Bradman to Sehwag - Redefining Great Batsmanship Through Defying Tradition

[aussie]

The case still open, get back to your seat..

@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)

FOR THE ONE MILLIONTH TIME, ITS AN INCORRECT HYPOTHESIS. The batsmen of this 2000s era cannot be rated as highly as future batsmen who may possibly play in a more bowler freindly era because:


- 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. Dou you undestand thiss???

- The game of cricket generally has always been in the batsman favour - especially right now?. Do you believe this to be true??

- 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

- Theirfore the batsmen who average would average 50+ will only be the UPPER ECHELON of batsman & not every batsman who hits a purple patch in the next potential era, because they who would have to face a revivied set of quality fast bowling attacks & a more even combination of bowler friendly pitches + roads will an average only achieved be the upper echelon of batsman, because bowling standards will be higher. Do you understand this??

Would you like me to go through with you in DETAIL from the 70s & 80s & 90s compared to this 2000s, how many batsmen averaged 50+ now compared to back then??. Since such a comparison willl finally end this debate

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)

No sir. I did not cherry pick anything, me saying that THE FIRST TIME we had this debate, was a response to SPECIFIC PORTION OF YOUR FIRST POST where you said this nonsesne:

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!

WHICH I KEEP TRYING TO GET THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL. That this is does not make sense in cricketening terms because a great bowler from any past era WOULD HAVE BEEN EFFECTIVE IF THEY PLAYED IN THIS 2000s ERA.

So there is no reason to state that "a good bowling performance NOW IN THIS BATTING FRIENDLY ERA" wont donwgrade bowling performances of those past era". Thats not apples to apples.

If you want to compare across era's it has be of a similar standard of difficulty in for the batsmen, for example the 70s & the 90s. This 2000s era of flat decks & lack of quality pace attacks is comparable to the 1920 & 1930s in cricket history.

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!

My god....what utter rubbish.

- Firstly what was the 1983/84 Indian batting line-up "comparatively weak" compared to?. If you suggesting it weaker the recent Indian batting line-ups than have consistent of Dravid/Tendulkar/Ganguly/Laxman - well of course it is.

But if the Dravid/Tendulkar/Ganguly/Laxman combination where to in IND to a great AUS bowling attack of McGrath/Dizzy/Kasper/Warne & South African bowling attacks consisting of Donald/Pollock/Kallis/Klusener - who where both less superior to the great WI pace attacks of Marshall/Holding/Roberts/Daniel/Davis who won in IND 1983/84. Do you some how believe that the great WI pace attack would have struggled to win in IND if they had to bowl to Dravid/Tendulkar/Ganguly/Laxman???



- Secondly yes Sehwag performances againts the AUS attack without McGrath & Warne will be under-rated in that series, just like everyone who did well againts AUS during the glory years without McGrath & Warne playing, since thats how it works.

Its just like if a team won in IND & Harbhajan & Kumble weren't playing. Would you rate the performances of that team highly??



Do you know whats Rahul Dravid's record vs AUS without McGrath & Warne playing. Overall he averages 41 againts AUS which is solid. But if you take out the two legends its just a decent35.


- Thirdly yes you can't under-rate Ponting or no batsman because he didn't get to face his own great attack because its irrelevant. All you can is judge them based on how they performed againts opposition good/great attacks.

In Ponting case in comparison to Sehwag he has scored runs in all conditions especially under the criteria "runs againts quality pace attacks in testing conditions". So they is NO question about his greatness. Sehwag to date has failed to do so - thus is still a FTB. Simple.

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)

Again I DID NOT SAY GAEKWARD WAS HIGH QUALITY - GOOD GOD. Stop trying to put words into my mouthhhhh!!!

Again stop trying to downplay the achievements of the West Indies pace attack. The IND batting lineup then was still good enough then from preventing AUS from winning in IND for over 35 bloody years. Even if the IND batting-lineup as i told you above was Dravid/Tendulkar/Ganguly/Laxamn they still would have come out second best to that Windies attack. So clear these cob-webs out of your mind.

In equation: Great WI bowling vs good Indian line up

Errr. FOR THE ONE MILLIONTH TIME. STOP DOWNPLAYING THE ACHIEVMENTS OF THE GREAT WEST INDIES PACE ATTACK. My god what utter disrespect to those great bowlers..

