Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 135

Thread: Bradman to Sehwag - Redefining Great Batsmanship Through Defying Tradition

  1. #31
    Hall of Fame Member Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Don't leave me Murph!
    Posts
    15,463
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    Ha the ideologies are definately coming out now..

    Why did they score a bucketloads of runs more than their contemporaries?. Isn't it obvious the decline on quality pace attacks (outside of AUS) for this decade & increase in flat decks in the main reason for this?.

    If you agree with the above then surely if pace bowling standards get better worldwide (along with better pitch standards) in next decade & a more even battle between bat & ball returns & averaging 50 is something only the upper echelon of batsmen can acomplish - rather than almost everyone who hits a purple patch.

    Then surely you can't rate FTBs of this era in the same breath as the potential future dominant batsmen who would play in a era/period where they will also score runs than their contemporaries also - but rather under more difficult batting conditons - rather than on roads.
    Listen, it's very simple; if those that were supposedly better score less runs than those that are supposedly worse, then you can no longer devalue those runs.

    Not every innings is the same, there are more difficult innings and easier ones. Don't let me fool you into thinking I think all performances are equal.

    However, over 10 years, the fact that someone like Tendulkar, without minnows, is averaging 47 and his teammate (Sehwag) is averaging in the 50s, says it all about supposed easiness to score runs.

    There is no "he cashes in on flat-tracks more than others", because flat tracks are found easier for everybody not just a select few.
    ★★★★★

  2. #32
    SJS
    SJS is offline
    Hall of Fame Member SJS's Avatar
    Virus 2 Champion!
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Thane India
    Posts
    19,346
    Its very interesting to compare how Sehwag fares with his two great team mates in matches where he played with them.. With Dravid, Sehwag has played in 71 Tests. These are the comparative figures.

    Code:
    Player	Runs    Ave	100	50+	SR  
    
    Sehwag	6228	53.23	17	36	80.6
    
    Dravid	5970	55.79	17	45	43.4
    With Sachin he has played in 61 games. The figures . . .

    Code:
    Player	Runs	Ave	100	50+	SR
    
    Sehwag	5447	53.93	15	31	80.1
    
    Sachin	4467	49.08	12	30	52.9
    The only glaring difference, as far as the stats are concerned, is the strike rate.

  3. #33
    Hall of Fame Member Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Don't leave me Murph!
    Posts
    15,463
    And the average between his and Tendulkar's...which would be even more if you removed minnows.

  4. #34
    ret
    ret is offline
    International Debutant ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    2,890
    I remember doing an analysis sometime back abt Sehwag in games involving him with Dravid and him with Tendulkar .... At that point (iirc) he beat both Dravid and Tendulkar to 5000 runs (which is quite an achievement considering how good Ten and Dravid are)
    Fastest gun in town


  5. #35
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fine Leg/Technical Area
    Posts
    17,446
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    Listen, it's very simple; if those that were supposedly better score less runs than those that are supposedly worse, then you can no longer devalue those runs.
    Not too sure what you mean here big Ikki...


    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    However, over 10 years, the fact that someone like Tendulkar, without minnows, is averaging 47 and his teammate (Sehwag) is averaging in the 50s, says it all about supposed easiness to score runs.
    Well mainly because Tendy has had his tennis-elbow woes & seemingly in decline between WI 2002 (trinidad test) to about PAK 07/08. It was pretty much a consensus that he was passes his 90s peak.

    Its only when IND toured AUS 07/08 to now that the great man has begun to look like his 90s self again. So no comparison can be drawn here, just because Sehwag averages more this era.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    There is no "he cashes in on flat-tracks more than others", because flat tracks are found easier for everybody not just a select few.
    It is easier for everybody yes. But only a few batsmen this era have proven themselves not only be be good on flat decks but they few times where bowler friendly decks have been present in this 2000s era.

  6. #36
    Virat Kohli (c) Jono's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    65,366
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    And the average between his and Tendulkar's...which would be even more if you removed minnows.
    Would be a bit less if you removed games where Tendulkar played with tennis elbow.
    "I am very happy and it will allow me to have lot more rice."

    Eoin Morgan on being given a rice cooker for being Man of the Match in a Dhaka Premier Division game.

  7. #37
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fine Leg/Technical Area
    Posts
    17,446
    Quote Originally Posted by SJS View Post
    So I accept that his present style of batting will be found wanting in bowler friendly conditions. I don,t need to be told that. In fact, I bemoan the fact that such conditions do not exist. I wish they did so that not just Sehwag but even the Tednulkar's and Pontings besides the lesser batsmen of the day, had to raise their game a few notches higher and that would be cricket I would wake up whole nights to watch. Today I dont watch it much even though I am retired. So I am not in disagreement about batting tracks, his relative vulnerability in bowling conditions but why should he not bat like he does if such conditions are so rare that he can averages in the fifties, score double and triple hundreds and do it at a run a ball?

