely wouldn't have played the cut. Saying that is pointless.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Wrong.
Catches are expected to be taken.
When the ball goes in the air to where there is no fielder, a wicket is not going to happen under any circumstances (barring a run-out, of course).

Exactly.

TEC's theorems seem to be getting further and further fetched...

 

[Richard]

the pitch didnt offer turn except from the foot holds. and as much as you would like not to believe, giles bowled well. just because it was outside the sub continent it doesnt mean that finger spinners cant bowl well.

Well forgive me, but it's quite clear to anyone that I recall most matches we have both watched a lot better than you, so you'll see that if I say Giles didn't bowl well (and he took 1 wicket in the match with a good ball, not what I'd call bowling well) he probably didn't bowl well.
And that pitch didn't offer anything to the fingerspinners, as most (but not all) wickets outside the subcontinent don't.

what part of 'slow' turn do you not understand?every wicket in the sub continent offers turn, but very few offer turn and bouce. im not going to let you get away with this, ive watched every ball in this series and im certain about it. the wicket offered absolutely nothing for the bowlers on the first 2 days, when england scored 407. the next 3 days there was turn,slow turn that wont worry too many batsman and while england hoped desperately that the pitch would deteriorate, it didnt. which was why india only lost 3 wickets in that final innings. about the giles ball as i said, theres always the odd ball that will do something different, the pitch on the whole was flat, so stop making excuses when ramprakash failed.

It wasn't just that one ball, plenty on the first days turned, and that made Kumble and Giles dangerous. They didn't bowl as well second time around, and maybe the pitch lost a bit of pace too, and hence their figures weren't as good. Harbhajan was effective once England started to go after him.
No matter how slow a pitch, if there's sideways movement good bowlers will exploit it. Kumble especially is a master of this, because he bowls so quick compared to other spinners. That's why he's conquered so many slow-turners in the past. Giles conquered plenty in Pakistan and Sri Lanka the previous winter too, so it was no surprise, even with him just returning from injury, when he had a good first-innings.

regardless why didnt ramprakash score in the 1st innings when the wicket had absolutely nothing in it and england managed 400?

The reason Ramprakash didn't score a massive score in the first-innings was because England were collapsing around him and he couldn't manage more than 37. But you're perfectly right that all other batsmen cashed-in, bar Flintoff. It happens sometimes.

of course they turned the ball, every wicket in the sub continent offers turn. it was slow turn which isnt lethal or in any way threatening for any quality batsman. yes its difficult to score runs on those wickets, but its a bit pollockesque, economical but no wickets, and if you look at the run rates you'll see that im right india batted for nearly 100 overs to score 197,england despite trying to play aggressively in the 2nd innings and still took 83 overs to get 257. im sure you didnt watch the match,because only someone who looked at the scorecards would come up with rubbish like this.
and what about the first test?once again on wickets that offered very little assistance for the bowlers, ramps failed. but of course that doesnt count

Believe me, I watched every ball of the Motera Test - how else would I know about Giles' ball to Kumble? Or, for instance, that Vaughan was given out caught short-leg when he missed the ball, despite looking all at sea for the whole innings?
I'm not going to deny that the First Test of that series offered nothing to any bowler, except possibly in the first session (where he didn't bat). But the Second helped the bowlers far more than it might be convenient for you to remember, I'll say that again.

what?why should the pitches be made to suit ramprakash???
if hes a good enough player he would be able to score on any wickets.
regardless he got to play on seaming conditions in NZ and failed, and then got flat conditions in india and failed again!

No, he did OK in flat, then turning, then seaming conditions in India, then failed in extreme conditions in New Zealand.
I've not said that pitches should be made to suit Ramprakash, but nonetheless it should be pointed-out that England have seen a terrifying number of wickets that offered nothing to bowlers since 2001\02, and that's why I say if Ramprakash had succeeded in that series (or been let-off for failing) I'm thoroughly confident he'd still be in the side.

and the fact that other than in 98 he hadnt done anything of significance in any of the other years

Yes, he had - he'd done pretty well in 2001, and failed in two other series outside those years.

what rubbish, he was at fault for most of his dismissals in india and NZ...