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

No poor AUS bowling. The 2003/04 consistented of:

- Lee who was a poor test bowler at the time. Who had no skills to bowl on flat pitches

- An injured Gillespie, who was below his best in that series

- A avergae bowler in Andy Bichel

- Test failures like Bracken & Williams

- MacGill although a good spinner. Was a proven failure againts quality players of spin

That series was the WORST AUS attack during the glory years of 1995 to 2006/07 (second to the AUS attack to IND 98). Do you understand thisss???

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

WELL THANK GODDDD, you have understood SOMETHING I HAVE SAID CORRECTLY in which i clearly stated that Gaekward selection didn't make him automatically good.

What you do: Gaekwad was this, post the profile of Gaekwad, etc [/COLOR]

Well of course you will be confused, because its is another stupid comparison of yours. You are the one who was saying Gaekwad was not rated highly in IND, his profile discredits thats point & why he was good enough to play againts IND.

Lee was selected againts IND 04 for the ONE MILLIONTH TIME NOT BECAUSE HE WAS THE BEST OPTION AVAILABLE. It was because Mcgrath was INJUREDDD!!!. Plus for those who know Australian cricket & followed that series one could argue nostalgically again player like Kasprowicz & Mike Innes at the time could have played ahead of Lee.

Was any better opener in that 1983/84 series injured that Gaekwad was keeping out?? NOOOOOO

And then you write this


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)

. That favourite word of yours. As i told you before your parallel comparison does not MAKE ANY CRICKET SENSE.

You seem to have misinterpreted me all along i never suggested "how you would rate rate batsmen of this "2000s" era which is 2000 to 2009. I am talking about the NEXT DECADE which would be be 2010 to 2019

So again i am suggesting if this bowling revival & even combination of roads + bowler friendly pitches returns in the NEXT DECADE of 2010 to 2019 to the standard close to the 70s, 80s & 90s. The FTBs of this era cannot be rated highly. Do you FINALLLY understand this?????

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

Nah i have stop digging the hole, i'm just going to now dig up the soil & throw it in your face

 

[Shri]

And why exactly have you been basing your points on something that may or may not happen in the future? We might get hit by an asteroid for all we know tomorrow. When you are predicting something don't use words like 'facts' ffs.

And, you asked if we would still hold Sehwag in high esteem if there is a bowling revival in the next decade? Yes, if he ends his test career with a strike rate greater than 99.94. Show us 5 batsmen in the history of the who have hit 300s at more than a run a ball. kthxbye.

 

[aussie]

And why exactly have you been basing your points on something that may or may not happen in the future? We might get hit by an asteroid for all we know tomorrow. When you are predicting something don't use words like 'facts' ffs.

Clownford i never used the word "facts" to say what may happen in 2010-2019. It was as much of a prediction as SJS & Prince EWS claiming that "the game is definately changing", thus we need to start accepting what FTBs are doing/have been doing in this 2000s". But no one wants to question that theory because SJS said it & all want to turn a blind-eye to Sehwag's failures.

And, you asked if we would still hold Sehwag in high esteem if there is a bowling revival in the next decade? Yes, if he ends his test career with a strike rate greater than 99.94.

His SR is higly irrelevant in test cricket. So i dont know what relevance bringing it up will prove.

Unless you are suggesting you rate a batsman who has SR of 99.94 in tests but who is failure againts quality pace attacks in testing conditions. Over a batsman like Dravid with a SR of 42 who is proven in the aformentioned conditons.

Show us 5 batsmen in the history of the who have hit 300s at more than a run a ball. kthxbye.

I can give you two i think. Walter Hammond vs NZ 1932. Whats different with Sehwag 317 is fairly obvious..

I dont doubt not should anyone doubt Sehwag's unique ability to smoke an attack at rate when he gets conditions perfectly in his favour. But he has never smoked a very good attack in helpful conditions, he has rather failed miserably when very good pace attacks get him in bowler friendly conditions.

You want an example of a batsman smoking a excellent/great pace attack at more than run a ball in testing conditions - see Roy Fredericks Perth 1976. Let Sehwag smoke a great attack in helpul conditions like when he scored his 317 & 254 then he will be considered a great, until then he remains the ultimate FTB of this era.

