The value of Chanderpaul

[Richard]

So basically he suffered from the precise problem that happens to Pakistanis and Sri Lankans aplenty?
Catapulted too soon into the international arena, often in the wrong game-form.
And didn't he go for 17 in an over in that Pakistan game in WC99? Couldn't exactly have been confidence-producing. IIRR Lara had bowled-out A, W and Dillon.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

So basically he suffered from the precise problem that happens to Pakistanis and Sri Lankans aplenty?
Catapulted too soon into the international arena, often in the wrong game-form.
And didn't he go for 17 in an over in that Pakistan game in WC99? Couldn't exactly have been confidence-producing. IIRR Lara had bowled-out A, W and Dillon.

16 actually.
You're spot on about everything else though. He fell prey to ODI cricket before Tests.

That said, he played one of the best innings I've seen from him yesterday. 50 off 71 balls on what I perceive to be as close to a deathtrap of a pitch as you'll find in ODIs (outside of New Zealand). Perhaps false hope of a turnaround, but hope nonetheless.

 

[Craig]

The mere fact it was off 71 balls made a good innings for Powell.

 

[Richard]

Another sloggathon today.
Kallis cleaned that one up, though.
I really hope he won't be playing against us. Just a walking wicket for Anderson or someone else.

 

[Tom Halsey]

That's exactly why I hope he is playing against us!!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Another sloggathon today.
Kallis cleaned that one up, though.
I really hope he won't be playing against us. Just a walking wicket for Anderson or someone else.

A slogathon??? Are you blind??? Powell played a brilliant 34 today! He didn't play any slog shots! Seriously Richard, you may not like the guy, but give credit where it's due.

 

[V Reddy]

I think Powell played very very well in these two innings. I hope this marks the turnaround but don't expect it to happen.

 

[Richard]

All right, all right, I've seen worse but I don't think I've shouted at the telly like I did when Kallis took the stump for a spin for a long time.
Last time I can remember was when Saqlain bowled Gilchrist at Trent Bridge in 2001.
I can't believe a turnaround can be possible after such a long time of sustained failure.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Butcher did it. In your opinion so did Ramprakash.

 

[marc71178]

I think Powell played very very well in these two innings. I hope this marks the turnaround but don't expect it to happen.

Well, when Flintoff was moved up to 5 for England, he started to play more sensibly, and is a far better player for it.

Maybe pushing Powell to 3 will have the same effect?

 

[Richard]

The upturn in Flintoff's ODI average started in the 2002 NatWest Series, and it had nothing to do with playing more "responsibly" (which Powell most certainly didn't do on Sunday), it simply happened.
He started hitting the ball away from fielders instead of straight to them.

 

[Richard]

Butcher did it. In your opinion so did Ramprakash.

True in Ramprakash's case. And it's not my opinion - it's fact that his average since he played a vital 48 in the second-innings at The Oval in 1997 is three times as high as it was before if you exclude innings in which he batted out of position. Some just don't recognise that fact, so in their opinion Ramprakash was always rubbish.
The fact is, from 1998 onwards, Ramprakash (when not batting out of position) was rubbish against New Zealand only.
As for Butcher, that's slightly different, as he had one period where he averaged nearly 50 in Test-cricket, between The First South Africa Test and The First Ashes Test of 1998. That showed his ability and but for that he'd never have got the second chance he got in 2001.
With Powell it was one good tournament and complete rubbish afterwards (though his average in this ODI series has taken on a respectible look).

 

[marc71178]

The upturn in Flintoff's ODI average started in the 2002 NatWest Series, and it had nothing to do with playing more "responsibly" (which Powell most certainly didn't do on Sunday), it simply happened.
He started hitting the ball away from fielders instead of straight to them.

It may have start in 2002, but that wasn't what I'd said.

I said he was pushed up to 5 and responded by playing very sensibly (relative to how he used to play)

Since then he's got 459 runs @ over 60.

 

[Richard]

But the fact is the upturn started before he was moved up to five.
I don't think he's played any differently - just what he's tried has been more effective.

 

[marc71178]

I disagree there.

His approach since he was first put up to 5 was completely different to that before IMO.

I had the good fortune to be at the OT ODI when he first went in at 5, and the whole area in which I was sat had the air of being impressed by his approach to the innings (especially seeing as he came in at a time when a couple of wickets had gone down quickly).

We were half expecting a quick 15-20 and out, but he definitely didn't play in that manner.

 

[Richard]

"Responsibility" is just something that can be assumed, especially when you're in the impulise situation of a crowd.
For me, watching the innings from the best seat in the house, I detected absolutely no difference, except in how well he played strokes.
No difference in the type of strokes he tried to play.
And for the last time; there was certainly no change coinciding with the change in the batting-order.

 

[marc71178]

For me, watching the innings from the best seat in the house, I detected absolutely no difference, except in how well he played strokes.

Best seat in the house?

Where was that exactly out of interest (seeing as I felt my behind the bowler's arm tickets were pretty much as good as it gets)

And for the last time; there was certainly no change coinciding with the change in the batting-order.

So it's just coincidence that since being put at 5 his average is well over 50 then?

 

[Richard]

Best seat in the house?

Where was that exactly out of interest (seeing as I felt my behind the bowler's arm tickets were pretty much as good as it gets)

I was in front of the television screen.
Sorry, but it don't get better than that.

So it's just coincidence that since being put at 5 his average is well over 50 then?

Yes it is - one, that period includes 3 innings against Bangladesh, all of which were put to maximum use average-wise (and he was dropped in all but one of them, too, so don't use the old "he must have done pretty well against the weak team" stuff), and two, it was almost 40 batting in whatever position he came in throughout the previous year.

 

[marc71178]

I was in front of the television screen.
Sorry, but it don't get better than that.

If that's so, then why are there onfield umpires to adjudicate?

You can see a lot more at the ground than in front of the TV.

 

[Richard]

The hint is in the term - on-field.
Unless I'm very much mistaken, the stands (especially at nice big fields like Lord's) aren't on the field.
Anyway, it's been proven time and again that TV views (albeit with the help of slo-mo, freeze-frames, different angles, red-zones and batsman-fades) often get decisions more accurate than on-field Umpires.