England 30 man squad for icc championships

[Tom Halsey]

a)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.

b)yes its difficult to score runs on those wickets, but its a bit pollockesque, economical but no wickets

c) im sure you didnt watch the match,because only someone who looked at the scorecards would come up with rubbish like this.

a) Read post above.

b) Look at Pollock's Test strike rate, and you'll se that is a very stupid comment.

c) Says the King of CricInfo.

 

[Tom Halsey]

what?why should the pitches be made to suit ramprakash???

Excuse me, but where exactly did Richard suggest they should?

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

How is that not Chopra's fault?

He should have taken more advantage of the chance he was given, against a fairly substandard Aussie attck (without McGrath, Warne, etc.) and only Gillespie as a decent bowler.

 

[Cloete]

How is that not Chopra's fault?

He should have taken more advantage of the chance he was given, against a fairly substandard Aussie attck (without McGrath, Warne, etc.) and only Gillespie as a decent bowler.

He did virtually nothing wrong except not going on with his starts. And if your opener gets starts every innings then that always sets you up. Chopra was the ideal partner wit Sehwag, but he's going to have to miss out. It may be down to the fact that Ganguly is worried about missing his place if Yuvraj isn't an opener!!

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.....

That implies that Richard never did say he was amazing - he just said that it isn't easy to be succesful at number 7 or 8.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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.

ODI's are a hell of a lot more about economy.

And Caddick's economy is so marginally better, there really is very little difference.

 

[Tom Halsey]

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

But in another thread you said that Mullaly was rubbish - now you're defending him, by saying he's bowling at the death rather than Ealham.

 

[marc71178]

As I've already mentioned, it shows that he fell to the last remotely difficult ball of the match

Because, as if by magic the Kiwi bowlers (who are incidentally awful in your view, so how did they even manage one good ball) decided that there was no need to bowl any more decent balls as they'd got the linchpin of the side out.

Also the Wicket was replaced by a flat one that made batting a dream, also as if by magic?

 

[marc71178]

The Bangladedesh series doesn't count, because it was not worthy of being called Test-cricket.

More cherry picking - the Zimbabwe series is equally unworthy, so why include that one either?

Bangladesh are a Test playing side (and at that point they were in the middle of improvement that saw them very close to beating Pakistan, or would that not have counted as a Bangladesh win in your eyes either?) - therefore that was a Test Series.

 

[marc71178]

Trre, he probably didn't have a graet carear overall, but blaming 1 innings isn't going to get you very far.

He wasn't the one who brought up this innings.

 

[marc71178]

ODI's are a hell of a lot more about economy.

Fallacy.

Wickets are a very important part of the game - they slow the scoring rate, and stop the other team from building partnerships and having the chance to go all out for runs at the end.

 

[marc71178]

Eh? What the hell are you on about? Butcher has more than potential - he has proven success.

Yet, he falls below your 35 threshold now after 127 innings - a full 112 than you say is necessary to show ability?

 

[tooextracool]

ODI's are a hell of a lot more about economy.

And Caddick's economy is so marginally better, there really is very little difference.

i cant believe someone who would make such a foolish claim as this can even accuse me of not watcing any cricket.....
ODI cricket is about economy and taking wickets, if it wasnt then bowlers wouldnt be trying to get the batsman out at all. the fact that caddick's economy is better might not say that hes a much better bowler than ealham ut the fact that he could also take wickets with that economy makes him a far better bowler.

 

[tooextracool]

But in another thread you said that Mullaly was rubbish - now you're defending him, by saying he's bowling at the death rather than Ealham.

lets see where i have called mullally rubbish in ODIs now?how about a thread address ? mullally was one of the best ODI bowlers england have ever had...

 

[tooextracool]

And did I ever say "most people don't think he's got potential"? No.
I simply pointed out that tooextracool cannot put across as if it were fact that Chopra has potential.

no almost everyone believes that chopra has potential, therefore i believe that he should be given as many chances as das and ramesh did.

 

[tooextracool]

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.

its interesting how your comment keeps changing. now you say that only players who were rip roaring successes in domestic-first-class-cricket can be successful at the international level?and players like hick and ramprakash definetly prove that statement too.

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..

how many times do i have to say it....averaging 36 does not make it a good year, it was a decent year. regardless he had 3 bad years and 1 good year and 1 decent year in that period, so you cant have more bad years than good years and still be in the side.

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...

how good was that series against australia i ask you?it was not brilliant...it was not something to get you shouting about. all he accomplished in that series was 1 hundred,the rest were all 30s and 40s with a few failures. if he had been brilliant like what vaughan was in that last series against australia he would still have been in the side. if you look at the last 4 years,realistically he only played 1 great knock, the rest of the times he failed to go on with his starts or just failed period. 1 knock in 4 years is not good enough to keep you in the side i can assure you.

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 Bangalore 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.

im sorry what? if you look at that test match in bangalore you would see that ramprakash had all the opportunity in the world to score. india only went in with one genuine pace bowler in the side on a seaming wicket so he was technically playing spin bowlers on wickets that didnt suit them. which certainly explains why he got that 58. how can you possibly say that the bowling he recived was great at bangalore?

And he wasn't - he was retained because he had 6 good series out of 8.

he wasnt retained, he was dropped because he hadnt done enough to keep his place in the side....

