Popular demand poll: Opening partner of Gavaskar in India All Time XI

[ret]

Haha, Dravid and Sehwag.

it's Merchant and Dravid, if you read it properly

what I m saying is that Dravid and Sehwag have played together in most of the games, so would ppl discount Dravid's runs just like they have for Sehwag's to show that Merchant > Dravid

and if that idea makes you laugh then we know that ppl are writing against Sehwag just coz he bats in one way and for Dravid coz he bats in a different way, when both of them have got runs in most of the tests that they have played in

 

[ret]

just expanding on what i wrote above

in games that Dravid and Sehwag have played together

Sehwag ----> 56M, 4793 runs, 14 H
Dravid ----> 56M, 4812 runs, 14 H

19 runs separate the two!!!! and thats incredible when you consider how Sehwag plays and how Dravid plays

so in similar circumstance [pitches] and similar attacks, just 19 runs seperates the two but somehow Dravid runs are more valuable to a few .... Sehwag has got them easy, while Dravid has got them with all the class in the world

PS going by the numbers here, if Merchant > Sehwag then Merchant > Dravid, if not then the whole point of Merchant > Sehwag falls apart

 

[silentstriker]

just expanding on what i wrote above

in games that Dravid and Sehwag have played together

Sehwag ----> 56M, 4793 runs, 14 H
Dravid ----> 56M, 4812 runs, 14 H

19 runs separate the two!!!! and thats incredible when you consider how Sehwag plays and how Dravid plays

so in similar circumstance [pitches] and similar attacks, just 19 runs seperates the two but somehow Dravid runs are more valuable to a few .... Sehwag has got them easy, while Dravid has got them with all the class in the world

PS going by the numbers here, if Merchant > Sehwag then Merchant > Dravid, if not then the whole point of Merchant > Sehwag falls apart

In the games where Dravid and Sehwag have played together, India have won 19 matches.

In those matches, Sehwag averages 46 with 2 centuries.
In those matches, Dravid averages 90 with 7 centuries.

It's not really close. It is ridiculous to even think that the runs scored by those two are remotely on the same level, in terms of importance to India.

 

[ret]

In the games where Dravid and Sehwag have played together, India have won 19 matches.

In those matches, Sehwag averages 46 with 2 centuries.
In those matches, Dravid averages 90 with 7 centuries.

It's not really close. It is ridiculous to even think that the runs scored by those two are remotely on the same level, in terms of importance to India.

haha, that^ point is like hitting your own leg with an axe coz by that same logic, Merchants runs would be useless coz Ind hardly won when he batted

and here you are saying that Merchant > Sehwag, which is not possible when you say that Dravid > Sehwag on the basis of Dravid scoring more runs in games that Ind have won

case closed

 

[silentstriker]

haha, that^ point is like hitting your own leg with an axe coz by that same logic, Merchants runs would be useless coz Ind hardly won when he batted

and here you are saying that Merchant > Sehwag, which is not possible when you say that Dravid > Sehwag on the basis of Dravid scoring more runs in games that Ind have won

case closed

Merchant did not play enough tests for that to be a representative sample. The reason we can compare Dravid and Sehwag because as you said, they played in the same team so we can compare their performances head to head without worrying about anything else. You're the one that started the comparison of Dravid and Sehwag playing together, and I pointed out that you shot yourself in the foot by doing so because when Dravid and Sehwag have played together, Dravid's runs have been much more valuable than Sehwag's, which was the point you were trying to disprove.

