SehwagVsGilchrist

[Evermind]

Originally Posted by The Sean

Best argument in the thread for mine.

Thanks. Haven't heard a rebuttal from stfu_ben91 so I take it as a sign of defeat.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

You do realise that comes from a database of 18 or so innings? Which is approximately the same as the number of innings played by Ponting in India?

Are you trying to say Ponting's record is an aberration or Sehwag's here?

The difference between the two is one only occurs in one country against one opponent. The other occurs in several countries against several opponents.

Also, let's not pretend it is only 18 innings - it's almost 40. It's not like Harris or Giles came to India to trouble Sehwag on turning 3rd/4th inning pitches. And Warne certainly wasn't successful, for whatever reason. And what about the WIndies? Do they have a Mendis we didn't hear about? Did Vettori clean up in India? Yeah...exactly.

Certainly at home these spinning pitches weren't troubling as they are also reknown as the best in their own conditions, especially. It's only in Sri Lanka and to a lesser extent Pakistan does this start being true.

[Dasa]

**** me there are some deadset idiots on this site these days. Seems like every second post is some someone trying to belittle another player. Whatever happened to appreciating good players? I don't see the point in discussing cricket if all that involves is bringing down various cricketers. It's all so negative.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/1850851-post188.html

[andyc]

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91

Another illiterate cricketing fan. Takes a post completely out of context in a poor attempt to make his opinion and presence on this forum seem meaningful and superior to everyone else. Well done, son.

Haha, **** me you're a ****. Can't believe I just read through this all.

[G.I.Joe]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Are you trying to say Ponting's record is an aberration or Sehwag's here?

The difference between the two is one only occurs in one country against one opponent. The other occurs in several countries against several opponents.

I'm saying lets not try to pretend one is an aberration while the other is not. You're trying to create the impression averaging less in a particular country is an aberration while averaging less in 3rd/4th innings against several oppoennts isn't, which is, in your own words, intellectually dishonest. Thats an inconsistency. You either acknowledge both as meaningful or both as aberrations.

Also, let's not pretend it is only 18 innings - it's almost 40. It's not like Harris or Giles came to India to trouble Sehwag on turning 3rd/4th inning pitches. And Warne certainly wasn't successful, for whatever reason. And what about the WIndies? Do they have a Mendis we didn't hear about? Did Vettori clean up in India? Yeah...exactly.

Certainly at home these spinning pitches weren't troubling as they are also reknown as the best in their own conditions, especially. It's only in Sri Lanka and to a lesser extent Pakistan does this start being true.

Theres no pretense. You mentioned 3rd and 4th innings in non-subcontinental teams, which is closer to 18, not 40. I don't see how you can try and pretend you can draw valid interpretations from 24 innings' played by Sehwag in the 3rd and 4th innings in India, while dismissing Pontings 21 innings' in the same country over all innings (ie with the added advantage of batting in the 1st and 2nd).

[G.I.Joe]

Originally Posted by Ikki

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/1850851-post188.html

Thats actually a worse compilation. It doesn't compensate for the strengths of the home bowling attacks. I think I mentioned that before.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

I'm saying lets not try to pretend one is an aberration while the other is not. You're trying to create the impression averaging less in a particular country is an aberration while averaging less in 3rd/4th innings against several oppoennts isn't, which is, in your own words, intellectually dishonest. Thats an inconsistency. You either acknowledge both as meaningful or both as aberrations.

I don't consider either an aberration. They're both poor records that need closer looking at.

However, the scope of the problem is much more limited in one than the other. It's not an aberration for Sehwag in any sense. Whether Overall, against non-subcontinental teams away or at home, against sub-continental teams away or home...he still has a poor 3rd/4th innings average. Unlike Ponting where it's a singular problem in one country...for Sehwag it spans every team in every country for their 3rd and 4th innings.

What's intellectually dishonest is saying that Ponting has played 18 innings in Australia and the innings in that analysis for Sehwag is also 18 innings...not mentioning Ponting has played twice as much cricket as Sehwag.