Again i say lets how he goes when Steyn & co go to IND next year..

 

[ret]

@aussie .... Stop acting like a sore loser

Also let's make a few things clear
1. Shouting that it's not parallel isn't going to make it not parallel (because it is. it's you who can't see it)
2. Writing the same stuff again and again, isn't going to help your cause. Writing new stuff moves things forward
3. It's been showen that Sehwag has scored runs in all conditions (it's you who isn't accepting it)
4. Sehwag's problem with in-swinger is fine as long as he gets a good score before getting out. It's not an issue (so stop trying to make one unless every other batsmen is perfect). If you think it's something that shows that he is a bad player then bet your house on Sehwag getting out to an inswinger in the next game
5. It's the selectors that select a team (so there is no point in writing stuff like since Indian selectors selected him ) .... And even my dog plays better than Jaffar and Das but I don't think he is high quality (by HQ we are talking abt batsmen who average around 50)
6. Cricinfo's profile will not say any bad points abt a player so it's childish to post the profile from cricinfo to say that look cricinfo profile says this abt him
7. A hypothesis is correct or incorrect based on my opinion. So stop trying to shout at the top of your lungs what it is. It's not going to change anyone's opinion
8. You don't judge what makes cricketing sense
9. Undertsnad what's being implied about Ponting and McGrath/Warne
10. And since you can't come up with new stuff, keep writing things that have been addressed (and explained) as if they haven't shows who has been buried

Rest in peace!


Case closed


PS

Originally Posted by ret
Show us 5 batsmen in the history of the who have hit 300s at more than a run a ball. kthxbye.

11. And I haven't written that^ so stop making up quotes like a scumbag

 

[aussie]

No man the case aint close son..

Also let's make a few things clear
1. Shouting that it's not parallel isn't going to make it not parallel (because it is. it's you who can't see it)

No the parallel's you have dedcued not make sense. I have to write in bold since you clearly you not comprehending my post properly & are thus confusing this entire discussion.

2. Writing the same stuff again and again, isn't going to help your cause. Writing new stuff moves things forward

It can only move forward if what i've been written before is understood CLEARLY instead is misunderstood. Which in your case i have to keep repeating the same stuff, because you are continously fabricating my posts. I have had debates with Sehwag addressing these points with others poster before & evn if they didn't agree i didn't have have to repeat one point 20 TIMESSS

3. It's been showen that Sehwag has scored runs in all conditions (it's you who isn't accepting it)

Well please list the runs then?? Especially under the criteria "hundreds a againts good/very good/quality pace attack in bowler friendly conditons???

4. Sehwag's problem with in-swinger is fine as long as he gets a good score before getting out. It's not an issue (so stop trying to make one unless every other batsmen is perfect). If you think it's something that shows that he is a bad player then bet your house on Sehwag getting out to an inswinger in the next game

- Firstly all batsmen have technical flaws of course, no one is perfect. But the batsmen who have the LEAST technical flaws (for example Tendulkar) is always likely to be able to succeed in pace bowler friendly conditions - more often than a batsman lik Sehwag who has many technical flaws.

- Secondly i would bet my house on him getting out the an inswinger in the next test series Sehwag plays againts a bowler capable of exposing him there. Which would be when South Africa tour India next year..

5. It's the selectors that select a team (so there is no point in writing stuff like since Indian selectors selected him ) .... And even my dog plays better than Jaffar and Das but I don't think he is high quality (by HQ we are talking abt batsmen who average around 50)

. Answer the question i asked & stop talking nonsense. Do you some how believe that the great WI pace attack would have struggled to win in IND if they had to bowl to Dravid/Tendulkar/Ganguly/Laxman???.

Since you seem to believe that the IND 83/84 batting line-up was weak..

6. Cricinfo's profile will not say any bad points abt a player so it's childish to post the profile from cricinfo to say that look cricinfo profile says this abt him

. You really dont want me to go through circinfo profiles & FIND THEM ridiculing a player to some degree. So i suggest you rethink this post very carefully and come again..

7. A hypothesis is correct or incorrect based on my opinion. So stop trying to shout at the top of your lungs what it is. It's not going to change anyone's opinion

No i shouting as i said before, because you are fabricating my posts.