 

[ret]

Merchant did not play enough tests for that to be a representative sample. The reason we can compare Dravid and Sehwag because as you said, they played in the same team so we can compare their performances head to head without worrying about anything else. You're the one that started the comparison of Dravid and Sehwag playing together, and I pointed out that you shot yourself in the foot by doing so because when Dravid and Sehwag have played together, Dravid's runs have been much more valuable than Sehwag's, which was the point you were trying to disprove.

yeah right, different rules for different players

so if Merchant has not played enough to be a representative sample then on what basis do we have him in an all-time Indian X1

and again if your logic of runs scored in games that India have won is to be applied to select all time Indian X1, then guess what Gavaskar and Sehwag are on par, and as i said Merchant is on zero

and by that same logic of accounting for performances in won games Dravid > Tendulkar > Gavaskar, which is highly debatable

case closed

 

[silentstriker]

so if Merchant has not played enough to be a representative sample then on what basis do we have him in an all-time Indian X1

On his FC record, and what people said about him. The time he played means he could not play more for India.

and again if your logic of runs scored in games that India have won is to be applied to select all time Indian X1, then guess what Gavaskar and Sehwag are on par,

You can't compare Gavaskar's team to Sehwag's team. The reason you compared Dravid and Sehwag is because they played together, and you said they did similar things. You pointed out how they were similar, I didn't. It's funny how you took your argument and are now attributing it to me. I just pointed out you were completely wrong, by showing that while their tallies are similar, Dravid's runs were much more important to India while Sehwag is the prototypical Flat Track Bully. He is the very definition of such a player.

 

[ret]

On his FC record, and what people said about him. The time he played means he could not play more for India.

and you are judging Sehwag from what you saw of him .... thats like apples and oranges

You can't compare Gavaskar's team to Sehwag's team. The reason you compared Dravid and Sehwag is because they played together, and you said they did similar things. You pointed out how they were similar, I didn't. It's funny how you took your argument and are now attributing it to me. I just pointed out you were completely wrong, by showing that while their tallies are similar, Dravid's runs were much more important to India while Sehwag is the prototypical Flat Track Bully. He is the very definition of such a player.

As I showed that I don't approve of rating runs on the basis of matches won by a country coz that doesn't make sense

Look at Lara and C'paul, they have almost the same 100s and average roughly the same with C'paul marginally better in the games that the WI has won when they have played together .... that doesn't make C'paul = Lara

If you look at Sehwag and Dravid, they have almost the same runs in the games that they have played, so if you are saying that Sehwag is a flat track bully then Dravid too is one and if you are saying that Sehwag scores on flat tracks then it's not possible to score all those runs on flat tracks while failing on good ones. Same for Dravid, if he is not scoring heavily on flat tracks then that doesn't make him a bad player

and when you say that runs that a player scores in a game that is team wins are more important then you are discounting some of the heroics that a player performed like

Sehwag's
- 150 odd to draw the game for India at Adelaide, while batting in the last innings
- 150 odd against Australia at Chennai, when he gave India a chance single handedly before the game got washed out
- 300 odd against RSA at Chennai, where he single handedly bailed India out of follow-on, when most of the guys failed on a flat pitch
- 200 odd against Pak at B'lore when Ind collapsed in the 4th inning
- 190 odd at Melbourne, when again Ind faltered on a bowler friendly surface

i don't think any cricket fan would say that those^ runs were not valuable

the danger of giving importance to runs in won games is that some ppl may expand the sphere of won games from within a team to teams and argue that McGrath runs are more valuable than Lara's coz McGrath has won more games!!!!

as i said nothing is making sense

clearly the guy has scored as many runs as Dravid since the time they batted together, played out the new ball which is always difficult in any condition, scored at an impressive 46, which is good even as a career avg in games that Ind have won and so on .... there is no reason to believe that of the two guys who have equal number of runs in the same games, one is a flat track bully and the other is not, that one runs are more valuable than others

if this had been a court, no one would lend an ear to your argument

 

[gwo]

Merchant by so far its not even funny. It's like comparing Shahid Afridi to Brian Lara.

No quite,

Sehwag > Afridi

Lara > Merchant

Along the lines though.

 

[Richard]

yes, but they do carry some weight-age

So does anything and everything.