Theres no pretense. You mentioned 3rd and 4th innings in non-subcontinental teams, which is closer to 18, not 40. I don't see how you can try and pretend you can draw valid interpretations from 24 innings' played by Sehwag in the 3rd and 4th innings in India, while dismissing Pontings 21 innings' in the same country over all innings (ie with the added advantage of batting in the 1st and 2nd).

Sehwag has played more than 18 or 24 innings. It's much more than that. Check his records. Whether at home or away; whether against spinners or not; whether it includes subcontinental pitches or not...he has a poor 3rd/4th innings record. You're just creating a qualification which will naturally have a much smaller number - only non-subcontinental teams (there are only 5) and only away. Well, in half those innings he played 1st/2nd innings and in the other half 3rd/4th innings, and he did very badly.

Your original point was that because they face spinners during the latter stages they're bound to have weaker 3rd/4th innings records. That point is moot because against the sides that I linked you to (those 40 innings) no notable spinner troubled India in any sense. It was more India's own home spinners troubling others - which Sehwag does not face.

It's not like I buy your argument that 18-24 isn't enough to gauge anything on either. That many is enough. It's just that the scope of this argument brings much more than that. And you know it.

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

Thats actually a worse compilation. It doesn't compensate for the strengths of the home bowling attacks. I think I mentioned that before.

What doesn't compensate? You can't separate the strength of an attack and the ease of the pitch. In many ways you wouldn't want to. It's a package of problems playing in different countries. But every country plays in each of those pitches so it's more or less evened out. Does India have worse bowlers than NZ? No, but look at their records. Did Pakistan? No, yet they're as bad as the WIndies.

[Precambrian]

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91

Another illiterate cricketing fan. Takes a post completely out of context in a poor attempt to make his opinion and presence on this forum seem meaningful and superior to everyone else. Well done, son.

Hey kid. go to Planet cricket and continue your stupid posting there. Oh well, weren't you banned forever from there?

[Pratters]

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91

Another illiterate cricketing fan.

Lol. Jono is hardly an illeterate cricket fan. You got owned by SJS and Jono in this thread and yet continue your blabber of how Hayden is superior. It's too close to call who is superior as an opener according to me but your arguments supporting Hayden fringe on the shocking level.

[G.I.Joe]

Originally Posted by Ikki

I don't consider either an aberration. They're both poor records that need closer looking at.

However, the scope of the problem is much more limited in one than the other. It's not an aberration for Sehwag in any sense. Whether Overall, against non-subcontinental teams away or at home, against sub-continental teams away or home...he still has a poor 3rd/4th innings average. Unlike Ponting where it's a singular problem in one country...for Sehwag it spans every team in every country for their 3rd and 4th innings.

What's intellectually dishonest is saying that Ponting has played 18 innings in Australia and the innings in that analysis for Sehwag is also 18 innings...not mentioning Ponting has played twice as much cricket as Sehwag.

You're harping on the same point. You try and create an impression that a poor 3rd/4th innings is of greater concern than a poor record in an entire country, which I disagree with. Runs scored in the 3rd and 4th innings do not count double that of runs scored in the 1st or 2nd. As long as you're giving me 100 runs per test, why should it matter how you distribute them among the 4 innings'? The team still ends up with the same number of runs!

However I would definitely be concerned if I had a bastman fail consistently in a country over multiple tours to the extent Ponting has, since that actually costs my team valuable runs. And its not simply a matter of Ponting playing spinners well in Pakistan and SL but not in India, but as you put it later in your post, its a question of negotiating a package of problems in a country. And if he fails to do that to a respectable degree against arguably the toughest opposition he's had to face, in their own backyard, it assumes a significance much much more than merely labelling it an aberration in a random country. Heck, if Tendulkar had averaged 20 in Australia over his career, you'd have trumpeted that as a very significant failure like there was no tomorrow.

And you know thats true, don't even bother denying it.

