Bradman to Sehwag - Redefining Great Batsmanship Through Defying Tradition

[ret]

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!

 

[ret]

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

 

[aussie]

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

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

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).

.... 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.

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.

I don't see any consistencies in what you say!

Because you are confusing yourself..

 

[Furball]

Maybe such conditions don't exist because when Sehwag's batting, there's no such thing as "bowler friendly conditions"?

 

[ret]

@ 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!

 

[aussie]

Sir sir listennn. I did not respond to back to your post because i realised you are missing my point to the post SJS made which i responded to. You should have probably just waited for SJS to respond to me & let him explain himself. Since you are confusing yourself...

Try to understand what SJS said & flow with the discussion:

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.

Do you understand this??? Ok then...

My respone to this was:

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

Are you following now??...


But anyway i will respond to your point now about the Windies bowlers in IND, since we now understand that point in not relevant to main point of my minor debate with SJS...

@ 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.


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)

- Firstly you clearly dont know your history since the series the great WI teams of 70s & 80s won in IND where againts VERY Solid Indian batsmen. Don't let SJS here you my god

In 83/84. The Indian batting consisted off:

Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Yashpal Sharma, Shastri, Patel, M Amarnath, Gaekward (a fighting player againts the pace), Dev, Kirmani. The only batsman missing was Viswanath who had retired before that series...

If this is not a quality IND batting line-up well

In 74/75:

Gavaskar, Vishwanath, Engineer. This was it mainly, it wasn't as strong as 83/84. But the Windies attack hadn't peaked yet. Andy Roberts was the only serious 90 mph pacer, they didn't ecnoutner the apocalypse 4-prong attack.


- So clearly no comparison can be drawn with the Windies attack againts the IND batting of the 80s (since it was a good batting lineup). Along with the AUS attack & the Indian batting in the 2003/04 series since the attack was missing Warne & McGrath.

It's hilarious when you say that McGrath/Warne is all that matters considering how you rate Ponting, who has never faced them.

. The only thing idiotic here is this comment. OF COURSE NO BATSMAN WILL FACE HIS SAME BOWLERS. This is one of the most flawed & foolish logics in cricket. I dont expect to see such nonsense from CWers/

Why should Ponting or any great bastman superb-record should be under-rated just because he/they doesn't have to face his own bowlers??. Thats just a fact you have to live with it. Ponting or any other great batsman should not be under-rated for it.

Would you use the same argument to say bowlers like Akram, Donald, Pollock, Waqar & Ambrose where better than McGrath because they didn't have to bowl to Australia's batsmen from 95-2002 (while even though India had the stronger looking batting on paper) Australia during this period proved to be the most consistently strongest batting line-up in world cricket with the Waugh's, Taylor etc..?

Or would you say Gavaskar was a better batsman than Richards because Richards didn't have to face his own fearsome bowlers or Hadlee, Lille or Imran Khan were definately better bowlers than Marshall because he didn't have to bowl to the West Indian batting line-up? God i hope not..

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 ....

WTF. Melboure was A ROAD, thats is undenialble. All the surfaces in that 2003/04 series where roads. The only bowler friendly conditons ever present in that series was as i said:

(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).

Prove to me otherwise that this wasn't the case during that series?/

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 ....

Firsly i dont doubt that his Adelaide 2007/08 was a very good innings, given that he showed great mental strenght after being recalled after being drop for the whole series. But it was batting friendly pitch, IND where never under seriouspressure to lose that test in that 4th inngs, they just had a mild second innings hiccup. But that test was always heading for a draw.

The criteria for judging any great batsman is not juts runs againts a quality pace attack on flat decks, any batsman can do that. But to also score runs a quality pace attack in bowler friendly conditions.

Other one would be his 150 odd in Chennai, where he was probably taking Ind to a win if rain hadn't intervened

Great attack but on a flat pitch. Just like what he did againts SA 08 @ Chennai 08 & Akhtar in 2006.

The conditions he has failed in consistently is runs againts a very good/great pace attack in BOWLER FRIENDLY CONDITONS.

Even Darren Ganga has scored a hundred againts AUS on roads but failed on bowler friendly decks & even Chris Gayle has a tripe hundred againts the Saffies bowling attack on a road like Sehwag.

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!

Look this argument is old. But lets presume Sehwag 195 @ MCG, 155 @ Chennai 04. Along with Bloemfontein 2001 & Nottingham 2002 (other examples that others have used as innings Sehwag has played on a combination of good/very good/great pace attack on a bowler friendly pitch right?




How do you explain these other failures in other bowler friendly conditions vs good/very good/quality pace attack or where a bowler exposed him techincally to inswinging deliveries.

- Wellington 2002

- Bangalore 2004

- Nagpur 04

- Mumbai 04

- Karachi 06

- Entire 05/06 vs ENG

- Kingston 06

- Last 2 tests 06/07 vs SA (which lead to him beign dropped for a whole year for the same technical woes i'm talking about)

- the Ahmedabad & Nagpur tests

So thats 14 failures on bowler friendly tracks vs good/very/good/quality pace attacks in bowler friendly conditons. While 3-5 so called successes that some have claimed (which is totally disagree with). So even then its lopsided.

Yall need to face the facts...

 

[aussie]

Maybe such conditions don't exist because when Sehwag's batting, there's no such thing as "bowler friendly conditions"?

No. Check out these innings here.

 

[Furball]

No. Check out these innings here.

Can't believe you took that seriously.

 

[ret]

Sir sir listennn. I did not respond to back to your post because i realised you are missing my point that SJS made which i responded to. You should have probably just waited for SJS to respond to me & let him explain himself. Since you are confusing this enitre thing.

Try to understand what SJS said & flow with the discussion:



Do you understand this??? Ok then...

My respone to this was:




Are you following now??...

I understand that. I replied to one of the points (iirc) by drawing parallels with bowlers

But anyway i will respond to your point now about the Windies bowlers in IND, since we now understand that point in not relevant to main point of my minor debate with SJS...


- Firstly you clearly dont know your history since the series the great WI teams of 70s & 80s won in IND where againts VERY Solid Indian batsmen. Don't let SJS here you my god

In 83/84. The Indian batting consisted off:

Gavaskar, Vengsarkar, Yashpal Sharma, Shastri, Patel, M Amarnath, Gaekward (a fighting player againts the pace), Dev, Kirmani. The only batsman missing was Viswanath who had retired before that series...

If this is not a quality IND batting line-up well

I said it's not that high quality, which it isn't. Yashpal Sharma, Gaekwad are not rated that highly in Ind, so am surprised that ppl in Australia rate them highly (assuming that you are from Australia), while Kirmani is a decent WK bat. I guess those guys will be pretty surprised at how they are rated by you (make creditable points duh)

In 74/75:

Gavaskar, Vishwanath, Engineer. This was it mainly, it wasn't as strong as 83/84. But the Windies attack hadn't peaked yet. Andy Roberts was the only serious 90 mph pacer, they didn't ecnoutner the apocalypse 4-prong attack.

As I said 'cherry picking' doesn't mean much. And I rate bowlers like Lillee highly despite them having a comparatively weak record in subcontinent

- So clearly no comparison can be drawn with the Windies attack againts the IND batting of the 80s (since it was a good batting lineup). Along with the AUS attack & the Indian batting in the 2003/04 series since the attack was missing Warne & McGrath.

keep making stuff up


. The only thing idiotic here is this comment. OF COURSE NO BATSMAN WILL FACE HIS SAME BOWLERS. This is one of the most flawed & foolish logics in cricket. I dont expect to see such nonsense from CWers/

Why should Ponting or any great bastman superb-record should be under-rated just because he/they doesn't have to face his own bowlers??. Thats just a fact you have to live with it. Ponting or any other great batsman should not be under-rated for it.

Would you use the same argument to say bowlers like Akram, Donald, Pollock, Waqar & Ambrose where better than McGrath because they didn't have to bowl to Australia's batsmen from 95-2002 (while even though India had the stronger looking batting on paper) Australia during this period proved to be the most consistently strongest batting line-up in world cricket with the Waugh's, Taylor etc..?