8. You don't judge what makes cricketing sense

Of course i dont. But as this debate as gone on it fairly clear i have most of my point still stand. You where saying stuff like:

- Sehwag was out of from vs ENG 05/06 & SA 06/07 when he failed againts those sides. Before i corrected you.

- You where denying he had a problem againts inswingers, now you admit it he deos.

- You where denying MCG 2003 wasn't a flat pitch before i corrected you

- You claimed that Ind somehow would have lost that Adelaide 09 tests. Before i corrected you

- You called the AUS attack in the 03/04 series vs IND a good attack. Before i corrected you

Nothing i have said you have been able to descredit..

9. Undertsnad what's being implied about Ponting and McGrath/Warne

I understand that what you implied about Ponting & McGrath/Warne is nonsense.

As i asked you before, since you where foolishly claiming that because Sehwag didn't face McGrath/Warne its not his fault. Would you rate a series win by an opposition in IND highly if Kumble/Harbhajan weren't in the team?

11. And I haven't written that^ so stop making up quotes like a scumbag

. Yes my apologies for misquoting you sir....OH WAITTT

And why exactly have you been basing your points on something that may or may not happen in the future? We might get hit by an asteroid for all we know tomorrow. When you are predicting something don't use words like 'facts' ffs.

And, you asked if we would still hold Sehwag in high esteem if there is a bowling revival in the next decade? Yes, if he ends his test career with a strike rate greater than 99.94. Show us 5 batsmen in the history of the who have hit 300s at more than a run a ball. kthxbye.

. I aint tell you that you can't read

 

[ret]

@aussie ... ah ha so you still want to try your luck!

Well please list the runs then?? Especially under the criteria "hundreds a againts good/very good/quality pace attack in bowler friendly conditons???

Already listed that (proves my point by listing things again and again)

- Firstly all batsmen have technical flaws of course, no one is perfect. But the batsmen who have the LEAST technical flaws (for example Tendulkar) is always likely to be able to succeed in pace bowler friendly conditions - more often than a batsman lik Sehwag who has many technical flaws.

- Secondly i would bet my house on him getting out the an inswinger in the next test series Sehwag plays againts a bowler capable of exposing him there. Which would be when South Africa tour India next year..

And today is Dec 22, 2009 (atlest here in canada) .... the point is despite his technical flaws, he is a good player and can do well in most conditions

And let us know on which inning you are placing the bet

Answer the question i asked & stop talking nonsense. Do you some how believe that the great WI pace attack would have struggled to win in IND if they had to bowl to Dravid/Tendulkar/Ganguly/Laxman???.

Since you seem to believe that the IND 83/84 batting line-up was weak..

No, I don't think that the WI line up would have struggled (which is exactly my point duh). Similarly, I don't think that ppl like Sehwag or Ponting would struggle too if they are playing in a bowling friendly era .... I can't put it simply than this (which is the point of making parallels)

- Sehwag was out of from vs ENG 05/06 & SA 06/07 when he failed againts those sides. Before i corrected you.

Quote me where I said Sehwag was out of form against Eng. (This again shows how you make stuff up) I had said that w/o going through those scorecards that in some of those games he was out of form (how does some apply Eng in particular beats me) as I invalidated your earlier claims so there was no need to look in to that

- You where denying he had a problem againts inswingers, now you admit it he deos.

Where did I deny or accept that?

- You where denying MCG 2003 wasn't a flat pitch before i corrected you

and where have I said that MCG was a flat pitch

- You claimed that Ind somehow would have lost that Adelaide 09 tests. Before i corrected you

I said he helped Ind save the game.

- You called the AUS attack in the 03/04 series vs IND a good attack. Before i corrected you
I still think that it's a good attack

Nothing i have said you have been able to descredit.
keep dreaming
.

My quotes are in red .... nice imagination (just shows how wrong you are). That you had to resort to twisting things shows your desperation

I understand that what you implied about Ponting & McGrath/Warne is nonsense.

As i asked you before, since you where foolishly claiming that because Sehwag didn't face McGrath/Warne its not his fault. Would you rate a series win by an opposition in IND highly if Kumble/Harbhajan weren't in the team?