Sehwag has played more than 18 or 24 innings. It's much more than that. Check his records.

He hasn't based on the criteria you yourself suggested. Check posts 141, 144 and 148. If you narrow the criterea, you're obviously going to end up with a smaller sample size.

Whether at home or away; whether against spinners or not; whether it includes subcontinental pitches or not...he has a poor 3rd/4th innings record. You're just creating a qualification which will naturally have a much smaller number - only non-subcontinental teams (there are only 5) and only away. Well, in half those innings he played 1st/2nd innings and in the other half 3rd/4th innings, and he did very badly.


Your original point was that because they face spinners during the latter stages they're bound to have weaker 3rd/4th innings records. That point is moot because against the sides that I linked you to (those 40 innings) no notable spinner troubled India in any sense. It was more India's own home spinners troubling others - which Sehwag does not face.

It's not like I buy your argument that 18-24 isn't enough to gauge anything on either. That many is enough. It's just that the scope of this argument brings much more than that. And you know it.

I do accept your point regarding Sehwag being troubled by much more than just the spinners in the 3rd and 4th innings, but I do not buy the different standards you apply to different players, and your reasons for categorising sample sizes. Its plainly obvious you're fixed in your reasoning for that, but I do not see merit in them, you do not see merit in my reasoning, and I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

What doesn't compensate? You can't separate the strength of an attack and the ease of the pitch. In many ways you wouldn't want to. It's a package of problems playing in different countries. But every country plays in each of those pitches so it's more or less evened out. Does India have worse bowlers than NZ? No, but look at their records. Did Pakistan? No, yet they're as bad as the WIndies.

Of course you can't separate the strength of an attack from the ease of the pitch. That is exactly what makes your list a futile exercise when it comes to comparing which batsmen have it easy batting at home, proving which, if I remember was the original purpose when it was compiled.

It doesn't skew the data for visiting teams comparative to each other, but it definitely does when comparing the ease of run scoring for home batsmen against any set of visiting batsmen. The home bowlers could do well to bring down that per wickets average against visiting teams, but the home batsmen are free to score much more than that against the inferior visiting bowlers. This holds particularly true for Australia, by virtue of their excellent bowling attacks. Which is why it would be a fallacy in assuming that Australian batsmen bat in tougher conditions than Indian batsmen based solely on that data. I do not claim it as fact that Australian batsmen have it easier than Indian batsmen, but rather that it makes little sense reaching either conclusion based on that particular set of numbers.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by G.I.Joe

You're harping on the same point. You try and create an impression that a poor 3rd/4th innings is of greater concern than a poor record in an entire country, which I disagree with. Runs scored in the 3rd and 4th innings do not count double that of runs scored in the 1st or 2nd. As long as you're giving me 100 runs per test, why should it matter how you distribute them among the 4 innings'? The team still ends up with the same number of runs!

Except that's the problem. They are not worth the same amount when looking at the game situation. Runs scored at the start are easier to go by than on an aging pitch. Most batsmen are capable of scoring runs earlier on when there is less threat in the pitch. Not many can do so all through different innings. When you are comparing two batsmen of the highest quality, it's more than apt to address the fact that one batsman also score runs when it was harder, as well as when it was easier. Few, or at least fewer, runs are scored in the 3rd and 4th innings so successful sides will need batsmen that can score runs when they are harder to come by.

And it should go without saying that failing in one instance(essentially 1/20) and failing in almost half of all instances (2/4) are completely different and the latter is worse.

However I would definitely be concerned if I had a bastman fail consistently in a country over multiple tours to the extent Ponting has, since that actually costs my team valuable runs. And its not simply a matter of Ponting playing spinners well in Pakistan and SL but not in India, but as you put it later in your post, its a question of negotiating a package of problems in a country. And if he fails to do that to a respectable degree against arguably the toughest opposition he's had to face, in their own backyard, it assumes a significance much much more than merely labelling it an aberration in a random country. Heck, if Tendulkar had averaged 20 in Australia over his career, you'd have trumpeted that as a very significant failure like there was no tomorrow.

