tooextracool said:
so if he wasnt then he is added to the list of players that refute your theory that successful domestic players=successful international players......
Except that Mullally hasn't been a rip-roaring success in domestic-First-Class-cricket - he's averaged just over 27, which is better than some but in no way suggestive of being a Test-class bowler.
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 two good years and those good years encompassed 6 good or reasonable series, while sandwiching 2 poor series on seamer-friendly wickets. This would keep most people in a side - it didn't keep someone who averaged 16 in his first 6 years as a Test-player in there.
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.
Except that he didn't have 3 miserable last years. His previous series was good, and before that he hadn't played a Test-match where he batted in his proper position for 2 years. In that series he followed 4 series of success with 1 of failure.
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.
Yes, it is the point - you've just tried to change the nucleus of the discussion.
The point is that if Ramprakash had recieved the bowling Flintoff received at Christchurch he'd probably still be playing for England now. You then started some drivel about some imaginary side of mine that would supposedly have a load of good players left-out.
and as i have already proved...he was a failure. you cant be retained in the side just because you had 1 good year.
And he wasn't - he was retained because he had 6 good series out of 8.
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, there was no question over his place going into the New Zealand series.
this is rubbish...you have gradually reduced the list from 3 to 1.
No, I've done nothing of the sort. There were only ever
two in the list, and here only one of those two is relevant.
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.....
Flintoff scored runs when Ramprakash failed once, which I've explained countless times, and Trescothick and Vaughan, incidentally, also scored their highest scores in the innings where Ramprakash did not bat.
Only Hussain was consistant that series (not without help from luck), and Ramprakash failed several times when the going was tough.
Others succeeded when it was less so.
not really...he held his place after that indian tour largely because of that 133 against australia.
No, but for his 58 at Bangalore I'd be surprised if there weren't some mutterings.
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.....
And because Ramprakash started very, very poorly and got much better, while Chopra started well and got worse this is a rather meaningless comparison.
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.
Except that 15 innings is what I'd regard as my threshold - if you've not averaged 35 after that, you're probably (not certainly) not going to be that good.
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?
Because who knows how many others have had that mistake made by real selectors? For all you know, Devang Gandhi could have gone on to become every bit as succesful as Harmison appears likely to. And yet Harmison definately looked no better than he did in their early careers.
Like it or not, Chopra is simply one of a massive number of players who are dropped after poor performances. He just happens to be someone you believe has potential, while you don't believe others do\did.