Or would you say Gavaskar was a better batsman than Richards because Richards didn't have to face his own fearsome bowlers or Hadlee, Lille or Imran Khan were definately better bowlers than Marshall because he didn't have to bowl to the West Indian batting line-up? God i hope not..


You don't get the point (as shown by that^). The point is that just like ppl like Ponting shouldn't be under-rated because they didn't get to face McGrath/Warne because of no fault of theirs, ppl like Sehwag achievements shouldn't be under-estimated either as McGrath/Warne not playing is not his fault. (By replying to such posts, I feel like I am spoon feeding a kindergarten cass)



WTF. Melboure was A ROAD, thats is undenialble. All the surfaces in that 2003/04 series where roads. The only bowler friendly conditons ever present in that series was as i said:

(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).

Prove to me otherwise that this wasn't the case during that series?/

What happened in Brisbane or Adelaide is irrelevant as we are talking abt Melbourne here. And I see that you have listed B'lore 04 below. What surprises me is that you took that as a bowler friendly surface and Melbourne as a road (I don't think there is much to say after that)


Firsly i dont doubt that his Adelaide 2007/08 was a very good innings, given that he showed great mental strenght after being recalled after being drop for the whole series. But it was batting friendly pitch, IND where never under seriouspressure to lose that test in that 4th inngs, they just had a mild second innings hiccup. But that test was always heading for a draw.

I can't be spoon feeding you on Ind's tendency to collapse in 4th innings and the fact that it was Sehwag's inning that helped Ind to a draw. But am not suprised that you think that's not the case since Sehwag played that inning


The criteria for judging any great batsman is not juts runs againts a quality pace attack on flat decks, any batsman can do that. But to also score runs a quality pace attack in bowler friendly conditions.

Great attack but on a flat pitch. Just like what he did againts SA 08 @ Chennai 08 & Akhtar in 2006.

It appears as if you have little idea abt what went on in those games

The conditions he has failed in consistently is runs againts a very good/great pace attack in BOWLER FRIENDLY CONDITONS.

Even Darren Ganga has scored a hundred againts AUS on roads but failed on bowler friendly decks & even Chris Gayle has a tripe hundred againts the Saffies bowling attack on a road like Sehwag.



Look this argument is old. But lets presume Sehwag 195 @ MCG, 155 @ Chennai 04. Along with Bloemfontein 2001 & Nottingham 2002 (other examples that others have used as innings Sehwag has played on a combination of good/very good/great pace attack on a bowler friendly pitch right?




How do you explain these other failures in other bowler friendly conditions vs good/very good/quality pace attacks:

- Wellington 2002

There is nothing to say there as most of Ind batting line up failed. He did get 2 hundreds in the ODIs though, two games that India won.

- Bangalore 2004

That track was no more bowler friendly than the one at Melbourne where he got a near double. By including this you are only showing double standards. The game also shows a typical Indian 4th inning collapse. Again it was a game where most failed and it was a time where Indian batting wasn't clicking. He did went on to get a 155 odd in the very next test and also get most runs for Ind in the following test at Nagpur

- Nagpur 04

In fact he has done better than many there and was in fact the highest scorer in the game for India. He also has a 58 in the 2nd innings under pressure. Surprised that you wrote this down as a failure .... The more you will try to dig a hole for Sehwag, the more you will fall in to it. Also another minus to your creditability

- Mumbai 04

It was a very tough pitch to bat on and almost everyone struggled. (except for may be Tendulkar). It was a low scoring game so unless you expect Sehwag to be a superman and score a 100 there I see little point in bringing this up. .... Again he was coming in to this after doing well in Chennai and Nagpur (which you tried to portray as failure as well when he got the most runs for India in that game), so it was time for others to step up anyways. It's not like Sehwag has to score in every game of a series .... Also when I posted his extra-ordinary performance at Galle, you had dismissed that saying that you are mainly talking abt his performances against pace bowler friendly conditions. This pitch was 'spin friendly' so you are not practicing what you are preaching (double standards again)! .... Another Q on your creditability

- Karachi 06

- Entire 05/06 vs ENG

- Kingston 06

- Last 2 tests 06/07 vs SA (which lead to him beign dropped for a whole year for the same technical woes i'm talking about)

- the Ahmedabad & Nagpur tests

So thats 14 failures on bowler friendly tracks vs good/very/good/quality pace attacks in bowler friendly conditons. While 3-5 so called successes that some have claimed (which is totally disagree with). So even then its lopsided.

Yall need to face the facts...

There is no point in going through the rest of it because you have lost your creditability already (no point in wasting more time). Btw, some of those scores were when he wasn't in best of form. And it appears as if no one needs to face facts more than you

My comments are in red in the quote above. If you think that you can prove anything with those childish comments (along with double standards and flipping around) then I don't know what to say except may be go discuss with school kids!

 

[jeevan]

Ian Chappell's definition of great batsmen

Guys who keep you awake at night (as an opposing captain), who can score big and who can score it quickly and take the game away from you.

A more apt description for Sehwag cannot be found.

Let's see where Ian Chappell is off in his description here. He's had ample time in this interview to put in a more detailed description as he went on and on with colorful verbiage on another very capable batsman who had probably had little trouble playing inswingers in bowling friendly conditions. But that apparently is not his criterion.

 

[aussie]

I understand that I replied to that by drawing parallels with bowlers

Well that proves why you didn't understand either of our posts that since your intial point did not make any sense.

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!

As i told you before. It doesn't make any cricket sense to say in your words..."A good bowling performance now on a batting friendly pitch doesn't downgrade bowling performances of those in past eras

A great bowler which fits this build is obviously McGrath. But not because McGrath bowled on more flat decks this 2000s era than Marshall is he better than him because he bowled on more bowler friendly decks in his career than McGrath. ALLLL the great bowlers of the past from Harold Larwood to Allan Donald would have done well in this 2000s era if they played since they where just as great as McGrath.

I said it's not that high quality, which it isn't. Yashpal Sharma, Gaekwad are not rated that highly in Ind, so am surprised that ppl in Australia rate them hihly (assuming that you are from Australia),

Gaekward was better than any opener IND had in the 90s & would have opened for IND in this 2000s era ahead of Jaffer, Das. Surely he must have been good if the IND selectors backed him to open againts the Windies.

The argument is not whether they where rated in IND or outside AUS. During the 83/84 series they where good enough to play for IND againts the Windies.

Gaekward was better than any opener IND had in the 90s & would have opened for IND in this 2000s era ahead of Jaffer, Das. Surely he must have been good if the IND selectors backed him to open againts the Windies.

It may not have been Dravid/Tendulkar/Ganguly/Lamxan(Azharruddin). But its not as if that batting line-up had to play in 83/84, they would have stopped the Windies from winning

while Kirmani is a decent WK bat. I guess those guys will be pretty surprised at how they are rated by you (make creditable points duh)

Arguably your country's greatest ever keeper batsman. Alot people would have him in an IND ALL-TIME XI, although some would also go for Engineer (my preference).

As I said 'cherry picking' doesn't mean much. And I rate bowlers like Lillee highly despite them having a comparatively weak record in subcontinent

What cherry picking?. What details about that 74/75 series is inaccurate?.

What does you rating Lillee highly despite having a weak record in the sub-continent have to do with that 74/75 series?

keep making stuff up

I have not made up anything. You just making up dull excuses about the IND batsmen in the two series they lost to the Windies in 74/75 & 83/84.

You don't get the point (as shown by that^). The point is that just like ppl like Ponting shoudn't be under-rated because they didn't get to face McGrath/Warne because of no fault of theirs, ppl like Sehwag achievements shouldn't be under-estimated because McGrath/Warne did play as it's not his fault. (By replying to such posts, I feel like I am spoon feeding a kindergarten cass)

There is no comparison between Ponting or Viv Richards not being able to score runs againts its own attack because that can't happen - and Sehwag not being able to score runs againts a full-strenght AUS attack in one series. Especially when in 2004/05 when he faced that full strenght AUS attack they exposed him techinically.