Yes, i would rate an opposition win over Ind even if Kumble and Bhajji are not in the team

[Yes my apologies for misquoting you sir....OH WAITTT

Quote:
Originally Posted by metallics2006
And why exactly have you been basing your points on something that may or may not happen in the future? We might get hit by an asteroid for all we know tomorrow. When you are predicting something don't use words like 'facts' ffs.

And, you asked if we would still hold Sehwag in high esteem if there is a bowling revival in the next decade? Yes, if he ends his test career with a strike rate greater than 99.94. Show us 5 batsmen in the history of the who have hit 300s at more than a run a ball. kthxbye.

I aint tell you that you can't read /QUOTE]

And you think you made a point? .... read the quote, you replied that too. You have 'originally posted by ret' in there (and my comment was directed to that and it's clearly laid out in my previous post)

Thanks for showing how wrong you were, now you can pack your bag and get in to the school bus

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Aussie - Sehwag cannot score runs against good attacks

Me - Chennai, Blomfontein, Adelaide, MCG, Galle etc

Aussie - Those were flat pitches. Scoring runs against great bowlers on flat pitches isn't a big deal


Then in another thread

Aussie - Great bowlers can take wickets on any surface.





Aussie is the best poster on here. He says something and contradicts himself in some other thread/post. When you point it out, he claims that it is off topic and that we have no answer to his points

 

[aussie]

Another one from the circus has arrived..

Aussie - Sehwag cannot score runs against good attacks

Me - Chennai, Blomfontein, Adelaide, MCG, Galle etc

Aussie - Those were flat pitches. Scoring runs against great bowlers on flat pitches isn't a big deal.

Yes because even Salman Butt, Lou Vincent & Daren Ganga have scored hundreds againts very good AUS attacks on flat pitches.

Plus again Galle 2008 is irrelevant since we are not discussing Sehwag's ability againts spinners.

Also to consider Bloemfontein 2001 as a good SA attack, is very inaccurate. A good SA attack which Sehwag failed againts was 2006/07 where he averaged 14 for the series.

Then in another thread

Aussie - Great bowlers can take wickets on any surface.

Indeed, but i dont know how you manage to deduce a contradiction on my part here. As i showed above many average batsmen + very good have scored runs againts good/very good pace attacks on flat pitches. But only the upper echelon of great batsman will be able to score runs againts those some good/great pace attacks in bowler friendly conditions.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Just got this about Sehwag's century in South Africa :

The pitch, relaid not many months earlier, was liberally grassed. It was not fast but initially provided bounce and lateral movement.

Wisden - South Africa v India

I am not going to bother going through any of the other reports. Aussie will just keep making farcical arguments. Australia were bowled out in 70 overs on a first day pitch and Sehwag scores a blistering century against Warne and McGrath and the pitch is called flat

Apparently Indian pitches or for that matter all pitches become flat when Sehwag are batting and become minefields when India bowl

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Darren Ganga average 25 Lou Vincent average 34 Salman Butt average 28

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Also to consider Bloemfontein 2001 as a good SA attack, is very inaccurate. A good SA attack which Sehwag failed againts was 2006/07 where he averaged 14 for the series.
.

How is an attack consisting of Pollock, Ntini, Kallis, Klusener and Hayward bad ? Are you kidding ? Don't give me this crap about them being past their peak or some rubbish like that. Sehwag was playing his debut test for god's sake. Moreover the pitch was doing something

 

[aussie]

Already listed that (proves my point by listing things again and again)

Mann stop crying. Just list the innings under that criteria please. Thank you.

And today is Dec 22, 2009 (atlest here in canada) .... the point is despite his technical flaws, he is a good player and can do well in most conditions

If he can is your hope/opinion. What he has shown so far is a consistent failure againts quality pace attakcs in testing conditions.

Again stop running from the question. Do you agree that a batsman with the least technical flaws in his game is more likely to be able counter a quality pace attack in bowler friendly conditions - much better than a batsman with many technical flaws??

And let us know on which inning you are placing the bet

When South Africa tour India next year. Presuming that Steyn (who has failed him in the past) tours.

No, I don't think that the WI line up would have struggled (which is exactly my point duh).

Similarly, I don't think that ppl like Sehwag or Ponting would struggle too if they are playing in a bowling friendly era .... I can't put it simply than this (which is the point of making parallels)

Again you cannot comapre Ponting & Sehwag output againts in bowler friendly vs good/very good pace attacks are out crazy???

