Soth Africa's boring tactics

[Richard]

If Sehwag hits balls in the air and manages runs, what is wrong with that? His times and places the balls between fielders and doesnt get out as much. I dont say it. The averages do.

No, they don't.
There's nothing wrong with hitting the ball in the air between fielders (it's still more dangerous than hitting it on the ground, but if it works, all well and good), but Sehwag doesn't do this the way you suggest.
In fact, he hits the ball in the air to fielders. This would be far more apparent than it is were those fielders better at taking the catches.

The logic of him being dropped and getting favourable decisions more than other players is totally absurd. What one person feels risky may mean safe in another person's book. It is the amount of calculated risk one is willing to take.

Sehwag is confident of his stroke play (which u think is where the fault lies). So he can play the shots which bewilder you thinking he MUST get out to this. But actually they are not as risky in Sehwag's books. Else he would not have managed the success he has at the international stage.

No, they are risky - they result in chances. Just because the chances are not taken is not to Sehwag's credit.
It is nothing to do with what it "seems" must happen - I despise that more than anything else, people thinking they know better than the game. But the fact is, Sehwag has not placed the ball between the fielders all the time, he's found them regularly - they just haven't taken the chances anywher near enough.

 

[Son Of Coco]

No, he doesn't. It is not to his credit that the fielders aren't good enough.
It does not matter that it is not the batsman's fault - the batsman has not lost anything, so fault is not the issue.

Human error is very much a part of the game though......be it through dropped catches, LBW decisions and so on. I'd go as far as to suggest that if you are going to do this for great players of years gone by then their averages would drop considerably due to the fact that we have more technology in place these days to help make the decisions for us.

Personally, I think this will even out over a career in nearly all cases......you can take a snippet from a players career, possibly a period when they did get dropped a bit, and say 'gee, they're the luckiest player in the world' but if you're going to be fair/want your theory to be feasible then each player has to be looked at over a similar period of time, not just a period when one was incredibly lucky and the other wasn't. Sehwag may have been dropped on the odd occasion but then the more chances you offer, the greater the chance you'll actually get out.

Does this average of yours also take off runs scored through mistakes on the fielders part that aren't chances? i.e overthrows, misfields etc?

 

[Pratters]

No, they don't.
There's nothing wrong with hitting the ball in the air between fielders (it's still more dangerous than hitting it on the ground, but if it works, all well and good), but Sehwag doesn't do this the way you suggest.
In fact, he hits the ball in the air to fielders. This would be far more apparent than it is were those fielders better at taking the catches.

No, they are risky - they result in chances. Just because the chances are not taken is not to Sehwag's credit.
It is nothing to do with what it "seems" must happen - I despise that more than anything else, people thinking they know better than the game. But the fact is, Sehwag has not placed the ball between the fielders all the time, he's found them regularly - they just haven't taken the chances anywher near enough.

If the fielders dont take the chances or the umpires give favourable decisions, it is NOT Sehwag's fault, if even for a second we assume your pressumptions are true.

Sehwag makes the most of whatever opportunity he gets.

Australia cant be blamed for their opposition's stregths or weaknesses.

Sehwag makes the most of what opportunities he gets and thats the maximum he can do! If a player gets dropped and then makes a brilliant century, you wont blame the player on making the most of whatever chances he gets!!!!!

 

[Richard]

If the fielders dont take the chances or the umpires give favourable decisions, it is NOT Sehwag's fault, if even for a second we assume your pressumptions are true.

YES, I KNOW THAT, how many times? It DOES NOT matter that it is not Sehwag's fault - he has not lost-out, so fault is irrelevant. It is credit that is relevant, because he has gained through it.

Sehwag makes the most of whatever opportunity he gets.

Australia cant be blamed for their opposition's stregths or weaknesses.

Sehwag makes the most of what opportunities he gets and thats the maximum he can do! If a player gets dropped and then makes a brilliant century, you wont blame the player on making the most of whatever chances he gets!!!!!

No, you can't blame him - you can, however, point-out that he has not achieved what it is assumed he has achieved.

 

[Richard]

Human error is very much a part of the game though......be it through dropped catches, LBW decisions and so on. I'd go as far as to suggest that if you are going to do this for great players of years gone by then their averages would drop considerably due to the fact that we have more technology in place these days to help make the decisions for us.

Possibly - we don't know with regard the Umpiring. But research I have conducted suggests to me that dropped catches in the more reticent days were actually much rarer than today.
Of course almost any batsman will have a lower first-chance average than scorebook one, that's almost a given. But IMO luck is playing more of a part in batting-averages ATM than it has in the past.

Personally, I think this will even out over a career in nearly all cases......you can take a snippet from a players career, possibly a period when they did get dropped a bit, and say 'gee, they're the luckiest player in the world' but if you're going to be fair/want your theory to be feasible then each player has to be looked at over a similar period of time, not just a period when one was incredibly lucky and the other wasn't. Sehwag may have been dropped on the odd occasion but then the more chances you offer, the greater the chance you'll actually get out.

Not neccesarily.
You hear this "it evens itself out over a career" all the time - that's not true for two reasons:
1, almost all batsmen get more good luck than bad over a career.
2, it is totally ridiculous to expect that a batsman will have the same amount of luck as another. Hence, the only fair way to judge batsmen is to take luck out of the equation.
"It evens itself out over a career" is just a quick dissmissal that generalisers use to avoid awkward thoughts about this matter - same way everyone has previously done with regard the chucking. Just swept it under the carpet, and avoided the facts that almost all bowlers broke the former rules.

Does this average of yours also take off runs scored through mistakes on the fielders part that aren't chances? i.e overthrows, misfields etc?

No, that's not possible, and it's fairly pointless, anyway - overthrows and misfields don't really make much difference.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

going by your logic Richard, a batter scores all his runs only because he is lucky. I mean think about it, if the opposition has the best possible fielders and the best possible bowlers, they wouldn't let the batter score even a single run.

Therefore, a batter should never be given any credit for any score he makes coz if the opposition were the best, he wouldn't have even scored 1.

 

[Richard]

That's not close to being true and you know it.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

That's not close to being true and you know it.

why is it not true? I am only extending your logic onto this.

 

[tooextracool]

South Africa aren't even trying to win matches from the off. England's approach in SL was borne out of the win being impossible...

the win was certainly not impossible in the 2nd test of that series.....i wouldnt classify chasing 360 odd from 140 overs as impossible

 

[tooextracool]

Why do people consider Sehwag some one with no technique?

There is a flip side to it. He is so confident about his shots, his skill that he can play shots which go beyond technique.

He makes runs, he makes them fast and is better than most openers India had from Gandhi to Rathour to S.S.Das

Its not easy to make runs at international level and its time we give Sehwag the credit as a very good batsman.

its a common misconception, sehwag has a fairly decent technique that he can use to defend himself against quality pace bowling. of course when he sees a bad ball he tends to hammer it without any technique whatsoever. works well with his eye.

 

[marc71178]

Every report I read of the Sehwag lbw said it should have been given out. That is more than enough for me.

So that automatically makes your basis flawed - because it is not an independant judge of a chance.

 

[Richard]

It is as good a judge of the matter as anything is of anything.

 

[Richard]

why is it not true? I am only extending your logic onto this.

Because it is not the case that every batsman scores 1 then gets dropped every innings.

 

[marc71178]

It is as good a judge of the matter as anything is of anything.

How is it?

One man's chance is another mans streaky, but safe, shot.

 

[Richard]

On rare occasions, yes.
On most occasions something should have been out in the eyes of anyone who's actually thinking about it, rather than just dismissing it out-of-hand.

 

[marc71178]

So this LBW, which is apparently far from certain - is that going to count or not?

Unless 1 person watches all games and applies the same criteria, there is no possible way of declaring a chance.

 

[Richard]

How many people have told you it was far from certain?

 

[Pratters]

How many people have told you it was far from certain?

You sound like the Indians and Pakistani fans who blame umpires, bad decisions, CHANCE and every thing except that they were fairly beaten. Same goes for English football team

Sehwag is a good player and its not due to CHANCE!

 

[marc71178]

Just 1 person expressing doubt immediately shows that there is no universal definition of a chance, whereas there is universal definition of a dismissal.

 

[neutralguy]

even indian batting seems to be a "pain in the neck". so slow and boring.