What happened in Brisbane or Adelaide is irrelevant as we are talking abt Melbourne here.

Brisbane & Adelaide is very much relevant since you claimed quite ludicrously that Melbourne wasn't a road:

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

Im just making it CLEAR that the 2003/04 series was full of flat decks. There is no debating that. If you saw otherwise prove it to me.

I can't be spoon feeding you on Ind's tendency to collapse in 4th innings and the fact that it was Sehwag's inning that helped Ind to a draw. But am not suprised that you think that's not the case since Sehwag played that inning

Where in that point did i descridit IND's tendancy to collapse in 4th innings chases?. But how in god's name where IND ever likely to lose that test match?

By the end of the 4th day barely 2 innings where completed. India close day 4 on 45/1. Even if they where bowled out for 269 - instead of being 269/7 @ 5:28 pm on thr 5TH DAYY. How in god's name where AUS going to score 230+ runs to win that test??

I clearly said in the post before i give him credit given that he showed great mental strenght after being recalled after being drop for the whole series. But he was batting on batting friendly pitch as it is the case in EVERY adelaide test. It was just not on bowler friendly deck - but i dont discredit the innings.

It appears as if you have little idea abt what went on in those games

So you telling me his 317 & 254 was not scored on extremely flat pitches??

There is nothing to say there as the entire batting line up failed. He did get 2 hundreds in the ODIs though, two games that India won.

It was indeed difficult batting conditions. But the great IND batsmen Rahul Dravid & Tendulkar stood up & scored half centuries respectively, while Sehwag failed miserbaly. This pretty much proves my point that only the great batsmen, when conditions get tough, have the ability to stand up. Sehwag didn't have it there & has never shown it in his career to date.

Plus ODI form/performances doesn't equal test success, so what he did in the ODIs on that NZ tour is irrelevant. The performances of Yuvraj Singh should tell you this quite clearly.

And I see that you have listed B'lore 04 below. What surprises me is that you took that as a bowler friendly surface and Melbourne as a road (I don't think there is much to say after that)

That track was no more bowler friendly than the one at Melbourne where he got a near double.

No no i edited that portion of my post, must of been a computer glitch of soemthing. This is what is said:

How do you explain these other failures in other bowler friendly conditions vs good/very good/quality pace attack or where a bowler exposed him techincally to inswinging deliveries.

That portion related to Bangalore 04, ENG 05/06 (the first two tests). Which where flat decks but the likes of McGrath & Hoggard all exposed him technically to delveries swinging back into his pads (a glaring weakness of his) - since they where expert inswing bowlers.

Both Melbourne 03 & Bangalore 04 are roads. Dont confuse yourself..

By including this you are only showing double standards. The game also shows a typical Indian 4th inning collapse. Again it was a game where most failed and it was a time where Indian batting wasn't clicking

Rubbish.

- Firslty that game was no typical 4th Innings IND batting collapse. The AUS bowlers OWNED the Indian batsman in this test.

- Secondly its totally nonsense to say that IND batsmen weren't in form going into the series. ALL OF THEM where exposed by the AUS batsmen technically. Sehwag although he was exposed was the best batsman of that series.

The only IND batsman who gets an excuse was Tendy because he had his tennis-elbow issues & probably shouldn't have played in the series.

He did went on to get a 155 odd in the very next test

This innings is not relevant to argument againts Sehwag.

We are talking about RUNS AGAINTS A GOOD/VERY GOOD/QUALITY PACE ATTACK IN BOWLER FRIENDLY CONDITIONS. Understand the difference.

Even Darren Ganga & Lou Vincent was able to score runs againts a qaulity AUS attack on FLAT PITCHES.

In fact he has done better than many there and was in fact the highest scorer in the game for India. He also has a 58 in the 2nd innings under pressure. Surprised that you wrote this down as a failure .... The more you will try to dig a hole for Sehwag, the more you will fall in to it. Also another minus to your ceditabbility.

As i said above Nagpur was an example on an test (the 1st innings) where McGrath got him out. It was the same way McGrath dismissed him in Bangalore 2nd innings & both innings in Mumbai. Which was the inswinging deliveries angling into his pad.

If you saw the series that was something that should be in your memory until now. Since McGrath kept getting him out the same way all series.

I never descedited the 58 in the second innings. You are just misunderstanding the dynamics of the argument.

It was a very tough pitch to bat on and almost everyone struggled. (except for may be Tendulkar). It was a low scoring game so unless you expect Sehwag to be a superman and score a 100 there I see little point in bringing this up. ....

AHHHH And Laxman. You see by mentioning Tendulkar performance in the second innings who coincedentally was not at his best, you have pretty much proved my point.

Like what happened in the Wellington 2002 test that i showed above, on very difficult pitch. Only Tendulkar & Laxman - THE GREAT BATSMEN where able to stand up againts the AUS bowlers, although it was difficult them. Sehwag became a walking wicket, which McGrath easily cleaned up.

Again he was coming in to this after doing well in Chennai and Nagpur (which you tried to portray as failure as well when he got the most runs for India in that game),

No. See here again just to make sure you are clear of what occured in the Nagpur test.

As i said above Nagpur was an example on an test (the 1st innings) where McGrath got him out. It was the same way McGrath dismissed him in Bangalore 2nd innings & both innings in Mumbai. Which was the inswinging deliveries angling into his pad.

If you saw the series that was something that should be in your memory until now. Since McGrath kept getting him out the same way all series.

I never descedited the 58 in the second innings. You are just misunderstanding the dynamics of the argument.

so it was time for others to step up anyways. And when I posted his performance at Galle, you had siad that you are talking abt his performance against pace bowler friendly conditions. This pitch was spin friendly so you are not practicing what you are preaching! .... Another Q on your creditability

Nah my credability still has the I & THE Q. Since the bolded ALONE proves to me that you didn't watch that test. Mumbai was BOTH seamer friendly & spinner friendly.

The AUS pace trio got maximum movement & the IND spin trio got maximum spin.

There is no point in going through all because you have lost your creditability. Some of those scores were when he wasn't in best of form. No one needs to face facts than you

HAAAA. Are you out of your mind??

- How was Sehwag out of form in Karachi 06, when in the 1st test of that series he slammed 254??. What did he get cold feet when he saw Akhtar & Asif on a greentop in the 3rd test??


- How was Sehwag out of form in Kingston 06. When in the middle of that series he slamemd 180 on another flat deck (in this innings he almost created a test record by almost scoring a hundred before lunch). What he got cold feet again when he saw Taylor & Collins on bowler friendly deck??

Again look at this Kingston test. Like Mumbai 2004 & Wellington 2002. When the conditions got TOUGH for batting, who stood up in this Kingston test? - The Great Rahul Dravid, while Sehwag became a walking for little for even the honest Windies bowlers then.


- How in gods name was he out of form vs SA 08/09 in the last two test. When his previous two test he had scores of 151 & 317???. What more cold feet AGAIN when he saw Steyn/Ntini/Morke on a bowler friendly deck??


- You clearly didn't watch ENG 05/06 & SA 06/07 where he averaged 14 & 19 respectively. Since Hoggard & SA bowlers CLEARLY exposed Sehwag GLARING weakness to inswinging deliveries. Thas why he failed, not because he out of any damn form...

 

[pasag]

Ian Chappell's definition of great batsmen

 

[ret]

Well that proves why you didn't understand either of our posts that since your intial point did not make any sense.

Nah it shows that you don't understand whats being implied and are


As i told you before. It doesn't make any cricket sense to say in your words..."A good bowling performance now on a batting friendly pitch doesn't downgrade bowling performances of those in past eras

I think that answers one of your Q as to how would ppl rate batting performances in 2000s if their is going to be a revival in bowling. By drawing parallels, I am implying that if a bowler performs well in this good batting idea (in your words), it doesn't mean that performances of those who bowled well when there was balance b/w bat and ball (in your words) get under-rated (put 2+2 together)



A great bowler which fits this build is obviously McGrath. But not because McGrath bowled on more flat decks this 2000s era than Marshall is he better than him because he bowled on more bowler friendly decks in his career than McGrath. ALLLL the great bowlers of the past from Harold Larwood to Allan Donald would have done well in this 2000s era if they played since they where just as great as McGrath.