No, there was no question over his place going into the New Zealand series.

no while there werent many people who wanted him out of the side, there were several people who had question marks about whether he was good enough to succeed playing for england. the failure in NZ answered that question.

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.
Flintoff scored runs when Ramprakash failed once, which I've explained countless times

so what does that mean?that ramprakash can only score when flintoff can? the fact that he failed in that entire series while flintoff did is what counts.if he was good enough he would have scored with the other opportunities that he got.....

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.

so ramprakash got worse conditions then openers did is it?what rubbish.
and heres a newsflash for you, michael vaughan scored a 27 and a 36 in the third test which had arguably the most seamer friendly conditions in the series. butcher managed a 35 odd in that match too. surprisingly though ramprakash failed to get into double digits in that match. im sure he got the worse of the conditions in that match too,especially considering he didnt even get to fact the new ball as the openers did.
also in the first test where the ball magically stopped seaming after ramprakash got out, both trescothick and butcher got 30s.

No, but for his 58 at Bangalore I'd be surprised if there weren't some mutterings..

as i said earlier....india had only 1 genuine fast bowler in the side on a seamer friendly wicket. and if he had managed to score a century instead of once again not going on with his start,he might well have retained his place in the side after the tour of india.

And because Ramprakash started very, very poorly and got much better, while Chopra started well and got worse this is a rather meaningless comparison...

it doesnt make a difference. at the end of the day they both average the same, one of them took 52 tests to average as much as the other who only took 8. and ramprakash didnt get much better, if he did then he would still be in the side, but the fact that he was averaging in the 20s for the last 4 years of his career says that he was still useless.

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....

what rubbish, im sure you conveniently changed that stat to favour your argument.

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.

i think if you had watched devang gandhi bat you would have realised he wasnt good enough.....

And yet Harmison definately looked no better than he did in their early careers.

not really...there was never a case of retianing gandhi at all. while despite harmisons poor performances most people wanted him in the side. its a classic case of one showing potential(albeit brief) while the other didnt.

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.

no hes part of the list of players who had an excellent technique and plenty of potential, and while half of that list succeeded and the other half didnt it shows that he deserves just about as many chances as the others on that list got.

 

[tooextracool]

Eh? What the hell are you on about? Butcher has more than potential - he has proven success.

no the point is that if key had replaced butcher(rightly or wrongly) it would be because the selectors felt that one had more potential than the other.in the same way chopra will be replaced by yuvraj because the selectors feel that he has more potential.

No, you believe they showed no potential.
Like it or not, potential is not fact, it is purely opinion.
In my opinion all of them showed potential, and should have been given more chance than they were, chances that the like of Knight, Hick and Mullally were.
No, you did.
Some people might have thought he batted well at international level, and "showed potential". Sadly, the England selectors weren't among them.

yes but your opinion is in a minority....the fact is that most people felt that they didnt have potential and they were dropped. if you are good enough then you need to convince as many people as possible that you have potential and most of those players simply couldnt at the international level.

Oh no, I never said I thought Harmison had no potential, you're just trying to put words on my keyboard again.

rubbish you have in the past said that bowlers like harmison that relied on bounce would not succeed at the international level. and he has already proved you wrong

Who gives a flying f**k, quite frankly, who thinks Chopra has potential - the Indian selectors don't, and they're the ones that matter. If they've made a mistake, they've made a mistake - it's not like it'll be the first or last time.
IMO they've made the right choice in dumping him..

what rubbish, you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. ive already proved earlier that chopra was dropped for reasons other than 'not having potential'.

His county record suggested to me that he wouldn't make it as an international success - and as usual, I was right.

then you'd like to change the statement earlier and say that" only players who have major success at the domestic level will succeed at the international level"
its also interesting that players like vaughan and trescothick had similar averages to those above and both of them succeeded at the international level, while hick,knight and ramprakash all failed.

 

[tooextracool]

The failure to get through 1 difficult period is not a disgrace.

Trre, he probably didn't have a graet carear overall, but blaming 1 innings isn't going to get you very far.

where have i blamed him for 1 innings? if you could indeed read i have clearly stated that he has failed miserably in his last 2 series and failed in most series of his last 4 years.

 

[tooextracool]

a) You said not long ago in the Official thread at the moment regarding the West Indies tour that even if it was turning, the batsmen shouldn't have problems with Giles - make up your mind!

if you had read that statement clearly i said if the WI players were good enough players of spin bowling they wouldnt have too much trouble against giles. and there were several wickets that were due to poor batting rather than brilliant bowling,notably the wickets of lara and tino best.

b) Richard never has said that - he has, however said that fingerspinners aren't very likely to be dangerous outside the sub-continent - not that they won't bowl well.

so when vettori took those wickets in perth and saqlain took that 6fer in hobart they were not dangerous then?

 

[tooextracool]

Slow turn is very handy for a spinner still, even though it will not bounce as much.
Why do you think Harbhajan and Kumble have been handy on slow turners (India) all their carears, but haven't been very good apart from that? Because slow turn is handy for spinners.

have i said its not handy?ive clearly stated that if batsmen apply themselves they wont have too many problems because its not lethal as turn+bounce is.however if anyone gets wickets on these pitches then it is the spinners because the pace bowlers have nothing to work with. if you are a good enough player of spin bowling then you shouldnt have any problems against slow turn.

Also, the pitches in this West INdies series have offered slow turn, and, so surprisingly, Giles has his best ever match figures.

clearly shows how much of the series you've been watching.....