True enough - he got a brilliant catch by Das in the 1st innings in India and a bad decision in the 1st innings in New Zealand and otherwise he could have avoided all of his dismissals. Not that his poor shot in the second-innings at Motera isn't totally and completely excusable. However, most in most of his dismissals in both series there was something good about the deliveries and the bowlers deserved some credit.

ive explained that above.....its extremely similar to the 2nd test in SL where england couldnt chase down 280(?) odd runs on the last day but settled for the draw.

Exactly - so Ramprakash can't be faulted for not being able to score quickly, which is what I was saying. You can be faulted for saying he should have done because everyone else was.

this is total rubbish, you are clutching at straws here. several players in that series would have been dismissed in similar fashion and yet averaged more, the fact is he failed, whether or not the catch was brilliant or the shot was poor doesnt count, the fact that he hit it to the fielder just goes to show that hes out and is not good enough to play for england

If a catch is brilliant (that one from Das was scarcely credible) then you haven't hit the ball to a fielder and don't deserve to be out.
There was not a single catch all winter that came close to that one.
Ramprakash could not be blamed for his dismissal there, nor at Christchurch in the first-innings, nor at Motera in the second.
So only the other failures (and the one good half-century) say anything about the calibre of his play that winter.

 

[Richard]

its interesting you say that and then say that tuffey and bond were useless because they couldnt bowl outside of seaming conditions!
mullally was useless in tests period, thats why he was dropped

And I never said Mullally was a good Test-bowler, now, did I? What caused you to assume that?

yes that is brilliant! perhaps we should pick graeme hick too?he has a much better average.

No, it's not brilliant, and I never said it was. I simply showed that yet again you've got something wrong.

he had 2 pathetic series(worst in the side remember),1 bad series(vs NZ at home) and 1 decent series. which makes him in no way a certainity for any side.

No, he had 2 decent series (so what if in one of them he was the worst in the side - bar Flintoff) and two disappointing series. After both he was dropped.

perhaps in your imaginary side that would have das and ramesh as openers, with tendulkar,waugh,mcgrath,flintoff,harmison all carrying the drinks

Well, no, because only Flintoff and Harmison are English.

no but you've said that he wasnt a failure.....

Exactly - and he wasn't - because he averaged 37 from 1998 onwards.

err he was dropped after his poor shows as an opener in 00.....

Which means nothing.

he had 1 decent series(or rather 1 good knock at the oval) that got the critics to push the axe a bit higher but after 2 series of pathetic performances he was dropped.

No, after one poor series where no-one did very well except Hussain he was dropped.
The Australia and India series combined saw not a single muttering that I heard about his place.

yes and if we look are going to look at averages selectively like that then if we look at chopras average after the NZ series we find that his average is 46, which surprisingly is far better than what ramprakash could manage in any series post 99.

And of course 1 series is exactly the same as 8 and you can judge someone a success on a single series.

that doesnt matter, you would have dropped him anyways.....

No, I wouldn't - because I say I wouldn't. You can't tell me whether or not I'd have dropped someone, and after 15 innings I would not have dropped Tendulkar.

yes and can you imagine what it would have been like if a pedant like you were selecting sides devoid of these players? it just goes to show how much your opinion counts for.

No, it doesn't - no-one can get everything right all the time. Sometimes, players succeed when it seems impossible. Flintoff appears to be one instance.

 

[Richard]

in that case let me inform you that you are making stupid generalisations of something you know nothing about. let me inform you that chopra was dropped because they felt that there was a better player in yuvraj singh who would have to miss out if chopra played. so its no fault of chopra that he was out, its just that there was another player who had accomplished more in his short career to date, who the selectors felt should not miss out.

And if Chopra had averaged even 35 he'd not have had any questions asked about his place.
The fact is, imagined "potential" can only take you so far.

yes i know so he failed, and should be added to the list of countless names that have succeeded in county cricket and failed at the intl level.