Ponting is is one of the FEW batsmen in this batitng friendly era along with Dravid, KP etc who where the FEW TIMES they have encounterd bowler friendly conditions againts quality pace attacks. While Sehwag HAS NOT..

Quote me where I said Sehwag was out of form against Eng. (This again shows how you make stuff up) I had said that w/o going through those scorecards that in some of those games he was out of form (how does some apply Eng in particular beats me) as I invalidated your earlier claims so there was no need to look in to that

Fine:

[Ouote= ret] 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[/quote]

This was after the post where i gave those examples of matches where he was exposed.

But even if you say you didn't. Yo admit now that the England in 05/06 (mainly Hoggard) FAILED him instead of him being out of form??

Where did I deny or accept that?

Didn't you just say:

4. Sehwag's problem with in-swinger is fine as long as he gets a good score before getting out. It's not an issue (so stop trying to make one unless every other batsmen is perfect). If you think it's something that shows that he is a bad player then bet your house on Sehwag getting out to an inswinger in the next game

Stay focused uncle...

I said he helped Ind save the game...

No you called it a 4h innings chase & (when it was only 2 innings of the match where completed) & a "difficult conditions".

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

When in fact IND where never under any serious pressure to lose that test - even though Sehwag's innings did indeed help, then i had to correct you:

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.

I still think that it's a good attack

Well if you consider that AUS attack in that 03/04 series good. Then you clearly know nothing about AUS crciket & about the form of those bowlers at that time. Since this is a ridiculous statement...

Yes, i would rate an opposition win over Ind even if Kumble and Bhajji are not in the team

. Haaaa so if a team won in IND in the 90s with a spin attack of Sunil Johsi & Ashish Kappor without Kumble (INDIA'S greatest ever matchwinner) & Harbhajan. You are going rate that performance just a highly. MY GOD, you have proven with this position of yours that your cricket logic is shockingly poor..

My quotes are in red .... nice imagination (just shows how wrong you are). That you had to resort to twisting things shows your desperation

LOL . More like exhaustion...

And you think you made a point? .... read the quote, you replied that too. You have 'originally posted by ret' in there (and my comment was directed to that and it's clearly laid out in my previous post)

Thanks for showing how wrong you were, now you can pack your bag and get in to the school bus

. No it was clearly a error by me in which i typed in your name instead of metallic. If you weren't so touchy you would have realiSed that it was simple mistake & overlooked IT. If i had to highlight all your spelling mistakes & misquoted phrases in our discussion i dont think we would have gone this far by now...

 

[aussie]

I am not going to bother going through any of the other reports. Aussie will just keep making farcical arguments. Australia were bowled out in 70 overs on a first day pitch and Sehwag scores a blistering century against Warne and McGrath and the pitch is called flat

Apparently Indian pitches or for that matter all pitches become flat when Sehwag are batting and become minefields when India bowl h34r:

Yes that is indeed what happend in the Chennai test if you consider that the Chennai test aided the fast bowler in any way that you are out of your mind. I saw the entire match live with great detail & thats clearly what occured..

But as i've always said i rate that 155 as Sehwag's best test innings IMO, its just want to see score a hundred vs a quality pace attack when the conditions are bowler freindly - not just when its flat. Which do date he has NOT.

Darren Ganga average 25 Lou Vincent average 34 Salman Butt average 28

Yes & they scored hundreds on roads againts very good AUS pace attacks etc just like Sehwag & failed againts those same bowler in bowler friendly conditions just like Sehwag. So basically Sehwag scoring a hundred vs AUS on road is not an impossible achievement since joke players have done it as well.

So theirfore do you understand why to be considered GREAT batsman is to score runs againts quality pace attacks in bowler friendly conditions & not just on roads.

How is an attack consisting of Pollock, Ntini, Kallis, Klusener and Hayward bad ? Are you kidding ? Don't give me this crap about them being past their peak or some rubbish like that.

Those ARE THE FACTS. You could chose not to accept it if you want.

Pollock was the only good bowler that time in that line-up

- If you know anything about SA cricket you would know Ntini was a poor bowler & didn't peak until 2005.

- Hayward was raw just like M Morkel now & was not very effective despite looking dangerous. Check what AUS did to in when SA toured AUS just a few months after the 2001 series with IND.

