India's opening pair

[Richard]

no the point is that nobody wants a good batsman in that position....quite frankly im sure that ganguly,yuvraj or even kaif is capable of averaging 38 in that position but how many people in this indian side or anywhere in the world are capable of opening the batting and averaging 50?

Ganguly maybe, just maybe, but I can't see anyone else doing so.
Anyway, positional average can't tell the whole story as far as that's concerned, as I've made a pretty good attempt to express.

and chopra isnt a proven failure except in your defective eyes, that thought harmison,steve waugh,attapattu,jonty rhodes and several other players were also proven failures.....

THEY WERE proven failures, it's just they improved.
And I can assure you I am not the only person to consider Chopra a proven failure, even if I am in the minority.

 

[Richard]

These 2 guys are key examples of players having to wait their turn! Mark had to wait 5 years after Steve to make his debut despite scoring truckloads at domestic level, and Gilly started his domestic career in 1992 or 1993 and had to move states to even become part of the frame.

They had to wait their turn for their debuts, then were instant successes - Gilchrist hasn't missed a Test since his debut, Mark Waugh played 107 in a row.
Every other successful Australian Test batsman has come in, been left-out for a considerable time, then returned and made a success of themselves. Ponting, Langer, Lehmann, Katich, Hayden, Stephen Waugh, Martyn; who knows Love might yet do a similar thing.
Equally there will inevitably be those who don't get a chance - Law, Cox, Maher, Hussey, Hodge (though I can't help thinking his time will come), Symonds (not a proper chance, anyway), probably more.

 

[Waughney]

Just a question, why wasn't a "Sehwag-Yuvraj" partnership option given on the poll?

 

[tooextracool]

Ganguly maybe, just maybe, but I can't see anyone else doing so.
Anyway, positional average can't tell the whole story as far as that's concerned, as I've made a pretty good attempt to express.

nope ganguly hasnt and wont....
and the fact that there are other batsman capable of doing what sachin has been at 4, while there hasnt been anyone who can do the same at the top anywhere in the world means what?

THEY WERE proven failures, it's just they improved.

they were NOT proven failures....they were players who showed potential at the international level but for whatever reasons took some time to achieve the same efficency at the international arena as they did at the domestic level.

And I can assure you I am not the only person to consider Chopra a proven failure, even if I am in the minority.

yes i can imagine the group of pedants that you belong to that worship vaas as their bowling hero and look at first chance averages to try and disprove everyone.....

 

[Nate]

Just a question, why wasn't a "Sehwag-Yuvraj" partnership option given on the poll?

Just an answer, I think this poll was posted a long while ago, before many of the "newest" options were introduced. More than half the guys on the poll are dead and buried on the international scene now.

 

[garage flower]

Don't really want to become embroiled in this argument, fascinating though it is, but I do find it surprising that you (Richard) could describe as a "proven failure" a player (Chopra) who has played just 8 tests, 4 of them away to the best team in the world and none against the 3 indisputably weakest bowling attacks, and has an average of 28ish.

Obviously, he needs to improve, particularly - having watched him in Aus - with regard to grafting a few scoring strokes onto his solid defence, but it seems hasty to be writing him off at this stage.

 

[marc71178]

THEY WERE proven failures, it's just they improved.

Erm, doesn't that negate the proven bit?

 

[Richard]

Don't really want to become embroiled in this argument, fascinating though it is, but I do find it surprising that you (Richard) could describe as a "proven failure" a player (Chopra) who has played just 8 tests, 4 of them away to the best team in the world and none against the 3 indisputably weakest bowling attacks, and has an average of 28ish.

Obviously, he needs to improve, particularly - having watched him in Aus - with regard to grafting a few scoring strokes onto his solid defence, but it seems hasty to be writing him off at this stage.

The fact that he hasn't played Zimbabwe or Bangladesh only means this part doesn't have to be removed from his average to make it accurate.
Playing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe merely disfigures averages.
Chopra has played 15 Test innings, which is perfectly enough to judge success or failure on. Less than 10 innings cannot be judged decisively on, 15 can.
Just because the team Chopra played was called "Australia" doesn't mean the attack was good: Bracken, Williams, MacGill and Lee are not even close to being Test-standard bowlers.

 

[Richard]

nope ganguly hasnt and wont....

Won't? No, you can't know that, you can only guess it.

and the fact that there are other batsman capable of doing what sachin has been at 4, while there hasnt been anyone who can do the same at the top anywhere in the world means what?

There are plenty of batsmen capable of doing what Sachin does in the first 15, Ganguly and Sehwag amongst them. There are far, far less who are capable of doing what he does in the overs 15-40 and 40-50. Therefore it would seem logical to me to bat him where he is likeliest to bat in these roles.

they were NOT proven failures....they were players who showed potential at the international level but for whatever reasons took some time to achieve the same efficency at the international arena as they did at the domestic level.

They were proven failures, like it or not. Whatever potential they might have been interpreted to have shown (like it or not, showing potential is not fact, it is point-of-view) they failed for a considerable time, improved, then succeeded.

yes i can imagine the group of pedants that you belong to that worship vaas as their bowling hero and look at first chance averages to try and disprove everyone.....

The fact that you have to resort to stupid comments like this suggests you're running-out of options.