So we can imply the same abt batsmen batting in 2000s, can't we? So whats the point in asking Q like (iirc) how would you rate batting performance in 2000s, if there is going to be a revival in bowling duh

Gaekward was better than any opener IND had in the 90s & would have opened for IND in this 2000s era ahead of Jaffer, Das. Surely he must have been good if the IND selectors backed him to open againts the Windies.

By that argument, I can say that Lee is better than most Indian bowlers, and bowlers from some of the other countries too like BD DUH

The argument is not whether they where rated in IND or outside AUS. During the 83/84 series they where good enough to play for IND againts the Windies.

You are debating against your own points. I am saying something similar abt the Aus attack of 03/04. Also McGrath and Warne are like all time bowlers of Australia, so when we talk abt batting we look at batsmen of such level

Gaekward was better than any opener IND had in the 90s & would have opened for IND in this 2000s era ahead of Jaffer, Das. Surely he must have been good if the IND selectors backed him to open againts the Windies.

It may not have been Dravid/Tendulkar/Ganguly/Lamxan(Azharruddin). But its not as if that batting line-up had to play in 83/84, they would have stopped the Windies from winning


*yawn* too much repetition

Arguably your country's greatest ever keeper batsman. Alot people would have him in an IND ALL-TIME XI, although some would also go for Engineer (my preference).


What cherry picking?. What details about that 74/75 series is inaccurate?.

Cherry picking because I gave examples of Lillee too

What does you rating Lillee highly despite having a weak record in the sub-continent have to do with that 74/75 series?

Ah ha more spoon feeding. Looks like you only remember things that you can answer too or twist. Put 2+2 together and you will get your answer.



I have not made up anything. You just making up dull excuses about the IND batsmen in the two series they lost to the Windies in 74/75 & 83/84.




There is no comparison between Ponting or Viv Richards not being able to score runs againts its own attack because that can't happen - and Sehwag not being able to score runs againts a full-strenght AUS attack in one series. Especially when in 2004/05 when he faced that full strenght AUS attack they exposed him techinically.





Brisbane & Adelaide is very much relevant since you claimed quite ludicrously that Melbourne wasn't a road:

I claimed Melbourne wasn't a road. Did I mention Brisbane or Adelaide

Im just making it CLEAR that the 2003/04 series was full of flat decks. There is no debating that. If you saw otherwise prove it to me.

I said that Melbourne wasn't (which is what counts)



Where in that point did i descridit IND's tendancy to collapse in 4th innings chases?. But how in god's name where IND ever likely to lose that test match?

By the end of the 4th day barely 2 innings where completed. India close day 4 on 45/1. Even if they where bowled out for 269 - instead of being 269/7 @ 5:28 pm on thr 5TH DAYY. How in god's name where AUS going to score 230+ runs to win that test??


I clearly said in the post before i give him credit given that he showed great mental strenght after being recalled after being drop for the whole series. But he was batting on batting friendly pitch as it is the case in EVERY adelaide test. It was just not on bowler friendly deck - but i dont discredit the innings.

It's nice to know that you do understand that it's not only abt conditions


So you telling me his 317 & 254 was not scored on extremely flat pitches??

I am implying is that not anyone can score those type of scores, no matter what the pitch against top sides. It requires skills

It was indeed difficult batting conditions. But the great IND batsmen Rahul Dravid & Tendulkar stood up & scored half centuries respectively, while Sehwag failed miserbaly. This pretty much proves my point that only the great batsmen, when conditions get tough, have the ability to stand up. Sehwag didn't have it there & has never shown it in his career to date.

Yeah some of those guys didn't stand up in earlier tests that much where Sehwag did. And no one looked that confident except Tendulkar, who actually turned the game for India

Plus ODI form/performances doesn't equal test success, so what he did in the ODIs on that NZ tour is irrelevant. The performances of Yuvraj Singh should tell you this quite clearly.

Because the conditions were similar i.e. very tough to bat on with others failing

No no i edited that portion of my post, must of been a computer glitch of soemthing. This is what is said:


That portion related to Bangalore 04, ENG 05/06 (the first two tests). Which where flat decks but the likes of McGrath & Hoggard all exposed him technically to delveries swinging back into his pads (a glaring weakness of his) - since they where expert inswing bowlers.

Both Melbourne 03 & Bangalore 04 are roads. Dont confuse yourself..


Rubbish.

- Firslty that game was no typical 4th Innings IND batting collapse. The AUS bowlers OWNED the Indian batsman in this test.

- Secondly its totally nonsense to say that IND batsmen weren't in form going into the series. ALL OF THEM where exposed by the AUS batsmen technically. Sehwag although he was exposed was the best batsman of that series.

The only IND batsman who gets an excuse was Tendy because he had his tennis-elbow issues & probably shouldn't have played in the series.



This innings is not relevant to argument againts Sehwag.

We are talking about RUNS AGAINTS A GOOD/VERY GOOD/QUALITY PACE ATTACK IN BOWLER FRIENDLY CONDITIONS. Understand the difference.

Even Darren Ganga & Lou Vincent was able to score runs againts a qaulity AUS attack on FLAT PITCHES.

As i said above Nagpur was an example on an test (the 1st innings) where McGrath got him out. It was the same way McGrath dismissed him in Bangalore 2nd innings & both innings in Mumbai. Which was the inswinging deliveries angling into his pad.

If you saw the series that was something that should be in your memory until now. Since McGrath kept getting him out the same way all series.

I never descedited the 58 in the second innings. You are just misunderstanding the dynamics of the argument.

So?


AHHHH And Laxman. You see by mentioning Tendulkar performance in the second innings who coincedentally was not at his best, you have pretty much proved my point.

Like what happened in the Wellington 2002 test that i showed above, on very difficult pitch. Only Tendulkar & Laxman - THE GREAT BATSMEN where able to stand up againts the AUS bowlers, although it was difficult them. Sehwag became a walking wicket, which McGrath easily cleaned up.



No. See here again just to make sure you are clear of what occured in the Nagpur test.





[/quote=ret]so it was time for others to step up anyways. And when I posted his performance at Galle, you had siad that you are talking abt his performance against pace bowler friendly conditions. This pitch was spin friendly so you are not practicing what you are preaching! .... Another Q on your creditability

Nah my credability still has the I & THE Q. Since the bolded ALONE proves to me that you didn't watch that test. Mumbai was BOTH seamer friendly & spinner friendly.

The AUS pace trio got maximum movement & the IND spin trio got maximum spin.




HAAAA. Are you out of your mind??

- How was Sehwag out of form in Karachi 06, when in the 1st test of that series he slammed 254??. What did he get cold feet when he saw Akhtar & Asif on a greentop in the 3rd test??


- How was Sehwag out of form in Kingston 06. When in the middle of that series he slamemd 180 on another flat deck. What he got feet again when he saw Taylor & Collins on bowler friendly deck??

Again look at this test. Like Mumbai 2004 & Wellington 2002. When the conditions got TOUGH for batting, who stood up in this Kingston test? - The Great Rahul Dravid


- How in gods name was he out of form vs SA 08/09 in the last two test. When his previous two test he had scores of 151 & 317???. What more cold feet when he saw Steyn/Ntini/Morke on a bowler friendly deck??


- You clearly didn't watch ENG 05/06 & SA 06/07 where he averaged 14 & 19 respectively. Since Hoggard & SA bowlers CLEARLY exposed Sehwag GLARING weakness to inswinging deliveries. Thas why he failed, not because he out of any damn form...[/QUOTE]

Looks like you don't follow Ind cricket that much and also seem to think that there has to be a set pattern for every batsmen

Again the comments in red in the quotes are my assessment. Skimmed through the post as most of it looked copy and paste from what was already replied too.

