Richard said:
Yes, and given that neither of us agree on those likelihoods and neither can be proven or guranteed, neither means all that much!
yes so the fact that tendulkar averages 7 runs more than ganguly at the top ATM it means that he is a far better player at the top.
Richard said:
I hardly think it's likely he's failed every run-chase.
so then lets hear it,how many times did he succeed in run chases? given that batting at 4 requires you to be somewhat competent in run chases especially considering hes been move down from a far more successful position for this.
Richard said:
I really cannot believe this "only 38" stuff - 38, for most players, is an exceptional achievement.
for a player as exceptional as tendulkar it is ordinary, and the fact that hes doing far better job at the top than he is at 4....
Richard said:
So how on Earth can you know for certain that Tendulkar does a better job in the middle-overs when he's come in at the top of the order? I'd like to see some stats to show that, not that I think it would be possible to construct any..
so lets see all his scores from the 99 wc at 4 then shall we?
140* 4 not out 1 W World Cup 15 v Ken in Eng 1999 at Bristol
2 4 bowled 1 W World Cup 21 v SL in Eng 1999 at Taunton
22 4 caught 1 W World Cup 25 v Eng in Eng 1999 at Birmingham
0 4 caught 2 * W 5th ODI v NZ in Ind 1999/00 at Delhi
13 4 bowled 1 * L C&U Ser. 2 v Pak in Aus 1999/00 at Brisbane
12 4 run out 2 * L C&U Ser. 3 v Aus in Aus 1999/00 at Melbourne
34* 4 not out 2 W 3rd ODI v WI in WI 2001/02 at Bridgetown
65 4 bowled 1 W 5th ODI v WI in WI 2001/02 at Port of Spain
1 4 lbw 2 W NW Series 2 v Eng in Eng 2002 at Lord's
49 4 caught wk 2 W NW Series 3 v SL in Eng 2002 at The Oval
105* 4 not out 1 N NW Series 5 v Eng in Eng 2002 at Chester-le-Street
19 4 caught 2 W NW Series 6 v SL in Eng 2002 at Birmingham
36 4 caught wk 2 L NW Series 8 v Eng in Eng 2002 at The Oval
113 4 caught 1 W NW Series 9 v SL in Eng 2002 at Bristol
14 4 bowled 2 W NW Series F v Eng in Eng 2002 at Lord's
7 4 caught 1 W ICC KO 3 v Zim in SL 2002/03 at Colombo
9* 4 not out 2 W ICC KO 11 v Eng in SL 2002/03 at Colombo
16 4 run out 1 W ICC KO SF v SA in SL 2002/03 at Colombo
0 4 lbw 2 W 5th ODI v NZ in NZ 2002/03 at Wellington
1 4 caught wk 2 W 6th ODI v NZ in NZ 2002/03 at Auckland
as you can see clearly that same tendulkar failed in the entire 99 wc batting at 4, yet of course we all know that if he had batted 4 in the 03 edition india would have won the cup. its also interesting to note that he failed in his last 6 innings at 4(7 if you count the match in NZ where he batted at 3) so his being sent back to the top was justifiable. the 38 average is also inflated by his 140* against kenya in the 99 wc so it should probably be a lot lower than that.
Richard said:
So Kaif, who averages 31 in his supposed "in-position" position, plus 33.75 one place down from that, far less than he does at seven\eight combined, is as good as Tendulkar, Ganguly and Dravid?
Forgive me, but I think not..
look at it in context, all his scores have come when hes been sent in to bat early, his 87* vs england, 111 against zimbabwe, 68 against NZ, 95 vs SA,64 vs NZ and the 71 vs pak
Richard said:
Ganguly, meanwhile, has averaged 24.67 when batting at four, five or six - sure, that suggests he's a master of the middle-overs.
Dravid certainly is a master of the middle-overs IMO, but equally to give him and Tendulkar the best chance of batting for most of them is the best formula if you ask me.
nope ganguly has been good at 3 so he bats at 3, dravid at 4, kaif at 5 and yuvraj at 6 suggests to me to be the right batting order. theres no place for tendulkar there IMO
Richard said:
And as I have told you many, many times, there are plenty of players who have failed the way Chopra, Stephen Waugh, Atapattu and Rhodes (I'd hardly call Atapattu or Rhodes "great" batsman - very good, yes, underachievers, yes, but "great", no) did in their early careers, who have not gone on to achieve anything.
yes but if you had done the same thing with those players then they wouldnt have got their chance to become as good as they are today. that suggests to me that they deserve more chances at the intl level.
Richard said:
Wrong again. I've never said that I'll dismiss a player automatically just because he hasn't achieved my ideal in 15 innings or so.
Believe it or not, I too do believe in giving chances beyond that which has been earned to those who I believe have potential.
I do not know, so therefore you certainly do not, whether I would have given Rhodes, Stephen Waugh and Atapattu the chances they got. I reckon, looking at their domestic averages, I probably would have.
yes and looking at chopras appalling first class average of nearly 50, he clearly doesnt deserve any more chances.....
Richard said:
Yes, he scored at Trent Bridge when the ball was turning. Yes, he scored in the NZ-Ind 2002\03 series when it was seaming all over the place.
and how many other seaming or turning wickets has he played on?? not many and the fact that he has succeeded in several of them suggests to me that he cant be considered a flat track bully.
Richard said:
However, mostly he hasn't and it certainly was not turning in Sri Lanka in 2003, otherwise there would have been far lower scores than there were.
rubbish , you didnt even watch that series! yes the first test wicket was flat, but the 2nd test wicket was a blatant turner. paul wiseman took 4 wickets in the first innings and the totals in the respective innings were 305,298,183,72/1, those arent high scores at all. and surprise surprise richardson scored 2 50s. any more stuff from handpicking.com?
Richard said:
New Zealand were exceptionally lucky in Sri Lanka and India that they did not encounter any real turn, otherwise they would have scored much lower scores and very probably have been beaten very comfortably.
So, in conclusion, Richardson has played the odd good innings where there has been something for the bowlers. I have always described him as a "flat-track-bully" which would suggest to most people a batsman who isn't that good when the ball is moving at all - whether seam, turn, swing or drift. However, he has played well in bowler-friendly conditions occasionally. No rule is without exceptions..
any more tripe that you are going to bring up? ramprakash is don bradman's third cousin so he must be great?
id like to see how many innings on seamer friendly or turning conditions that richardson has failed on!
Richard said:
Yes, as demonstrated by the fact that he can bowl all types of penetrative techniques.
oh yes bowlers have penetrative techniques too now dont they?
Richard said:
McGrath, meanwhile, can't, and on the rare occasion that the batting's good on a decent wicket he'll not threaten.
On a seaming or up-and-down pitch he's deadly and you'll not get a better bowler. In fact, he's exactly like Pollock.
yet hes taken so very many wickets in non seaming conditions, the 15.35 average in the most spinner friendly conditions in india in 2001 certainly is a valid example isnt it?