Is the above a joke of some kind ? Merchant was one of India's finest batsman and Sehwag isn't a patch on him no matter what he does. Yeah I have not watched him, but have heard from those who watched and read about how good he was from the best of his era. And his record as a batsman confirms that.
show us how? .... coz Merchant > Sehwag appears more like a joke to me based on what little most ppl know abt Merchant and how much they have analyzed Sehwag
Yeah look at Australia, no one has been able to pass Sir Don. It must make the Aussies very upset as they are still stuck in the history. It really shows the lack of progress in terms of talent that has come out of Australia since Bradman.
WoW .... so Gavaskar is like Sir Don Bradman .... nice analogy
If someone like Sehwag doesn't surpass Gavaskar, it would show me that cricket hasn't degenerated enough so that someone like Sehwag could actually surpass Gavaskar. I have no problem with people being better than Gavaskar, but Sehwag is not that person. And he is really nowhere close to being that person.
you are entitled to your opinion but the Gavaskar himself rates Sehwag highly
the point here is that Sehwag is not as bad as he is made out to be .... ppl who have played cricket a lot rate him very highly
And "ppl" who haven't played cricket a lot rate him very highly too. And there are "ppl" who have and haven't that don't as well - plenty of them. It's a meaningless facet.
Number of runs and centuries means near enough sod-all, anyone will get them if they play enough - it's circumstances that count.
so i would focus on how someone like Gavaskar rates Sehwag than a Richard .... thats what it means .... and saying that someone likes Gavaskar rates Sehwag highly lends creditably to the PoV of those who rate Sehwag highly than those who don't
and you need to be good 'enough' to play 'enough'
Not really. Having played doesn't neccessarily mean you have any clue as to who's good. Analytical ability and playing ability are two completely separate things. Someone who's played can be no better than someone who hasn't (and, indeed, far, far worse).
Well, no, you need to be success. Success breeds continued selection. Sehwag mostly wouldn't be good enough to open the batting in Tests for very long, but he has been at the time he's played, because circumstances have conspired in his favour - and not just an abnormally large number of dropped catches.
we are talking abt someone like Gavaskar who played cricket and who analyzes cricket .... and i do agree with the later part that someone who hasn't played cricket can be good too, an example of that is probably 'yours truly'
but thats why we have numbers that goes with the test played .... If Sehwag were to be played on his past merit for say his 85th test and if he isn't that good then he probably won't have 7000 runs .... if he has around 7000 runs then he is playing well
Gavaskar's ideas aren't automatically more worthy than someone else's just because he's played cricket well.
He's playing well enough to stay in the side. But whether he's playing well enough to match those who have excelled in far more difficult circumstances is another matter.
If I find some Merchant let-offs I'll calculate his first-chance average. However, Sehwag as I've said many times tends to have amounts of luck far beyond the norm, and unless one knows for certain of the fact that someone else has, I generally tend to treat them
yes, but they do carry some weight-age
Gavaskar has 81 runs per tests, right now Sehwag has more than 84 runs per test .... if Sehwag were to hit 7000 by his 85th test then it would 82 runs per tests .... 7000 runs in 85 tests is a pretty good account by any standards
so what you are basically telling me is that you can calculate the first chance average of ONLY Sehwag
Umm, underrating Sehwag just a bit there. Not quite the landslide some are making it out to be, but Merchant it is.
Looks like the average CWite is more historically-informed than you thought.