I think what you are trying to say by typing tons of posts can be summarized as Sehwag is not good when conditions favor pace bowling, arguments used to show that are scorecards (even if he scored top scored for Ind in previous two tests, if he happens to score low in a low scoring game (where most scored low) then that's a failure. Resort to double standards but when exposed say stuff like oh that was a mistake. Cherry pick, in swingers and so on. But in the end I disagree (as most will). To me Sehwag is a wonderful batsmen who when he is playing well can do well against any opposition in any condition. When doing badly (or over confident) will do badly against weak oppositions and in batting conditions. And his approach to batting is different than most!

Anyways, keep entertaining us. There is a score that you missed where Sehwag failed but I will leave you to do your own research (and if you manage to find that and post it, it will again be refuted as irrelevant) :P

 

[aussie]

Nah it shows that you don't understand whats being implied and are

What sense does it making quoting the beginning of this post, when i explained your misconception in the next sentence??

I think that answers one of your Q as to how would ppl rate batting performances in 2000s if their is going to be a revival in bowling. By drawing parallels, I am implying that if a bowler performs well in this good batting idea (in your words), it doesn't mean that performances of those who bowled well when there was balance b/w bat and ball (in your words) get under-rated (put 2+2 together)

I never said anything about bowlers. I said if there is potential revival in fast bowling in the next decade along with more bowler friendly conditions - to bring back balance between bat & ball even. Then one cannot rate the FTBs of this decade as highly as the potential future dominant batsmen who would play in a era/period where they will score runs under an even combination difficult batting conditons + some roads againts quality pace attacks - rather than on roads 90% of the time.


What you are saying there about bowlers hardly makes sense either. As i said before a great bowler from any past era would bowl well on roads on this 2000s era.

Look at Harold Larwood bowler in the 1920s & 1930s bowled on some of the flattest wickets in test history in both county & international cricket & he has batsmen of the era running. He would have been right at home in this 2000s era.

So we can imply the same abt batsmen batting in 2000s, can't we? So whats the point in asking Q like (iirc) how would you rate batting performance in 2000s, if there is going to be a revival in bowling duh

Of course not. The test for any great batsman is your there ability to score runs againts a quality pace attack in bowler friendly conditions - not when the pitches are roads. Since the game of cricket generally has always been in the batsman favour - especially right now.

Most bowlers would struggle to get a batsman out on flat decks in general if they are getting no swing or seam with the new ball along with no reverse swing with the old ball - especially those that have been present this era. Only TRULY GREAT fast bowlers who had the ability to reverse swing the ball - had great pace & accuracy - or all combined, where able to take wickets on flat decks. If a bowler didn't have these unique skills he would be easy meat for any batsman.

By that argument, I can say that Lee is better than most Indian bowlers, and bowlers from some of the other countries too like BD DUH

Well yes Lee is better than most Indian bowlers ever produced other than Kapil Dev.

But i'm not sure how you managed to deduce a comparison between this & my point that Gaekward was a good batsman in 83/84 (whether he is rated highly or not) & was good enough to play for IND vs WI back then. Along with the fact that he WAS better than most IND openers in the 90s & early 2000s.

You where the one who said this nonsene:

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.

You are debating against your own points. I am saying something similar abt the Aus attack of 03/04. Also McGrath and Warne are like all time bowlers of Australia, so when we talk abt batting we look at batsmen of such level

Explain again clearly & in detail what you trying to say about McGrath & Warne in relation to batsmen. Since you are not being very clear..

Cherry picking because I gave examples of Lillee too

WTF. Yo What does Dennis Lillee have to do with 74/75 West Indies tour of India & what examples "too" did you give about Lillee?. I'm really struggling to understand where you coming from here..

Ah ha more spoon feeding. Looks like you only remember things that you can answer too or twist. Put 2+2 together and you will get your answer.

I never mentioned Lillee anywhere, you brought him in the argument. So theirfore i cannot "answer to it" since i ddin't bring him - nor can i twist it even if i wanted to (but i never twist stuff anyway).

I claimed Melbourne wasn't a road. Did I mention Brisbane or Adelaide

I said that Melbourne wasn't (which is what counts)

As i keep saying PROVE TO ME THAT MCG 2003 wasn't a road. Since i saw the whole test match & i know it was CLEARLY - a road.

I am implying is that not anyone can score those type of scores, no matter what the pitch against top sides. It requires skills

FINALLY a point we can agree on. Yes it totally true to few batsmen in test hisotry can smoke an attack, scoring such a big score againts any attack poor or great - flat or bowler friendly pitch.

But what does it tell you in the SAME series where he scored the 254 & 317. When bowler friendly decks later in the series - those SAME bowlers failed him miserably??

It's nice to know that you do understand that it's not only abt conditions

Whatever man. So you accept now that Adelaide 09 was a flat pitch & IND where never likely to lose that test right?

Yeah some of those guys didn't stand up in earlier tests that much where Sehwag did. And no one looked that confident except Tendulkar, who actually turned the game for India

What previous test??. Wellington 2002 was the first test match of that 2 -match series sir. Stay focused..

Because the conditions were similar i.e. very tough to bat on with others failing

Yes. But it remains irrelevant since as i said ODI form/performances doesn't equal test success that is proven FACT in cricket. That is not up for debate.

Roger Twose in the 99 WC in similar bowler freindly conditions like Sehwag in those ODIs vs NZ 2002 - batted brillantly for NZ. But later in the test series during the summer of 99 vs ENG he failed miserably - just like how Sehwag failed in the tests vs NZ.

So i hope in the future you never associate ODI form & performances as a guide to judging how a player may go in tests..

So?

Sooo if you DONT understand what i am saying, you will continue to post crap as you are doing ATM..

Looks like you don't follow Ind cricket that much and also seem to think that there has to be a set pattern for every batsmen

Just answer the question. How was Sehwag out of form in those failures againts various decent/good/very good pace attacks??

I think what you are trying to say by typing tons of posts can be summarized as Sehwag is not good when conditions favor pace bowling

You've got it...

arguments used to show that are scorecards

Scorecards, match reports & what i saw on TV.

To be perfectly honest those innings mentioned i saw all of those tests live excpet NZ 2002 (while i saw SA 06/07 on & off)

(even if he scored top scored for Ind in previous two tests, if he happens to score low in a low scoring game (where most scored low) then that's a failure.)

So?. Does it change the FACT that he was exposed technically?. Do you doubt that Sehwag has a weakness to inswinging deliveries?. SJS clearly in his article made this very clear that was an unquestionable technical flaw in his game. So you oughta chill son..

Resort to double standards but when exposed say stuff like oh that was a mistake

Kindly list my double standards, where i was exposed (according to you) & what mistake i ever had to correct in our discussion so far?

But in the end I disagree (as most will).

My intention was never to make you or most agree. I can only state the hardcore facts about Sehwag's career & to date all the Sehwag backers have been found wanting.

SJS in this thread himself accepted these hardcore facts:

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?

Along with senior poster Prince EWS in the Modern-day batsmen & flat pitches thread

I've always been a denier of Sehwag's status as a great batsman. While I acknowledged his ability to score big runs on pitches that don't offer sideways movement for the quicks, I felt he fell short of greatness due to the complete lack of any innings of note on a seamer. In a way my opinion on that still hasn't changed - unlike most who push the case for Sehwag, I'm not going to pretend that he actually has played such an innings by inventing a greentop or citing irrelevant ODI games - my opinion on what Sehwag has done hasn't actually changed. What has changed is my opinion on its context: I'm proposing that given the extreme rarity of such a pitch in international cricket today, the ability to score runs on a greentop is actually largely irrelevant to how effective a batsman is going to be in today's landscape. Pitches around the world are flat in a majority of cases - and when they aren't it's usually because they deteriorate and get uneven later on. Tracks that offer sideways movement for genuine seamers are a rarity outside of South Africa.