    Thats all I am trying to say.
    Yes sir i hear you all the way. But as i asked before regarding the standard of pitches presently & quality of bowlers.


    How would you two feel lets say in the upcoming next decade. We have a potential revival in quality pace attacks in AUS (Hilfenhaus/Siddle/Johnson) - WI (Taylor/Roach/Edwards) - SA (Steyn/M Morkel/Parnell) IND (Sharma/Sreesanth) - PAK (Asif/Aamer/Gul) - SRI (Malinga/Prasad/Thushara).

    Along with potential decrease in flat decks (although it may still remain if the ICC doesn't do some restrcuting & actually do something about pitches worldwide) & the balance between bat & ball becomes a bit more even. Would you still look back at the last 10 years of batsmen like Sehwag with the same high regard?



    Also on your point with Bedser troubling Bradman with the inswinger, was this a fault exposed on normal pitches or on sticky wickets? & what was Bradman's head-to-head record vs Bedser.

    Finally yes i wish also that Larwood had played more after bodyline 1932, that would have been superb to read how he would have tackled Larwood after that series.

  8. #38
    ret
    ret is offline
    International Debutant ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    2,890
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie
    How would you two feel lets say in the upcoming next decade. We have a potential revival in quality pace attacks in AUS (Hilfenhaus/Siddle/Johnson) - WI (Taylor/Roach/Edwards) - SA (Steyn/M Morkel/Parnell) IND (Sharma/Sreesanth) - PAK (Asif/Aamer/Gul) - SRI (Malinga/Prasad/Thushara).

    Along with potential decrease in flat decks (although it may still remain if the ICC doesn't do some restrcuting & actually do something about pitches worldwide) & the balance between bat & ball becomes a bit more even. Would you still look back at the last 10 years of batsmen like Sehwag with the same high regard?
    *Ret butts in*

    To answer to that Q, I would like to draw parallel with bowling. Conditions were bowler friendly (than they are now, that is going by what many armchair experts perceive) in say 70s and 80s, so would we stop looking at those bowlers who bowled in that era with same high regards compared with bowlers who are doing well in batting friendly conditions. No we don't! We still rate Hadlee, the WI pace attack, Lilliee, Imran, etc highly despite them bowling in a comparatively bowler friendly era. A good bowling performance now on a batting friendly pitch doesn't downgrade bowling performances of those in past eras. Hopefully that answers your (pointless) question!

    Also why would anyone want to assume that Sehwag (when you say batsman like Sehwag) wouldn't do well in such conditions (or others would fare better)? Even if the conditions change Sehwag would still be one of the top batsmen!

    To me it appears as if you keep inventing different criteria to downgrade achievements of Sehwag. Keep on digging till you find something!
    Last edited by ret; 18-12-2009 at 04:51 AM.

  9. #39
    ret
    ret is offline
    International Debutant ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    2,890
    In an era where armchair experts spam the internet, I won't be surprised when forums become a place to rate cricketer based on how a batsman did well in bowler friendly conditions and a bowler did well in batsman friendly conditions. Runs scored and wkts taken are beginning to sound irrelevant and only thing that matters is conditions .... Also makes me wonder how many runs/wkts in tests a player would have to miss out based on conditions

    Some of the points that I read makes me wonder as if some are taking watching cricket as watching (/playing) a video game! Generally, there is no perfection and one has to understand that

  10. #40
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fine Leg/Technical Area
    Posts
    17,446
    Quote Originally Posted by ret View Post
    *Ret butts in*

    To answer to that Q, I would like to draw parallel with bowling. Conditions were bowler friendly (than they are now, that is going by what many armchair experts perceive) in say 70s and 80s, so would we stop looking at those bowlers who bowled in that era with same high regards compared with bowlers who are doing well in batting friendly conditions. No we don't! We still rate Hadlee, the WI pace attack, Lilliee, Imran, etc highly despite them bowling in a comparatively bowler friendly era. A good bowling performance now on a batting friendly pitch doesn't downgrade bowling performances of those in past eras. Hopefully that answers your (pointless) question!
    You do IND where roads for much of 70s & 80s s they are today & that is where the great WI pacers took alot of wickets. Any of great fast-bowlers of the past from Larwood- Donald could have taken wickets on the roads of this 2000s era.

    You had roads in every era. But it has clearly gotten worse this decade. The parallel is that batsmen in 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s had fair balance between roads & bowler friendly decks along with quality fast bowlers in general

    Quote Originally Posted by ret View Post
    Also why would anyone want to assume that Sehwag (when you say batsman like Sehwag) wouldn't do well in such conditions (or others would fare better)? Even if the conditions change Sehwag would still be one of the top batsmen!