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

I honestly don't care in the slightest. All I am bothered about is the fact Sehwag has by-and-large had it inestimably easier than Gavaskar.

so what you are basically telling me is that you can calculate the first chance average of ONLY Sehwag

you shouldn't be bringing this up unless you can calculate that accurately for all parties in the poll

I should, because as I said it counts for anyone and everyone. Sehwag has had far more luck than the norm, and unless I've evidence that Merchant had the same, I'll presume he had more normal levels of luck.

 

[Richard]

Looks like the average CWite is more historically-informed than you thought.

Dunno what you used the No2 for, the would've been far more appropos.

 

[Richard]

Lara > Merchant

In all honesty, we won't ever know. It's quite conceivable to me that Merchant was a better batsman than Lara, the only thing is Lara got a long Test career and Merchant didn't.

 

[gwo]

In all honesty, we won't ever know. It's quite conceivable to me that Merchant was a better batsman than Lara, the only thing is Lara got a long Test career and Merchant didn't.

Can I ask you whether you think Merchant is a better batsman than the following players?

1. Matthew Hayden
2. Ricky Ponting
3. Stephen Waugh
4. Kevin Pietersen
5. Jacques Kallis
6. Kumar Sangakarra
7. Sourav Ganguly
8. Rahul Dravid
9. Inzaman Ul-Haq

In all honesty, if you can't say that Lara > Merchant, I'm not quite sure how you can say that Merchant > Sehwag.

You argue that Merchant has a superior first class record compared to Sehwag, but ultimately, any player from the 60s/70s should be based solely on their TM record. Yes that concludes players such as Sehwag, Warne, Fairbrother, Hussain, Johnson (list goes on) etc etc etc.

The reason I believe that this is the case is that this is the HIGHEST level of the game that any cricketer could concievably prove themselves in.

The fact that Merchant played majority of his cricket at the First-Class level (albeit the highest he could achieve) automatically puts him behind any cricketer who has better credentials on the test scene. (ie Lara and co in TMC)

Now that can be argued either way (regarding him and Sehwag), but because he simply hasn't put on STAGGERing numbers in test cricket, I fail to see how you can CATERGORICALLY place either player above the other. If on the other hand he had posted Husseyesque numbers after 10 matches...it would lead one such as myself to say that it would be VERY likely that Merchant was in the top 10 batsmen (thereby way better than Sehwag) of all time. But the fact of the matter is, his test numbers are not, which is the difference between him and someone such as George Headley.

I would tend to agree that Merchant is streets ahead of Sehwag, but to state anything in concrete like you have is quite silly imo.

 

[Ikki]

In the games where Dravid and Sehwag have played together, India have won 19 matches.

In those matches, Sehwag averages 46 with 2 centuries.
In those matches, Dravid averages 90 with 7 centuries.

It's not really close. It is ridiculous to even think that the runs scored by those two are remotely on the same level, in terms of importance to India.

What about losses, draws?

Anyway, the flat-track thing reminds me of the covered wickets argument.

Richard, for instance, seems to point out that spinners can no longer compete with fast bowlers because wickets are not covered and they won't be as successful since they are more reliant on the pitch. Similarly, could it not be said that it doesn't matter if some batsmen would do better on less flat pitches than on flat-tracks because that is what we have now?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

One thing this thread - and the Poll in general - does show is how few really high quality openers India has had over the years.

 

[Richard]

Can I ask you whether you think Merchant is a better batsman than the following players?

1. Matthew Hayden
2. Ricky Ponting
3. Stephen Waugh
4. Kevin Pietersen
5. Jacques Kallis
6. Kumar Sangakarra
7. Sourav Ganguly
8. Rahul Dravid
9. Inzaman Ul-Haq

In all honesty, if you can't say that Lara > Merchant, I'm not quite sure how you can say that Merchant > Sehwag.

You argue that Merchant has a superior first class record compared to Sehwag, but ultimately, any player from the 60s/70s should be based solely on their TM record. Yes that concludes players such as Sehwag, Warne, Fairbrother, Hussain, Johnson (list goes on) etc etc etc.