- Klusener was bowling off-cutters from a short run up then. He was not the same Klusener he took 8/64 vs IND in 1996.

- Kallis IMO was passed his peak as a bowler by the 2001 series. Since when he toured AUS in 2001/02 after that IND tour, he was very average againts AUS batsmen.

Sehwag was playing his debut test for god's sake. Moreover the pitch was doing something

Why should he get a pass for scoring a hundred on his debut??. Alot of players have had great debuts & haven't kicked on..

I saw highlights of that Bloemfontein test (given i never saw that match live) which only covered the Sehwag/Tendulkar partnership i saw no seam movement, plus it was a average SA attack.

That partnership is similar to the Tendy/Azharuddin partnership vs SA in Capetown 96/97. Now that was testing pitch & a very good SA attack. The 2001 attack was not.

Plus it is very possible that any probable movement that was their would have been less when he got the crease & probably decreased rapidly as the day & test progressed since he didn't open on his debut. This is not strange in tests see AUS & ENGs respective first innings in Barbados 98 & 99.


But as i've argued before regarding that Bloemfontein i disagree totally with those who think it was a good SA attack or helpul conditions. Why don't you explain to me his failures in his second tour SA 06/07 when he averaged 14 if he was so good in South African conditions??.

 

[ret]

Mann stop crying. Just list the innings under that criteria please. Thank you.


The point is that I can't be doing that again and again



Again stop running from the question. Do you agree that a batsman with the least technical flaws in his game is more likely to be able counter a quality pace attack in bowler friendly conditions - much better than a batsman with many technical flaws??

And what has this got to do with the discussion? If you are trying to show that Sehwag has more technical flaws then it becomes a subjective issue as technique and defination of good technique can change. Playing new ball in early morning with bowlers fresh is usually a challenge no matter where you play and Sehwag has done that successfully, whcih is what counts

And let us know on which inning you are placing the bet

When South Africa tour India next year. Presuming that Steyn (who has failed him in the past) tours.

Which inning of which test? (you have to be specific)



Again you cannot comapre Ponting & Sehwag output againts in bowler friendly vs good/very good pace attacks are out crazy???

Ponting is is one of the FEW batsmen in this batitng friendly era along with Dravid, KP etc who where the FEW TIMES they have encounterd bowler friendly conditions againts quality pace attacks. While Sehwag HAS NOT..

you should have added "in my opinion" to that^


Fine:

[Ouote= ret] 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

This was after the post where i gave those examples of matches where he was exposed.

But even if you say you didn't. Yo admit now that the England in 05/06 (mainly Hoggard) FAILED him instead of him being out of form??


Neither do I admit or deny it as I don't have enough recollection of that series but iirc that was a period where he wasn't at his best (but he still managed to get a couple of big scores) which led to him getting dropped


Didn't you just say:




Stay focused uncle...

It should have been 'even if Sehwag had a' .... But yeah I can't expect you to see it in that way so yeah I should have written that correctly

No you called it a 4h innings chase & (when it was only 2 innings of the match where completed) & a "difficult conditions".



When in fact IND where never under any serious pressure to lose that test - even though Sehwag's innings did indeed help, then i had to correct you:



So? Makes a big differece to your case (shows your desperation to me when you go for looking for points like that) .... and correct me, oh yeah


Well if you consider that AUS attack in that 03/04 series good. Then you clearly know nothing about AUS crciket & about the form of those bowlers at that time. Since this is a ridiculous statement...

again you should add "in my opinion" to that


. Haaaa so if a team won in IND in the 90s with a spin attack of Sunil Johsi & Ashish Kappor without Kumble (INDIA'S greatest ever matchwinner) & Harbhajan. You are going rate that performance just a highly. MY GOD, you have proven with this position of yours that your cricket logic is shockingly poor..

what a point to make .... so if i give credit to the opposition then my logic is shockingly poor!