    Because he failed in pretty much 100% of the time in bowler friendly conditions againts quality attacks that he has played in his career. Simple.

    Why you have had top batsmen like Ponting, Dravid, KP etc who have done well this era on roads & bowler friendly decks againts quality pace attacks. These are the upper echelon of batsmen, not Sehwag & all the other FTBs.

    Quote Originally Posted by ret View Post
    To me it appears as if you keep inventing different criteria to downgrade achievements of Sehwag. Keep on digging till you find something!
    No sir, that point to SJS was about batsmen in general in this 2000s era, not only Sehwag.

  11. #41
    ret
    ret is offline
    International Debutant ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    2,890
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie View Post
    You do IND where roads for much of 70s & 80s s they are today & that is where the great WI pacers took alot of wickets. Any of great fast-bowlers of the past from Larwood- Donald could have taken wickets on the roads of this 2000s era.

    You had roads in every era. But it has clearly gotten worse this decade. The parallel is that batsmen in 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s had fair balance between roads & bowler friendly decks along with quality fast bowlers in general

    Because he failed in pretty much 100% of the time in bowler friendly conditions againts quality attacks that he has played in his career. Simple.

    Why you have had top batsmen like Ponting, Dravid, KP etc who have done well this era on roads & bowler friendly decks againts quality pace attacks. These are the upper echelon of batsmen, not Sehwag & all the other FTBs.


    No sir, that point to SJS was about batsmen in general in this 2000s era, not only Sehwag.
    Wasn't your point to judge a batsmen by quality of attack he faced in bowler friendly conditions? How does the WI pace attack doing well on 'roads' (in brackets because I am going by what you wrote) in Ind in 70s and 80s draw parallel with the first argument as despite the conditions being batsmen friendly, the batting line up was hardly quality! (appears as if quality is highly subjective and keeps changing according to what you want to show by cherry picking, isn't it?)

    And then you say that Sehwag hasn't done well 100% of time in bowler friendly conditions against quality attack but then I can think of 2 knocks straight away:
    1. 195 in Melbourne against Lee, McGill, etc (who are good bowlers) .... Now you would probably say that there is no McGrath and Warne (while ignoring how many in Indian line up failed in that game) but then McGrath and Warne were probably the top 5 bowlers of their era. It's surprising that you didn't overlook the comparatively weak Indian (I don't think they had 2 top 5 batsmen of that era playing in the 11 then) when you gave the cherry picked example of the WI bowlers (while ignoring how guys like Lillee have struggled (comparatively) in Ind but are still rated highly)
    2. 201* against SL at Galle (against Murali and Mendis in spin friendly conditions)

    I don't see any consistencies in what you say!
    Last edited by ret; 19-12-2009 at 07:37 AM.

  12. #42
    ret
    ret is offline
    International Debutant ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    2,890
    Can someone do an analysis on whats the percentage of test wins (total wins divided by total games, multiplied by 100) in each decade? This will also show what the trend in picking up 20 wkts is

  13. #43
    Hall of Fame Member aussie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Fine Leg/Technical Area
    Posts
    17,446
    Quote Originally Posted by ret View Post
    Wasn't your point to judge a batsmen by quality of attack he faced in bowler friendly conditions? How does the WI pace attack doing well on 'roads' (in brackets because I am going by what you wrote) in Ind in 70s and 80s draw parallel with the first argument as despite the conditions being batsmen friendly, the batting line up was hardly quality! (appears as if quality is highly subjective and keeps changing according to what you want to show by cherry picking, isn't it?)
    Kindly read what SJS said, since i think you misintepreted what he said & what i replied to.

    SJS is saying

    Quote Originally Posted by SJS
    Instead of being so critical of Sehwag we could actually use his phenomenal success and his fantastic strike rate to understand what is happening to our game.

    Not only are wickets far more batsmen friendly, the bats are better and the boundaries getting smaller. The risks associated with unorthodox batting are much reduced. The definition of percentage cricket has changed. Modern day conditions are perfect for more aggressive methods. They are also the graveyards of bowlers. This is what Sehwag has shown us.
    He is arguing that the state of game is changing. I dont necessarily believe that is the case & i'm suggesting IF we have a revivial of quality fast-bowlers around the world - along with more even mixure of flat decks vs bowler friendly decks in the next decade (although this may depend on what the ICC does).

    Thus averaging 50 is something only the upper echelon of batsmen can acomplish - rather than almost everyone who hits a purple patch.