 

[Richard]

Erm, doesn't that negate the proven bit?

How so?

 

[marc71178]

Chopra has played 15 Test innings, which is perfectly enough to judge success or failure on. Less than 10 innings cannot be judged decisively on, 15 can.

Why can 15, but 10 can't?

Why so arbitrary?

I can think of several who were poor after 15 but wouldn't be deemed failures.

Just because the team Chopra played was called "Australia" doesn't mean the attack was good: Bracken, Williams, MacGill and Lee are not even close to being Test-standard bowlers.

For me MacGill is only put down so much because of the existance of Warne in his lifetime.

His S/R and success suggests to me that but if Warne didn't exist he could quite easily be battling Murali for the World Record.

 

[marc71178]

How so?

Well if they're proven failures, how have they succeeded?

Success would then prove that they're not failures.

 

[Richard]

Why can 15, but 10 can't?

Why so arbitrary?

I can think of several who were poor after 15 but wouldn't be deemed failures.

Because less than 10 innings doesn't, for me, reprisent a fair chance.
15 does.
Of course it's not exact every time and circumstances (such as RUDs\bad decisions against or a shedload of rubbish strokes) must be considered.
And of course there are players who fail after 15 but then still manage to improve - but they're few and far between.

For me MacGill is only put down so much because of the existance of Warne in his lifetime.

His S/R and success suggests to me that but if Warne didn't exist he could quite easily be battling Murali for the World Record.

And even if he were (highly unlikely, because I reckon he'd have been dropped long ago but for Warne's presence giving this impression of being unlucky), he'd be battling him at an average of about 35 if you ask me.
An examination of who he's had success against and when suggests to me that he's nowhere near Test-standard.
If you ask me it's only because of Warne that people think he's as good as they do, because but for Warne he'd not have had the benefit of missing so many series against good batsmen, then having the decency to get banned just when a Bangladesh series was around the corner.

 

[Richard]

Well if they're proven failures, how have they succeeded?

Success would then prove that they're not failures.

Because someone can be a proven failure then turn into a proven success.
Atapattu actually does it quite a bit! So does Chaminda.

 

[marc71178]

So they're not then a proven failure if they're succeeding.

 

[garage flower]

The fact that he hasn't played Zimbabwe or Bangladesh only means this part doesn't have to be removed from his average to make it accurate.
Playing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe merely disfigures averages.
Chopra has played 15 Test innings, which is perfectly enough to judge success or failure on. Less than 10 innings cannot be judged decisively on, 15 can.
Just because the team Chopra played was called "Australia" doesn't mean the attack was good: Bracken, Williams, MacGill and Lee are not even close to being Test-standard bowlers.

15 innings is enough in your opinion. I'd suggest it would only be enough to write someone off if they'd failed miserably, which Chopra evidently hasn't.

Notice you excluded Gillespie from your list of Aussie bowlers and Lee and Macgill are not "not even close to being Test-standard bowlers".

It was a good Aussie attack, on home soil, and Chopra survived a couple of furious bombardments from Lee in particular, showing plenty of courage and no little technical ability.

 

[garage flower]

Because someone can be a proven failure then turn into a proven success.
Atapattu actually does it quite a bit! So does Chaminda.

Richard, this is utterly contradictory. When a "proven failure" becomes a "success", hindsight is telling us that he wasn't a proven failure in the first place.

 

[Nate]

The fact that he hasn't played Zimbabwe or Bangladesh only means this part doesn't have to be removed from his average to make it accurate.
Playing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe merely disfigures averages.
Chopra has played 15 Test innings, which is perfectly enough to judge success or failure on. Less than 10 innings cannot be judged decisively on, 15 can.
Just because the team Chopra played was called "Australia" doesn't mean the attack was good: Bracken, Williams, MacGill and Lee are not even close to being Test-standard bowlers.

at the very least, lee and macgill are "test-standard" bowlers.

 

[tooextracool]

Won't? No, you can't know that, you can only guess it..

no the fact that hes falled 7 runs short after 192 games says that he wont do it.....

There are plenty of batsmen capable of doing what Sachin does in the first 15, Ganguly and Sehwag amongst them.

yes they are except that sachin's role extends beyond the 15 because he scores he usually bats till the 35-40th over.

There are far, far less who are capable of doing what he does in the overs 15-40 and 40-50. Therefore it would seem logical to me to bat him where he is likeliest to bat in these roles.

so there are far less players who are capable of averaging 38 in the middle order then?

They were proven failures, like it or not. Whatever potential they might have been interpreted to have shown (like it or not, showing potential is not fact, it is point-of-view) they failed for a considerable time, improved, then succeeded.

dont be ridiculous how can they be proven failures and then succeed? and even if they are 'proven failures' as chopra apparently is, the fact that they succeeded when they had similar potential to chopra says that chopra can succeed too.

The fact that you have to resort to stupid comments like this suggests you're running-out of options.

the fact that almost everyone believes that chopra has potential shows that you just maybe wrong........just like you were about harmison,steve waugh,jonty rhodes,mcgrath,mark richardson and the rest

 

[Arjun]

Sehwag and Chopra for Tests. Gambhir as reserve.

Sehwag and a pinch-hitter in ODI's. Gambhir as a reserve.

Dravid may come down to number 3 in both.