My quotes are in red .... nice imagination (just shows how wrong you are). That you had to resort to twisting things shows your desperation

LOL . More like exhuastion...

put whatever you want as a cause for your loss, I don't worry abt petty stuff


. No it was clearly a error by me in which i typed in your name instead of metallic. If you weren't so touchy you would have realiSed that it was simple mistake & overlooked IT. If i had to highlight all your spelling mistakes & misquoted phrases in our discussion i dont think we would have gone this far by now...

point taken

my responses are in blue in the above quote

 

[ret]

BTW, we have to understand that no matter what the pitch is batting in the first hour facing the new ball when bowlers are fresh usually presents a challenge to the batsmen .... That's why opening the batting in itself is a tough job .... As they say give the first hour to the bowlers

 

[Shri]

Clownford i never used the word "facts" to say what may happen in 2010-2019. It was as much of a prediction as SJS & Prince EWS claiming that "the game is definately changing", thus we need to start accepting what FTBs are doing/have been doing in this 2000s". But no one wants to question that theory because SJS said it & all want to turn a blind-eye to Sehwag's failures.

Thats because everybody accepts that he is a ftb sissypants. Just stop posting already. CC it seems is way over your head.

His SR is higly irrelevant in test cricket. So i dont know what relevance bringing it up will prove.

Unless you are suggesting you rate a batsman who has SR of 99.94 in tests but who is failure againts quality pace attacks in testing conditions. Over a batsman like Dravid with a SR of 42 who is proven in the aformentioned conditons.

I might well rate him higher than Dravid(as a ftb) in the future. Dravid is good and all that shiz when the side is knee deep in cow dung but isn't as useful in batsmen friendly places where scoring quickly gives the side a chance and time to bowl the opposition out. Just friggin' understand that everybody accepts that Sehwag is a ftb. I am just saying there is no better ftb than him playing tests today.

I can give you two i think. Walter Hammond vs NZ 1932. Whats different with Sehwag 317 is fairly obvious..

Okay. So you can name just 2 in the HISTORY OF THE GAME right from when it started? Nobody did what Sehwag did in the 30s or other batting friendly eras? Thank you for pointing that out.

I dont doubt not should anyone doubt Sehwag's unique ability to smoke an attack at rate when he gets conditions perfectly in his favour.

Thats what I have been saying sissypants, later.

But he has never smoked a very good attack in helpful conditions, he has rather failed miserably when very good pace attacks get him in bowler friendly conditions.

You want an example of a batsman smoking a excellent/great pace attack at more than run a ball in testing conditions - see Roy Fredericks Perth 1976. Let Sehwag smoke a great attack in helpul conditions like when he scored his 317 & 254 then he will be considered a great, until then he remains the ultimate FTB of this era.

I don't believe this ****. I don't understand wether you are agreeing with me or arguing with me.

 

[honestbharani]

aussie is Shane Watson...

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Pollock was the only good bowler that time in that line-up

- If you know anything about SA cricket you would know Ntini was a poor bowler & didn't peak until 2005.

- Hayward was raw just like M Morkel now & was not very effective despite looking dangerous. Check what AUS did to in when SA toured AUS just a few months after the 2001 series with IND.

- Klusener was bowling off-cutters from a short run up then. He was not the same Klusener he took 8/64 vs IND in 1996.

- Kallis IMO was passed his peak as a bowler by the 2001 series. Since when he toured AUS in 2001/02 after that IND tour, he was very average againts AUS batsmen.



Why should he get a pass for scoring a hundred on his debut??. Alot of players have had great debuts & haven't kicked on..

More crap. A Pollock, Ntini, Hayward, Klusener, Kallis attack is very good if not great. Any innings can be discredited by saying he was past his peak, the umpire was biased, aussie was dancing in the crowd distracting the bowler etc

Your logic is baffling. On one hand you vehemently argue that the bowlers were all either past their peaks or not peaked yet, and yet you expect Sehwag to have peaked in his first innings

Is Azhar Mahmood a great batsman ? He scored 2 centuries in South Africa against Donald and Pollock with an average of 60+ from memory.


No one's claiming that Sehwag has succeeded each and everytime when confronted with bowling friendly pitches. He has failed a few times just like every other batsman But he has also succeeded a fair few times and saying he didn't is just plain ignorance.

 

[ret]

in short, Sehwag appears to be on his way to be the new .... he also seems to be approaching his peak, while some of the others appear to be past their peaks (but still good enough) or look like relics (when they bat as if it's 1980s-1990s)

 

[GIMH]

I can't believe a very good piece like SJS's has produced whatever the hell I've just scrolled through is. Please let it go, it's painful.