The facts againts Sehwag is UNDENIABLE. The new argument being brought up to defend him & all the FTBs of this era now is as Prince EWS so eruditely put it:

To summarise, I've basically come around to face the reality of the fact that scoring runs on flat pitches with clinical efficiency and regularity is what being successful in this decade of batting is all about, and thus batsmen who manage it to such a ridiculously high standard should be shown the respect they deserve as the stars of their era. I'm not saying that we shouldn't look at other factors, of course (pressure situations, good bowling etc), but the flat pitches argument really needs to be taken into better context, particularly when said matches actually have a result

This argument which is understandable, has many flaws & one which really as i keep saying will not be able to hold water if a revival of quality pace attack & better pitches happens in the next decade.

There is a score that you missed where Sehwag failed but I will leave you to do your own research (and if you manage to find that and post it, it will again be refuted as irrelevant) :P

Haa Nah i'm sure i didn't miss any failure under the criteria - runs againts a quality pace attack in bowler friendly conditons.

 

[SJS]

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.

Sorry my dear. I am done.

 

[ret]

@ aussie (since I have some spare time, I will reply to your irrelevant points)

But first let me start with something that I missed reading earlier

Gaekward was better than any opener IND had in the 90s & would have opened for IND in this 2000s era ahead of Jaffer, Das. Surely he must have been good if the IND selectors backed him to open againts the Windies.

That has to be the one of the dumbest thing that I have read. So being better than Jaffar and Das shows that you are a high quality batsmen and if Ind selectors backed him against WI then he must be automatically be good

Now let's look at your other crap

I never said anything about bowlers. I said if there is potential revival in fast bowling in the next decade along with more bowler friendly conditions - to bring back balance between bat & ball even. Then one cannot rate the FTBs of this decade as highly as the potential future dominant batsmen who would play in a era/period where they will score runs under an even combination difficult batting conditons + some roads againts quality pace attacks - rather than on roads 90% of the time.

Now how many times do you have to copy and paste that? And since you are doing that why not copy and paste my answer too i.e. I replied to your Q by drawing parallels with bowling (do you get it or not)

for example:

Aussie: What color is the sky
Ret: It looks like the same color as a Mediterranean Sea
Aussie: I am asking abt the color of the sky. How does Mediterranean Sea come in to this. You don't understand my Q, blah blah

(don't expose your intelligence level, my friend)

Look at Harold Larwood bowler in the 1920s & 1930s bowled on some of the flattest wickets in test history in both county & international cricket & he has batsmen of the era running. He would have been right at home in this 2000s era.

Sure, that's how hypothesis work.

Well yes Lee is better than most Indian bowlers ever produced other than Kapil Dev.

But i'm not sure how you managed to deduce a comparison between this & my point that Gaekward was a good batsman in 83/84 (whether he is rated highly or not) & was good enough to play for IND vs WI back then. Along with the fact that he WAS better than most IND openers in the 90s & early 2000s.

You where the one who said this nonsene:

Not too long ago, wasn't someone trying to show that Gaekwad was high quality as he was possibly better than likes of Das and Jaffar! .... Appears as if you have yet to learn how to prove things by parallels.

From the Gaekwad example that you gave, can we imply the same for Lee that since he was picked to play for Australia and since he was better than blab blah or whatever

(Honestly, your posts don't deserve a response. They are so childish)

As i keep saying PROVE TO ME THAT MCG 2003 wasn't a road. Since i saw the whole test match & i know it was CLEARLY - a road.

Why don't you prove to me that it wasn't a road? What you know is not a creditable point. (Not by saying that Adelaide was a road so Melbourne was a road)

And what's hilarious is that you had B'lore 04 as a pace friendly wkt, counted Nagpur 04 where Sehwag top scored for Ind as his failure and then tried to show that he failed in a low scoring game at Mumbai because he got a low score (The reason it's a low scoring game is because most ppl scored low in it duh)

Let's take that series

B'lore - does as well as some of the others (but that's shown as his failure and that pitch as a pace bowler friendly)
Chennai - hits 150 odd (but shown as a road)
Nagpur - gets most runs for India (but shown as his failure!)
B'bay - gets a low score in a low scoring game but shown as a failure. And fails to take in to account that he got most runs for Ind in previous two test matches so it was time for others to step up unless he is suppose to score in every game he plays (looks like he has to perform like Sir Don)

But what does it tell you in the SAME series where he scored the 254 & 317. When bowler friendly decks later in the series - those SAME bowlers failed him miserably??

So now he had scored 317 and 254 in the same series! I don't think Sehwag ever got 317 and 254 in a SAME series (so as usual you are wrong) .... Anyways, if he did that then he already did his job (that 550 + runs in the series already). What do you expect, he get another ton?!

Whatever man. So you accept now that Adelaide 09 was a flat pitch & IND where never likely to lose that test right?

Why don't you answer that by using your theories (and do the opposite to get your answer)?

What previous test??. Wellington 2002 was the first test match of that 2 -match series sir. Stay focused..

That was quoted wrt Mumbai test! Looks like now you pick anything that's quoted anywhere and take it for anything that you won't to apply against

Just answer the question. How was Sehwag out of form in those failures againts various decent/good/very good pace attacks??

I haven't read all the scorecards as it's a pointless exercise after I invalidated most of your previous scores .... I didn't reply to that question as there was no need to as I had said that in 'some' of the games he was out of form. There was no point in yours trying to pick scores and say 'how was he not in form here' as the correct Q would have been in what games was he out of form. (To me that shows school kids type of manipulative tactics which isn't going to work on me)

Anyways being noble, I will answer to that Q. He was out of form on the trip to SA (after which he was dropped from both tests and ODIs, if I recall correctly). He may have got a big score in last test series but that doesn't reflect how is form had changed (which is why I said you don't know a lot abt what happened in Ind cricket)

My intention was never to make you or most agree. I can only state the hardcore facts about Sehwag's career & to date all the Sehwag backers have been found wanting.

SJS in this thread himself accepted these hardcore facts:

I don't believe in proving to you anything different abt Sehwag. I am only pointing to your inconsistencies, double standards, etc.

I don't know why you are quoting SJS to make your point. The fact is that I was one of those guys who strongly believed that Sehwag should be on selected for the trip to Australia. So I was never like I had to reexamine what Sehwag is doing as I already had faith in Sehwag and was good enough to spot what others are noticing now a long time ago

What others poster think is irrelevant to point being made (and picking out their posts {more precisely lines} from other threads w/o knowing in what context they were made is again one of the ways of trying to mislead others) .... After typing (along with copy and pasting) you haven't managed to prove anything against Sehwag but only showed your double standards, flawed logic, hypothesis, etc

As I said, the more you try to dig a hole for Sehwag, the more you will fall in to it

 

[Shri]

Aussie: What color is the sky
Ret: It looks like the same color as a Mediterranean Sea
Aussie: I am asking abt the color of the sky. How does Mediterranean Sea come in to this. You don't understand my Q, blah blah

 

[honestbharani]

AWTA..

 

[aussie]

That has to be the one of the dumbest thing that I have read. So being better than Jaffar and Das shows that you are a high quality batsmen and if Ind selectors backed him against WI then he must be automatically be good

I never said Gaekwad was a "HIGH QUALITY" batsman nor did i ever suggest because he was backed by the Indian selection at the the time to play agains the WI, that made him "automatically good".

Gaekwad being backed to play againts the West Indies was simply because he possed the ability to play quality pace bowling well - which is clearly highlighted by his cricinfo profile:

Anshuman Gaekwad's scoring range was limited and his batting lacked elegance, but raw courage against pace that he possessed was a precious commodity in Indian cricket, and it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that he made it into the team on that virtue alone. He also had terrific reserves of patience and concentration - he batted 671 minutes for his Test-best 201 against Pakistan at Jalandhar in 1982-83. This was then the slowest double-century in first-class cricket. Gaekwad's guts-and-glory saga reached its peak when, bruised and battered by Michael Holding's modern-day Bodyline in the 1975-76 Jamaica bloodbath, he scored 81, a feat rendered doubly impressive by the fact that it came in an era when there were neither helmets nor restrictions on bouncers. Gaekwad had to have an operation after he was tattooed on the ear by a Holding bouncer that punctured his eardrum. He signed off on a high, with a hundred in his last first-class match and later became a selector and the national coach.