No, because he succeeded in a county career of totally incomparable opportunity to his international career.
He should be added to an ever-lengthening list of players who do well at domestic level and get far too limited a chance at international (Maynard, James, looks like Richard Johnson [given that he has failed in his only proper Test], Ward [who always had to bat totally out of position], Hamilton, Adams [in ODIs], Habib, Mike Smith, Martin Bicknell, a few recent examples)

ROFLMAO! if you had watched even an hour of chopra bat you would not be saying that he didnt have any potential.
and yes i have watched maynard bat....at the international level.....and let me assure you from what i saw he disgraced himself.

And he wasn't given the chance to make-up for disgracing himself. Despite plenty who watched him bat at both levels saying they believed he had potential.
I have watched considerably more than an hour of Chopra - I've also watched plenty of instances where he got out cheaply early on, none better than his four dismissals in 2 overs at The SCG (bad-not-out, no-ball, bad-not-out, dropped-catch). And I don't think he's got international potential, because he keeps getting himself out to poor bowlers, whether very cheaply or having scored 40 or so.
Believe it or not, just because you think Chopra has Test potential, it does not mean everyone else does!!!!

if he maintained his domestic record at the international level he would have kept his place in the side i can assure you. thats why the selectors picked him...not because they thought he would do better than what he did in domestic cricket but because they thought he would maintain his performances...which he didnt

So, if he'd have done as well at international as domestic he'd have maintained his place - yes, probably true (though still, averaging 33-4-5 isn't enough to keep most players in the England side). He'd also have achieved something few have, because most people do less well at international level than at domestic.
If he'd have done what most batsmen do - average about 3 or 4 less at international level than domestic - then he'd still have been dropped when he was. Whether he failed poorly or abysmally is irrelevant, the important thing is his county record suggested he wouldn't be an international success... and he wasn't.

 

[tooextracool]

And I never said Mullally was a good Test-bowler, now, did I? What caused you to assume that?.

so if he wasnt then he is added to the list of players that refute your theory that successful domestic players=successful international players......

No, it's not brilliant, and I never said it was. I simply showed that yet again you've got something wrong.

no the point is whatever way you look at it, it just comes down to the fact that he had one good year in his entire career.the rest of the time he was rubbish.

No, he had 2 decent series (so what if in one of them he was the worst in the side - bar Flintoff) and two disappointing series. After both he was dropped..

no 31 was not decent when you look at it in context....the pitches were flat and everyone else cashed in. regardless it wasnt good enough to make up for the miserable last 3 years that he had.

Well, no, because only Flintoff and Harmison are English.

thats not the point....the point is that if you had dropped great players like those it only goes to show how your opinions dont prove much.

Exactly - and he wasn't - because he averaged 37 from 1998 onwards..

and as i have already proved...he was a failure. you cant be retained in the side just because you had 1 good year.

Which means nothing.

you said that his place wasnt under scrutiny from 99-01....the fact his that the only time that his place wasnt under scrutiny was just after the series against australia.....

No, after one poor series where no-one did very well except Hussain he was dropped.

this is rubbish...you have gradually reduced the list from 3 to 1. why shouldnt flintoff be included when he averaged 40 despite batting in the same conditions as ramps?
trescothick and butcher averaged twice as much as him and foster averaged 50
vaughan failed but not to the extent of ramps so he still played better.
the fact is that most of them did OK,some did great, while ramps failed.....

The Australia and India series combined saw not a single muttering that I heard about his place.

not really...he held his place after that indian tour largely because of that 133 against australia.

And of course 1 series is exactly the same as 8 and you can judge someone a success on a single series..

its 1 out of 3 as opposed to 8 out of 19
it just goes to show what can happen if you selectively use stats.....

No, I wouldn't - because I say I wouldn't. You can't tell me whether or not I'd have dropped someone, and after 15 innings I would not have dropped Tendulkar.

yet you would have after 14 innings.....the point is that if you can drop players like that then perhaps you might be wrong in dropping chopra who averages similar to those players.

No, it doesn't - no-one can get everything right all the time. Sometimes, players succeed when it seems impossible. Flintoff appears to be one instance.

err what?mcgrath,flintoff,harmison,tendulkar,attapattu,steve waugh are all instances. and some of those happened to be one of the best players of their time......if you made such a big mistake in dropping those players then how can you possibly make the same mistake with chopra?