The reason I believe that this is the case is that this is the HIGHEST level of the game that any cricketer could concievably prove themselves in.

The fact that Merchant played majority of his cricket at the First-Class level (albeit the highest he could achieve) automatically puts him behind any cricketer who has better credentials on the test scene. (ie Lara and co in TMC)

Now that can be argued either way (regarding him and Sehwag), but because he simply hasn't put on STAGGERing numbers in test cricket, I fail to see how you can CATERGORICALLY place either player above the other. If on the other hand he had posted Husseyesque numbers after 10 matches...it would lead one such as myself to say that it would be VERY likely that Merchant was in the top 10 batsmen (thereby way better than Sehwag) of all time. But the fact of the matter is, his test numbers are not, which is the difference between him and someone such as George Headley.

I would tend to agree that Merchant is streets ahead of Sehwag, but to state anything in concrete like you have is quite silly imo.

Cricket hasn't always been the same game. Even in the 1930s, it wasn't what we know it as today. The international >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domestic case we now know is only a fairly recent phenomenon. It hasn't always been as absolute as once you get to Tests and play a few domestic deeds become near-irrelevant.

As I've said - all we can really say with Merchant is that he was "probably such-and-such". I'm not saying he was better than Lara, not saying he wasn't.

However, I don't really care much what happened in a Test career as short as Merchant's. He could've averaged 35 and I'd probably still consider him to have been one who might've been one of the best ever. If Barry Richards had only averaged 42 in his single Test series that wouldn't change the impression of him in the slightest.

I'll be very surprised if he wasn't a better batsman than Hayden BTW, and Ganguly, but that's by-the-by. All obviously had more notable Test careers than him.

 

[ret]

Cricket hasn't always been the same game. Even in the 1930s, it wasn't what we know it as today. The international >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domestic case we now know is only a fairly recent phenomenon. It hasn't always been as absolute as once you get to Tests and play a few domestic deeds become near-irrelevant.

or the reason why international cricket >>>> domestic is coz ppl have realized the difference in level b/w the two formats ..... just because that difference was not known early on, it doesn't mean that it did not exist ..... the fact that now international > domestic could have evolved from seeing how domestics were played early on

and Vijay Merchant's stats probably shows us the difference b/w the quality of international and domestic cricket at that time

Merchant's stats
International, 10M, 859 runs @48, 3H
FC, 150M, 13470 runs @ 72, 45H

clearly, the difference b/w the two levels is such that one allows Merchant to score at an average of 48 while the other at 72 .... the huge difference of 24 b/w his FC and international average reflect the difference in quality of the two levels

 

[Richard]

or the reason why international cricket >>>> domestic is coz ppl have realized the difference in level b/w the two formats ..... just because that difference was not known early on, it doesn't mean that it did not exist ..... the fact that now international > domestic could have evolved from seeing how domestics were played early on

Nope, it's the game, not the thinking, that's evolved. It's not that things were the same and were perceived differently, it's that things weren't the same.

and Vijay Merchant's stats probably shows us the difference b/w the quality of international and domestic cricket at that time

Merchant's stats
International, 10M, 859 runs @48, 3H
FC, 150M, 13470 runs @ 72, 45H

clearly, the difference b/w the two levels is such that one allows Merchant to score at an average of 48 while the other at 72 .... the huge difference of 24 b/w his FC and international average reflect the difference in quality of the two levels

Not really. It's simply far more likely that Merchant's Test average would've gone up had he played more during his heyday, probably to something not far short of if not maybe even over the 60 mark.

 

[ret]

Nope, it's the game, not the thinking, that's evolved. It's not that things were the same and were perceived differently, it's that things weren't the same.

Not really. It's simply far more likely that Merchant's Test average would've gone up had he played more during his heyday, probably to something not far short of if not maybe even over the 60 mark.

why 60, why not 72

 

[Richard]

Well given that no-one other than Bradman (plus a few between 2001/02 and recently) has ever averaged more than 60-61 over any length of time then I'd consider that fairly implausible.