And you know thats true, don't even bother denying it.

I wouldn't considering it's only a failure against that one team in that one place. Not in pretty much every game my player ever plays.

Again: it should go without saying that failing in one instance(essentially 1/20) and failing in almost half of all instances (2/4) are completely different and the latter is worse.

And India the toughest opposition? Hardly.

Of course I would trumpet his failure in Australia. As I trumpeted his failure against S.Africa and, until they nose-dived, Pakistan. That's natural. It's a matter of who has failed the least, I guess. When we are comparing players, these are relevant.

He hasn't based on the criteria you yourself suggested. Check posts 141, 144 and 148. If you narrow the criterea, you're obviously going to end up with a smaller sample size.

No, it was the criteria you suggested, and it still goes against him.

Even though that the sample is still big enough. Your point about spinners was further refuted.

I do accept your point regarding Sehwag being troubled by much more than just the spinners in the 3rd and 4th innings, but I do not buy the different standards you apply to different players, and your reasons for categorising sample sizes. Its plainly obvious you're fixed in your reasoning for that, but I do not see merit in them, you do not see merit in my reasoning, and I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Thus far, I've only seen disingenuous generalisations from you in this debate. Where do I apply different standards to different players? Answer that first. Thanks.

You said do I think Ponting's failure should be an aberration...and I said no, it shouldn't be. But that doesn't equate it with Sehwag's failure. Just because the innings in number (in your purposely myopic qualification) = 18, still doesn't equate them because Ponting has played double the amount Sehwag has, thus even as a proportion they are not the same. Regardless of the difference I illmuninate at the beginning of the thread.

Of course you can't separate the strength of an attack from the ease of the pitch. That is exactly what makes your list a futile exercise when it comes to comparing which batsmen have it easy batting at home, proving which, if I remember was the original purpose when it was compiled.

No, because then that would also not "compensate" the quality of the batsmen batting at home.

As I said, is India's attack worse than New Zealand's? No, it isn't. Yet their 'pitch stats' is inferior. Was Pakisan's? No, but they are much worse than both NZ and India. Deductible reasoning would lead you to understand that because the attacks weren't that different the reason why more batsmen score in one place than the other probably has something to do with the pitch.

It doesn't skew the data for visiting teams comparative to each other, but it definitely does when comparing the ease of run scoring for home batsmen against any set of visiting batsmen. The home bowlers could do well to bring down that per wickets average against visiting teams, but the home batsmen are free to score much more than that against the inferior visiting bowlers. This holds particularly true for Australia, by virtue of their excellent bowling attacks. Which is why it would be a fallacy in assuming that Australian batsmen bat in tougher conditions than Indian batsmen based solely on that data. I do not claim it as fact that Australian batsmen have it easier than Indian batsmen, but rather that it makes little sense reaching either conclusion based on that particular set of numbers.

You also can't make any conclusions based on the stats that you brought forth about the highest scores in Test stadiums, because that's even more flawed. That's where I gave you my set of stats.

What you're doing is exactly what you say you can't do when you talk about how in the sub-continent batsmen have it worse in the other innings. If you can't make these conclusions conclusion, as it's your opinion, then don't make it. What puts this discussion to an end is, inside, outside, anywhere, Sehwag's 3rd/4th innings record is poor. Trying to whittle it down to a sample that you think is not big enough, for reasons that are largely irrelevant, just seems dishonest.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Except that's the problem. They are not worth the same amount when looking at the game situation. Runs scored at the start are easier to go by than on an aging pitch. Most batsmen are capable of scoring runs earlier on when there is less threat in the pitch. Not many can do so all through different innings. W

His point is if you score a hundred runs in a Test match, how much does it matter whether you score 100 and 0 vs. 50 and 50. His substandard second innings record is made up by his superior first innings. If the runs scored are equal in a given match, should the innings he scores them in be a useful indicator for anything?

Originally Posted by Ikki

And India the toughest opposition? Hardly.

Which country has inflicted most losses on Australia during Ponting's career? What is your definition of toughest?

[silentstriker]

Oh, and lest my post be misunderstood, Sehwag sucks.

[G.I.Joe]

Originally Posted by Ikki

Except that's the problem. They are not worth the same amount when looking at the game situation. Runs scored at the start are easier to go by than on an aging pitch. Most batsmen are capable of scoring runs earlier on when there is less threat in the pitch. Not many can do so all through different innings. When you are comparing two batsmen of the highest quality, it's more than apt to address the fact that one batsman also score runs when it was harder, as well as when it was easier. Few, or at least fewer, runs are scored in the 3rd and 4th innings so successful sides will need batsmen that can score runs when they are harder to come by.

And it should go without saying that failing in one instance(essentially 1/20) and failing in almost half of all instances (2/4) are completely different and the latter is worse.



I wouldn't considering it's only a failure against that one team in that one place. Not in pretty much every game my player ever plays.

Again: it should go without saying that failing in one instance(essentially 1/20) and failing in almost half of all instances (2/4) are completely different and the latter is worse.

And India the toughest opposition? Hardly.

Of course I would trumpet his failure in Australia. As I trumpeted his failure against S.Africa and, until they nose-dived, Pakistan. That's natural. It's a matter of who has failed the least, I guess. When we are comparing players, these are relevant.




No, it was the criteria you suggested, and it still goes against him.

Even though that the sample is still big enough. Your point about spinners was further refuted.



Thus far, I've only seen disingenuous generalisations from you in this debate. Where do I apply different standards to different players? Answer that first. Thanks.

You said do I think Ponting's failure should be an aberration...and I said no, it shouldn't be. But that doesn't equate it with Sehwag's failure. Just because the innings in number (in your purposely myopic qualification) = 18, still doesn't equate them because Ponting has played double the amount Sehwag has, thus even as a proportion they are not the same. Regardless of the difference I illmuninate at the beginning of the thread.



No, because then that would also not "compensate" the quality of the batsmen batting at home.

As I said, is India's attack worse than New Zealand's? No, it isn't. Yet their 'pitch stats' is inferior. Was Pakisan's? No, but they are much worse than both NZ and India. Deductible reasoning would lead you to understand that because the attacks weren't that different the reason why more batsmen score in one place than the other probably has something to do with the pitch.



You also can't make any conclusions based on the stats that you brought forth about the highest scores in Test stadiums, because that's even more flawed. That's where I gave you my set of stats.

What you're doing is exactly what you say you can't do when you talk about how in the sub-continent batsmen have it worse in the other innings. If you can't make these conclusions conclusion, as it's your opinion, then don't make it. What puts this discussion to an end is, inside, outside, anywhere, Sehwag's 3rd/4th innings record is poor. Trying to whittle it down to a sample that you think is not big enough, for reasons that are largely irrelevant, just seems dishonest.

Ikki, I think a batsmen scoring runs in a match but not dividing them into nice equal sized pieces to your satisfaction is a far lesser sin than not scoring runs at all in a country with all its challenges. As far as any person with common sense is concerned, scoring 100 runs a test match, whether you score tham as 100 and 0 or 0 and 100 is definitely preferable to scoring 40 runs a match. You're point about it affecting 2/4ths of Sehwag's innings is a moot one since the bottomline is that it adds up to 100 (incidentally a number which is greater than 40) whichever way you look at it. I also know you can't reach the conclusions you were trying to make in the thread where you originally posted that particular set of stats on the basis that they're seriously flawed. Whether you think they're more or less flawed than a set I posted doesn't matter since the point at hand is not which is more flawed, but rather that they are seriously flawed at all in first place, and hence definitely lead to incorrect conclusions.

I've said my piece. I know you're anal about having the last word in these post a thons. I do not want to waste my time further on this. You may go on.