Gaekward was clealry better than Das & Jaffer, since he did fairly well againt quality pace. Jaffer & Das never did.

So overall given that you trying to foolishly play down the achievment of the great West Indies fast bowlers by claiming that the IND batting line-up was not quality - thats is crap. They lost because WI bowlers where great - not even a batting line-up of Dravid/Tendulkar/Ganguly/Laxman would have prevented those WI bowlers from winning in IND.

Now how many times do you have to copy and paste that? And since you are doing that why not copy and paste my answer too i.e. I replied to your Q by drawing parallels with bowling (do you get it or not)

Your replies is nonsense. Lets try this again, but this time louder

YOU CANNOT DRAW A PARALLEL BETWEEN THE GREAT BOWLERS WHO HAD TO BOWL ON THE FLAT PITCHES OF THIS 2000s ERA (for example Glenn McGrath). WITH OTHER GREAT BOWLERS FROM THE 70s, 80s or 90s (for example Lillee, Marshall, Donald) WHO HAD THE LUXURY OF BOWLING ON MORE BOWLER FRIENDLY SUFACES. BECAUSE A GREAT BOWLER FROM ANY PAST ERA WHO HAD THE UNIQUE SKILLS TO BOWL ON FLAT DECKS WOULD HAVE DONE WELL IN THS 2000S ERA ALSO. Do you understand???

for example:

Aussie: What color is the sky
Ret: It looks like the same color as a Mediterranean Sea
Aussie: I am asking abt the color of the sky. How does Mediterranean Sea come in to this. You don't understand my Q, blah blah

(don't expose your intelligence level, my friend)

This is funny, let me do one for you now.

Ret: I'm trying to draw a parallel comparison between a cricket ball & a tennis ball
Aussie: Its not the same thing
Ret: What do you mean its not the same thing?? they are both round, Aussie whats the matter with you cant you put (2+2 together)

...Cant punk me son..Now get back the cricket discussion

Sure, that's how hypothesis work.

So does mean you agree Larwood would have been effective in this 2000s era or not?

Not too long ago, wasn't someone trying to show that Gaekwad was high quality as he was possibly better than likes of Das and Jaffar! .... Appears as if you have yet to learn how to prove things by parallels.

From the Gaekwad example that you gave, can we imply the same for Lee that since he was picked to play for Australia and since he was better than blab blah or whatever

That has to be your favourite word isn't it

But back to point. Again as i showed above I NEVER SAID GAEKWAD WAS HIGH QUALITY. This is just you not knowing how to read & comprehend.

Even if i where to reply to your attempt at comparing when Lee was first picked for AUS & Gaekwad opening vs WI 83/84. I can show your continous foolishness..

Firstly when Lee was first picked vs IND 99/00 he was not better than every other bowler available to AUS at the time. The preferred 3rd seamer to the McGrath/Fleming combination during that 99/00 series - Jason Gillespie was injured & Lee clearly was never a better bowler than him. Plus it can be debated nostalgically if Lee was better than Kasprowicz at the time also.


Gaekward though rather WAS THE BEST option IND had to open with Gavaskar vs WI 83/84 since without question. You oughta stop making these "parallel comparions" of yours since your grasp of cricket history & logic is clearly lacking...

So again you continue to make no cricketening sense..

(Honestly, your posts don't deserve a response. They are so childish)

The only thing childish is your continous use of the word "parallell". Expand your lexican

Why don't you prove to me that it wasn't a road? What you know is not a creditable point. (Not by saying that Adelaide was a road so Melbourne was a road)

Two simple examples why.

- NO bowler in that series on either side excpet for Kumble average less than 30.

- In all COMPLETED innings during that series for both sides, they scored over 300 more than 90% of the time.

If that doesn't convince you that pitches where EXTREMELY batting friendly roads, then nothing ever will.

And what's hilarious is that you had B'lore 04 as a pace friendly wkt,

B'lore - does as well as some of the others (but that's shown as his failure and that pitch as a pace bowler friendly)

counted Nagpur 04 where Sehwag top scored for Ind as his failure
Nagpur - gets most runs for India (but shown as his failure!)

LORD JESUSS...help me . Really your ability in this discussion to read & comprehend what i am saying is shockingly lacking. Even the other IND posters i have deabted who may disagree, at least they understand what i was saying..GEEZ.Read my post relating to these two tests again:

How do you explain these other failures in other bowler friendly conditions vs good/very good/quality pace attack or where a bowler exposed him techincally to inswinging deliveries.

- Wellington 2002

- Bangalore 2004

- Nagpur 04

- Mumbai 04

- Karachi 06

- Entire 05/06 vs ENG

- Kingston 06

- Last 2 tests 06/07 vs SA (which lead to him beign dropped for a whole year for the same technical woes i'm talking about)

- the Ahmedabad & Nagpur tests

So thats 14 failures on bowler friendly tracks vs good/very/good/quality pace attacks in bowler friendly conditons. While 3-5 so called successes that some have claimed (which is totally disagree with). So even then its lopsided.

THE BOLDED was relating to Mumbai & Nagpur (which was a seamer friendly pitch BTW) - which where test matches where he was exposed technically to INSWINGERS by McGrath & Kasper. Do you understand thisss???

I NEVER SAID Bangalore 2004 was a a bowler friendly pitch nor did i descredit his 58 in the second innings @ Nagpur - that would be ludicrous. So dont put words into my mouth...good god. Again it was to highlight tests, where his technique was exposed to INSWINGERS. Do you understand the the difference???

Chennai - hits 150 odd (but shown as a road)

Lets be clear again. I dont discredit Sehwag's innings in Chennai. I rate as his best test innings even above his 317 vs SA. But as i keep telling you the criteria we are looking forward is - RUNS AGAINTS A GOOD/VERY GOOD/QUALITY PACE ATTACK IN BOWLER FRIENDLY CONDITIONS - NOT JUST ON ROADS.

As i showd you before also. Even jokers like:

- Lou Vincent - Perth 2001

- Daren Ganga in back to back test Guyana & Trinidad 2003

- Salman Butt SCG 05.

Have managed to score hundreds againts quality AUS pace attacks on flat decks. Doing well in bowler friendly conditions againts quality pace attacks in bowler friendly is the acid test for any great batsman. Do you understand this now??

]and then tried to show that he failed in a low scoring game at Mumbai because he got a low score (The reason it's a low scoring game is because most ppl scored low in it duh)

B'bay - gets a low score in a low scoring game but shown as a failure. And fails to take in to account that he got most runs for Ind in previous two test matches so it was time for others to step up unless he is suppose to score in every game he plays (looks like he has to perform like Sir Don)

As i said before:

It was indeed difficult batting conditions. But the great IND Tendulkar/Laxam stood up & scored half centuries respectively in the second innings (Dravid's battling 31 in the 1st innings also should be mentioned), while Sehwag failed miserbaly. This pretty much proves my point that only the great batsmen, when conditions get tough, have the ability to stand up. Sehwag didn't have it there & has never shown it in his career to date.

Your excuse that "it was time for the other players to stand up" doesn't make any sense. Since all the other IND batsmen where failing all series, but with series pride on the line & 3-0 series defeat facing them - with the AUS pacers having a extremely bowler friendly pitch - ONLY those GREAT batsman had the technique to even stand up. You need to accept this this hardcore truth...


Would you like me to show you examples in cricket history where in low scoring games, where great pace attacks held the upper hand. Where GREAT batsmen have stood up againts those quality pace attacks??

So now he had scored 317 and 254 in the same series! I don't think Sehwag ever got 317 and 254 in a SAME series (so as usual you are wrong) ....

. Another example of you appauling comprehension skills.

Clearly i was taking about TWO DIFFERENT series:

- vs PAK 05/06 (where he smoekd 254 on an absoulte road in the first test)

- vs SA 08/98 (where he scored the 317)

Then later in those two series when Akhtar/Asif in 05/06 & Steyn/Ntini/Morkel in 08/09 got bowler friendly pitches - Sehwag failed miserably. That clearly proved he is bunny when quality pace attacks get him on bowler friendly decks.

So instead YOU ARE WRONGGG!!!

Why don't you answer that by using your theories (and do the opposite to get your answer)?

lameeee. Awww are you afraid to answer the question because you know i am correct??. Come on show me so more of your "nobleness"

That was quoted wrt Mumbai test! Looks like now you pick anything that's quoted anywhere and take it for anything that you won't to apply against

Nonsense. You are probably forgotten what you have written. This is the quote of yours i responded to b4 you quoted be back there:

There is nothing to say there as the entire batting line up failed. He did get 2 hundreds in the ODIs though, two games that India won.

It was indeed difficult batting conditions. But the great IND batsmen Rahul Dravid & Tendulkar stood up & scored half centuries respectively, while Sehwag failed miserbaly. This pretty much proves my point that only the great batsmen, when conditions get tough, have the ability to stand up. Sehwag didn't have it there & has never shown it in his career to date.

You where clearly talking about the NZ 2002/03 series. Use the quote system like me or esle you wont have this problem..

Anyways being noble, I will answer to that Q. He was out of form on the trip to SA (after which he was dropped from both tests and ODIs, if I recall correctly). He may have got a big score in last test series but that doesn't reflect how is form had changed (which is why I said you don't know a lot abt what happened in Ind cricket)

- Firstly i pretty much see 100% of Indian matches (home series) are shown here in England thanks to Skysports & i have seen the majority of the Sehwag innings i am talking about.

- Secondly its good to see you haven't said that he was out of form vs ENG 05/06 & vs WI 06 (Kingston) when he failed on bowler friendly tracks

- Thirdly WTF is this you Indians are ridiculous. When Ricky Ponting failed MISERABLY in IND in 2001 averaging 12 for the series. The entire cricket world especially you guys hammered hom the point that couldn't play spin. Now when Sehwag averaged 14 in a test series in SA againts SA he was out of from??? GTFOH maynnn

Sehwag failures in SA 06/07 had absolutely NOTHING to do with his form - he was dropped because he was exposed technically. - thus he losted form (not the other way around) & was dropped. The South African's worked him out just like what ENG did in 05/06.

Since his return in Adelaide 09 from the axing. Sehwag has not shown any signs of improving those technicall flaws of the past. The only two times in 2009 that Sehwag encountered a quality pace attack in testing conditions in the final two test of the SA series - he failed the same way as he has always done.

I don't believe in proving to you anything different abt Sehwag. I am only pointing to your inconsistencies, double standards, etc.

I don't know why you are quoting SJS to make your point. The fact is that I was one of those guys who strongly believed that Sehwag should be on selected for the trip to Australia. So I was never like I had to reexamine what Sehwag is doing as I already had faith in Sehwag and was good enough to spot what others are noticing now a long time ago

What others poster think is irrelevant to point being made (and picking out their posts {more precisely lines} from other threads w/o knowing in what context they were made is again one of the ways of trying to mislead others) .... After typing (along with copy and pasting) you haven't managed to prove anything against Sehwag but only showed your double standards, flawed logic, hypothesis, etc

As I said, the more you try to dig a hole for Sehwag, the more you will fall in to it

- Firsltly what others (SJS & PRINCE EWS) much relevance to this argument since they have in those quotes are saying the SAME THING I AM SAYING TO YOU ABOUT SEHWAG. So you cannot say i am being biased towards him, there arguments againts Sehwag lack of runs againts a quality pace attack in testing conditions is a UNDENIABLE FACT.

SJS is not even questioning it, he is attempting to find a new argument to defend Sehwag & the other FTBs of this 2000s era by saying:

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.

Which as i keep saying is slippery slope argument especialy if a revival of quality of fast bowlers & pitches returns int he next decade.

- Secondly how you felt about Sehwag being excluded from the 07/08 AUS tour or your faith in him, is irrelevant. The IND selectors rightly dropped because he ran into a period betwwen 2006-2007 where FOR THE ONE MILLIONTH TIME. He faced a fairly consistent combination of quality pace attacks in testing condtions who exposed him technically. Simple.

- Thirdly there is absolutely no inconsistenties, double standards or flawed logic in my analysis of Sehwag. You saying i have made them doesn't mean its there. List them in detail for me..

The only hole im digging is the one want to throw you in..

 

[ret]

@aussie .... I can't stop laughing at that^ post.

Let's do kindergarten style of explaining

Aussie: What if there is a revival in pace bowling in the next decade, will you rate achievements of batsmen in 2000s with same high regards
Ret: Let's say if a bowler does well in the said batsmen friendly era of 2000s, would he be rated higher than the bowlers of 70s and 80s like Lillee, the WI pace bowlers, Hadlee, etc who bowled in bowling friendly era.

What's implied: No the bowlers of 70s and 80s won't be under-rated. Similarly the batting achievements of those playing in 2000s won't be under-rated too even if their is a revival in pace bowling, pitches or whatever (this is all hypothesis)

What you do: cherry pick WI bowlers achievement against Ind in 70s and 80s and say 'No they did well in India". Now I am not debating that^ (do you get that)

Now what I do is say that's^ good. And put forward a point like 'If WI bowlers achievement against a comparatively weak Indian batting line up is considered good, why is it that achievements of guys like Sehwag against the Aus pace attack of 2004 series under-valued by saying things like McGrath/Warne (who were amongst the top 5 bowlers of their era) didn't play in it. I also suggest that since guys like Ponting never get to play McGrath/Warne (for no fault of theirs) do we under-estimate their runs (thus implying that achievements of guy like Sehwag shouldn't be under - estimated either because if McGrath/Warne didn't play it's not his fault)

What you do: Try to prove that Ind batting line up was not weak, that Gaekwad and Sharma are highly rated. Gaewkad was not bad because he was better than Jaffar and Das and since Ind selectors showed confidence in him. The Aus bowling of 2004 was weak because it didn't have McGrath/Warne, which is all that matters!


What I say is that being better than Jaffar and Das and being selected by Ind selectors doesn't mean that you are high quality (which is what is being discussed). And these guys are not even amongst the top 5 of their era so it's not like WI bowlers are bowling to a line up with some all time players in it. (Similarly, the Ind batting of 2004 is playing against a good bowling line up (not extra high quality)

In equation: Great WI bowling vs good Indian line up
In equation: Great Ind batting vs good Aus bowling line up

What you do: Write a post (copy and pasting what you have written before and what's been addressed to) saying how good Gaekwad was, and that you didn't suggest that he is automatically good if Ind selectors selected him, etc

What I say is why not use the same argument for Aus bowlers of 2004 series, i.e. Lee was selected because he was better than whoever and that since Aus selectors selected him then .....


What you do: Gaekwad was this, post the profile of Gaekwad, etc


And then you write this

YOU CANNOT DRAW A PARALLEL BETWEEN THE GREAT BOWLERS WHO HAD TO BOWL ON THE FLAT PITCHES OF THIS 2000s ERA (for example Glenn McGrath). WITH OTHER GREAT BOWLERS FROM THE 70s, 80s or 90s (for example Lillee, Marshall, Donald) WHO HAD THE LUXURY OF BOWLING ON MORE BOWLER FRIENDLY SUFACES. BECAUSE A GREAT BOWLER FROM ANY PAST ERA WHO HAD THE UNIQUE SKILLS TO BOWL ON FLAT DECKS WOULD HAVE DONE WELL IN THS 2000S ERA ALSO. Do you understand???

So then what's the point in asking 'how would you rate the batsmen of 2000s if their is a bowling revival in future? Which is my point of explaining by drawing parallels duh (something you never understood). That's why I said all your points are pointless as by debating against me on bowling front you are giving points against your stand on batting front (which is what I am debating against)

And with such arguments (and a lack of understanding), you will have to keep digging a hole for your life time to put me in to it, kid

case closed