    Then surely you can't rate FTBs of this 2000s era in the same breath as the potential future dominant batsmen who would play in a era/period where they will score runs than their contemporaries also - but rather under more difficult batting conditons - rather than on roads


    Quote Originally Posted by ret
    And then you say that Sehwag hasn't done well 100% of time in bowler friendly conditions against quality attack but then I can think of 2 knocks straight away:

    1. 195 in Melbourne against Lee, McGill, etc (who are good bowlers)
    Lee was poor test match bowler in 2003/04 everybody who knows AUS cricket or has watched Lee's career knows this.

    - MacGill was always an average spinner againts quality players of spin

    - Melbourne 2003 was a road. In the fac entire 2003/04 pitches where roads. Only bowler friendly conditons present in that series was when:

    (A) Khan got his 5 wicket haul on the second morning in Brisbane

    (B) When Agarkar was getting reverse swing in his second innings bowling performance in Adelaide (although AUS batsmen batted a bit dumb then as well).

    Quote Originally Posted by ret
    .... Now you would probably say that there is no McGrath and Warne (while ignoring how many in Indian line up failed in that game) but then McGrath and Warne were probably the top 5 bowlers of their era. It's surprising that you didn't overlook the comparatively weak Indian (I don't think they had 2 top 5 batsmen of that era playing in the 11 then) when you gave the cherry picked example of the WI bowlers (while ignoring how guys like Lillee have struggled (comparatively) in Ind but are still rated highly)
    Rubbish.

    - Firstly no McGrath/Warne was all that matters. That bowling attack in that series was the weakest AUS bowling attack to play in a series (other than the attack that toured IND in 98) during the glory years of 95 to 2006/07.

    - All the Indian batsmen batted well in that series there was nothing WEAK about there batting at any point in that series. Only person who struggled a bit/out of form was Tendulkar because he had his tennis-elbow woes. But even he managed to score a double century (the most boring one i've ever seen mind you) in the final test.

    Quote Originally Posted by ret
    2. 201* against SL at Galle (against Murali and Mendis in spin friendly conditions)
    The argument againts Sehwag has never been his runs againts quality spinners. His batting againts such bowlers has never been in question. Its runs or rather lack of runs againts quality pacers in bowler friendly conditions in which he has never succeded in his career to date. Simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by ret
    I don't see any consistencies in what you say!
    Because you are confusing yourself..

  14. #44
    Evil Scotsman
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    away from here
    Posts
    31,214
    Maybe such conditions don't exist because when Sehwag's batting, there's no such thing as "bowler friendly conditions"?

  15. #45
    ret
    ret is offline
    International Debutant ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    canada
    Posts
    2,890
    @ Aussie .... by replying to my post (in a manner I expected) you only proved my point abt inconsistency in your posts

    I stated that you cherry picked WI fast bowlers doing well in Ind, whose batting was not that high quality. And you are using a perceived lack of quality in Aus bowling when Sehwag got a near double (which is not apples to apples). And then you go on to say that McGrath/Warne not being there is all that matters, again ignoring what's being implied i.e. they were amongst the top 5 bowlers of their era and when you gave the example of WI bowlers doing well in Ind you overlooked the fact that the line up didn't have top 2 of the top 5 batsmen of that era playing in the 11. It's hilarious when you say that McGrath/Warne is all that matters considering how you rate Ponting, who has never faced them. In short, the Aus bowling against which Sehwag did well is comparable to Ind batting against which WI bowlers did well but you chose to hold Aus bowling against Sehwag, while ignoring Ind batting against WI and also when likes of Ponting, who you rate highly, has never faced them. (What's funny is that you actually think that such things won't be noticed)

    Another inning that comes to mind is his 150 odd in the 4th inning at Adelaide. I don't think there is a need to say that playing in 4th inning with a pressure to save the game is a difficult condition .... Other one would be his 150 odd in Chennai, where he was probably taking Ind to a win if rain hadn't intervened

    And I don't think that Melbourne was a road so don't mention that again, you will lose more creditability. I followed that game too. We are taking abt Mebourne here so there is no point in saying that Ind batsmen did well in the series unless you think that pitches have to be bowler friendly of a whole series and a test doesn't count .... win if rain hadn't intervened

    You cherry picked examples, didn't do apples to apples, etc to show that Sehwag isn't up to the mark but it's not working!
    Last edited by ret; 20-12-2009 at 08:08 AM.

Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Cricket Books
    By archie mac in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 2466
    Last Post: 25-12-2018, 07:27 AM
  2. Is India Over Rated?
    By Turbinator in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 29-08-2006, 03:06 PM
  3. Why is Sehwag so good: My analysis
    By C_C in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 30-03-2005, 05:07 PM
  4. Surrey 2002: A Cricket Captain Diary
    By SIX AND OUT in forum Cricket Games
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 17-02-2005, 08:25 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •