Sehwag vs Smith

[Prince EWS]

no one remembers them!!!!

Still not used to Richard I see. You'll learn, in time. He remembers them.

 

[grecian]

Still not used to Richard I see. You'll learn, in time. He remembers them.

He only remembers them for certain players, in my experience

 

[Richard]

Your experience is extremely poor, of course. Any fool without an agenda will spot the fact that I remember them for any and every player.

 

[ret]

Still not used to Richard I see. You'll learn, in time. He remembers them.

hats off to Richards, if he remembers everything abt those 27 100s b/w the two players since 2000/01 .... but i guess, we have to take the memory power of normal beings like yours truely into account when discussing such issues

 

[Richard]

agree but still how do we account for LBW calls and then how can we ignore the fact that Smith could have had those against him but no one remembers them!!!!

I gurantee you, if he had an lbw let-off, someone would have spotted it and someone would let The World know.

then on missed catches too, there are various possibilities that i spoke abt. what may constitute as a chance to some, may not be for other

Anyone who actually thinks about the matter will find it almost impossible to disagree with another who thinks on the matter about what should and should not have been caught. Cliches and lack of realisation of the importance of the matter are the only problems presented.

thats why I wouldn't bring this issue in as I don't remember the chances each batsman got and nor do i have the record that says X was dropped when on 1, survived a close LBW call when on 11, survived stumping on 111 .... so how i m going to refute an argument when someone says X was dropped on 10, when i don't remember that!!! and there is a possiblity of that someone not remembering a chance that Y got

I remember pretty much every let-off I've ever seen, though. And I do keep records of them for particular players who have got an abnormal amount. It's really not difficult to note the fact that X should have been out on 11 in that innings, and Y should've been out on 63 in this.

also most such arguments can be refuted by saying that you are only out in the way what the scoreboard says .... thats why such arguments don't hold merit in my book .... ofc i could argue on the missed chances but to me that doesn't bring any value to the discussion as shown by my posts here

And I think that denying the impact of let-offs doesn't bring anything to the calibre of discussion TBH. I think it's laughable, really, to suggest that what's in the book is all that matters. If that were the case, no-one would bother watching cricket.

 

[ret]

And I think that denying the impact of let-offs doesn't bring anything to the calibre of discussion TBH. I think it's laughable, really, to suggest that what's in the book is all that matters. If that were the case, no-one would bother watching cricket.

there is a legend that Lara was dropped when he made that record 501 not out .... the WK who dropped him said that now he will make a 100 but he was wrong, Lara made 501

Now does that dropped chance undermine Lara's 501?


i remember, Tendulkar was dropped by Flemmings, iirc, in one of those two incredible ODI innings that he played against OZ at Sharjah in 1998

Now does that undermine his 100s?


Then there is the case of Gibbs dropping Steve Waugh in the 1999 WC and Steve telling him 'Son, you dropped the world cup' .... Now does that dropped catch undermine Waugh's inning?

If not then whats the point in your bring in droped catches to the equation in this topic? My point is that the point that you are bringing in two judge these two is not even a point

And I can argue that if Sehwag got dropped against Aus and converted that opportunity into big scores then is it not possible that Smith could have got those chances too. And then if Smith plays chanceless innings then why hasn't he done that against a team like Aus?

Your point is so weak that it can be refuted in so many ways.... and thats why I said it doesn't bring any value to this discussion

 

[Jamee999]

Your experience is extremely poor, of course. Any fool without an agenda will spot the fact that I remember them for any and every player.

Please detail the missed chances for Darren Maddy in the 2000 County Championship

 

[grecian]

On no, not agenda again, how many people have these agendas.

Woodster pointed out a few you've conveniently forgotten, and it happens with every player you don't rate. Which I don't really care about, I do care that every thread gets taking over talking about your nutcase theories. Which I guess is my agenda

 

[Richard]

there is a legend that Lara was dropped when he made that record 501 not out .... the WK who dropped him said that now he will make a 100 but he was wrong, Lara made 501

Now does that dropped chance undermine Lara's 501?


i remember, Tendulkar was dropped by Flemmings, iirc, in one of those two incredible ODI innings that he played against OZ at Sharjah in 1998

Now does that undermine his 100s?


Then there is the case of Gibbs dropping Steve Waugh in the 1999 WC and Steve telling him 'Son, you dropped the world cup' .... Now does that dropped catch undermine Waugh's inning?

In all cases, yes of course it does mean the innings were not as good as they would've been had they been purely earned by the batsman. Because but for bad fielding, none of them would've happened.

It doesn't mean people can't play well after a let-off, but had the let-off not happened, the innings wouldn't have.

And I can argue that if Sehwag got dropped against Aus and converted that opportunity into big scores then is it not possible that Smith could have got those chances too.

He hasn't, though. Smith has been caught where Sehwag has sometimes been dropped.

And then if Smith plays chanceless innings then why hasn't he done that against a team like Aus?

Because he hasn't (yet) played well enough.

Your point is so weak that it can be refuted in so many ways.... and thats why I said it doesn't bring any value to this discussion

It can't, though. Refutations are always refutable, it's always the same

 

[Richard]

Please detail the missed chances for Darren Maddy in the 2000 County Championship

CBA TBH, if you really want that you'll have to do it yourself.

 

[Richard]

On no, not agenda again, how many people have these agendas.

Where let-offs are concerned, several. Yourself being one of if not the worst.

Woodster pointed out a few you've conveniently forgotten

Err, eh? I amended the post Paul quoted taking account of what he told me.

and it happens with every player you don't rate.

It doesn't, though, and this is where you so absurdly obviously don't have the foggiest clue what you're on about. There's many players I don't rate who don't tend to have significant impact on their records through let-offs. I also notice irregularly frequent let-offs in players I do rate (like Kevin Pietersen for instance) but again you want to believe that it's something I just make-up as I go along, so you cannot accept this.

Which I don't really care about, I do care that every thread gets taking over talking about your nutcase theories. Which I guess is my agenda

You describing it as "nutcase" tells us all we need to know - you clearly have an agenda where the issue of let-offs is concerned.

 

[ret]

In all cases, yes of course it does mean the innings were not as good as they would've been had they been purely earned by the batsman. Because but for bad fielding, none of them would've happened.

so would a chanceless 50 be better than those innings played by Lara, Tendulkar, Waugh? .... And with the same argument would you say the same for 100s in say Smith vs Lara and imply that Lara got chances, while Smith didn't? If that doesn't count as a point in that argument then why is it a point in Sehwag vs Smith?

He hasn't, though. Smith has been caught where Sehwag has sometimes been dropped.

Because he hasn't (yet) played well enough.

It can't, though. Refutations are always refutable, it's always the same

but the thing is that Sehwag was good enough to get 100s, chances or no chances .... and Smith, if not dropped, then he could hv got LBWs in his favor, you can never tell 100%

Smith against Australia

it's hard to believe that Smith would not hv got a chance of any sort in 16 innings that he has played against Aus, when the Australians have been so generous to Sehwag

 

[aussie]

Both flat track bullies, with Sehwag the more likely to do well againts top-quality bowling based on what i've seen.

 

[Richard]

so would a chanceless 50 be better than those innings played by Lara, Tendulkar, Waugh?

No one sweeping generalisation can be applied to every innings.

And with the same argument would you say the same for 100s in say Smith vs Lara and imply that Lara got chances, while Smith didn't? If that doesn't count as a point in that argument then why is it a point in Sehwag vs Smith?

Lara has almost certainly scored more chanceless centuries than Smith, even despite the fact Lara also had a relatively large number of let-offs in his later years.

but the thing is that Sehwag was good enough to get 100s, chances or no chances

That's a completely unfair comparison. Of course someone's more likely than someone else to get scores if they get dropped and the other doesn't!

and Smith, if not dropped, then he could hv got LBWs in his favor, you can never tell 100%

Smith against Australia

it's hard to believe that Smith would not hv got a chance of any sort in 16 innings that he has played against Aus, when the Australians have been so generous to Sehwag

Not really, there's no reason two batsmen should have similar or even remotely corresponding fortunes. Just because 3 catches are dropped off one player doesn't mean 6 can't be caught off another.

 

[TT Boy]

I like Smith, captain who leads from the front but he needs practically the stars to be aligned to achieve constant test success against any decent opposition. No better cricketer against mediocrity though.

 

[ret]

No one sweeping generalisation can be applied to every innings.

Lara has almost certainly scored more chanceless centuries than Smith, even despite the fact Lara also had a relatively large number of let-offs in his later years.

That's a completely unfair comparison. Of course someone's more likely than someone else to get scores if they get dropped and the other doesn't!

Not really, there's no reason two batsmen should have similar or even remotely corresponding fortunes. Just because 3 catches are dropped off one player doesn't mean 6 can't be caught off another.

If no sweeping generalization can be applied then it shows that your point is variable and thus not 100% reliable as I pointed out earlier

we cannot say for sure how many chances a player would have got

And it would also be interesting to know when a players gets his chances, when on 10 or when on 110

we are not talking abt only the catches, are we? we are talking abt chances. it's funny how you always imply catches when I m talking abt all types of chances. Would you say for sure that Smith would not have got any type of chances against the Australians in the 16 innings that he has played? If you are not 100% sure then it shows how out of place your point is

have you thought how ur point that Sehwag scored 100s against Aus coz he got chances, while Smith didn't coz he didn't get any chances sounds?

i guess, i have taken this point out of the discussion, so can we throw the chances concept out of the window, pls?

 

[ret]

Sehwag and Smith against Australia

Tests:
Sehwag 11
Smith 8

Runs:
Sehwag 1132
Smith 356

Avg:
Sehwag 53.90
Smith 22.25

HS:
Sehwag 195
Smith 68

100s:
Sehwag: 3
Smith: 0

i think that^ says a lot

 

[Richard]

If no sweeping generalization can be applied then it shows that your point is variable and thus not 100% reliable as I pointed out earlier

I'm not entirely sure what you're on about here TBH. You appear to be suggesting that sweeping generalisations are ever anything other than pure folly, which would... well, be pure folly, really.

we cannot say for sure how many chances a player would have got

And it would also be interesting to know when a players gets his chances, when on 10 or when on 110

Of course, that's the matter of importance - the score when the let-off comes, not the fact that it came.

we are not talking abt only the catches, are we? we are talking abt chances. it's funny how you always imply catches when I m talking abt all types of chances.

I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say it, but I am and always have been and always will be talking about let-offs of all types, not simply dropped catches.

Would you say for sure that Smith would not have got any type of chances against the Australians in the 16 innings that he has played? If you are not 100% sure then it shows how out of place your point is

No, it doesn't. I can tell you beyond question that he did not get any chances in some innings; I cannot tell you in all innings (but could if I looked hard enough). I'd not be terribly surprised if Smith has not had a single let-off in 14 innings, however (and no, those for that World XI crap aren't important).

have you thought how ur point that Sehwag scored 100s against Aus coz he got chances, while Smith didn't coz he didn't get any chances sounds?

Sehwag did score 2 of his 3 centuries against Australia because of let-offs. That doesn't sound anything - it's purely and simply the way it is.

i guess, i have taken this point out of the discussion, so can we throw the chances concept out of the window, pls?

Nothing will ever take out of the equation the fact that batting is about scoring runs and not getting out. And you know, the fact that chance = out and no chance = not out.

 

[ret]

ok so lets get what u r saying here

- Smith is a better batsmen but hasn't scored 100s against quality bowling coz he hasn't got any let-offs in your opinion, while others have
- Generalzation should only be used when it supports your PoV
- Dropped catches are the ones which touch the hand, those that touch the finger-tips are not dropped catches, even though some commentators say thats a chance technically
- If let-offs to Lara on his way to his 501 doesn't undermine Lara's accomplishment and his ability as a batsman but it for Sehwag as he is being compared to Smith, who surprisingly never gets a let-off
- Smith has never got a let-off of any kind against Australia, source: Richard

Ok, lets play by your rules, so then can't i argue that Smith is not good enough to earn a let-off against quality bowling, while other quality batsman are

356 runs in 8 tests is pathetic, if he is good enough to score chanceless 100s against WI, BD, Zim, Eng, Pak n NZ then why not Aus? Are you implying that every score that Sehweg got, he was let-off. if not then that also throws your point out as his record his much better than Smith's .... then you argued that only 100 Sehwag got against SA as an opener was on a flat pitch but then what was Smith doing on that flat pitch? I guess doing the leather hunt

there are two reasons to debate; one for the right thng, while the other is to show that you are right. i don't know what exactly your case is but it's lurking on the 2nd option

can't you get the point that i find it hard to believe that Smith would not have got any let-offs in the 16 games that he has played against the Australians. I feel that Smith would have got let-offs, just like other batsmen. and a let-off becomes obvious when someone gets a big one. Smith could hv survived a close LBW call but no one cared coz he probably got bowled after a few overs, thats what I believe but then again thats not the case in your book coz you probably don't remember that but somehow remember Sehwag's let-offs [which i don't recall] and we are suppose to go by you, the source

can we pls, throw this point out of the window?

 

[ret]

BTW, what abt Smith's 14 100s .... hasn't he got any let-offs in any of them? If he has then your point on Sehwag's 100 gets thrown out of the window AND if he hasn't then it puts a Q over his ability to do the same against quality bowling .... so whichever side you chose, your point gets thrown out of the window