Which is it aussie? Do the batsmen/bowlers from strong bowling/batting sides get a break from not having to face their own team mates or not?
Oh now i get what you meant by the
skills of your own team mates be damned. Overall yes as i said then, its irrelevant since it will never happen thus there is no reason to dwell on it.
The most you can do is judge Ponting on runs he made againts opposition quality pace attacks & judge him based on that.
So either Ponting does get a break wrt Sehwag from not having had to face McGrath & co in the same conditions,
Not sure what you mean here especially with the 'wrt' phrase..
or Kumble > Warne since he's outbowled Warne when they've played in the same tests. I'm just taking your logic to the extreme in a different situation.
The argument for judging whether a batsman is good based on runs he has scored againts a good/very good/quality pace attack in testing conditions. Cannot be translated to judging the performances of bowlers, more specifically your example with Warne & Kumble's record in India.
You got to remember cricket is a batsman's game. Bowlers are always the cats who are toiling for wickets. For fast bowlers guys like Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath, Imran etc are rated so highly because they were able to test & dismiss batmsen not just when they got green-tops or very bouncy decks - but even on the roads that were present in sub-continent or anywhere else in the world. They possesed a unique ability to take wickets in ALL conditions, this is why runs againts those cats are rated so highly. But not all fast bowlers in cricket history had those unique skills.
Some bowlers like your your traditional English seamer like a Hoggard, Allan Moss, James Anderson, Geoff Arnold would only be super effective on greentop, but would be far less effective on a flat decks if they left England.
Thus for a batsman to be considered really quality he needs to score againts a quality pace attacks in testing conditions instead of just on roads. Since thats the only time when a fast-bowler/pace attack is in his/their "domain", thus dominating him/the attack in his/their "domain" (a bowler friendly deck or conditions) is worth more than dominating the fast-bowler/attack good/great/world-class on a road.
For spinners its even worse. A spinner use in test match unless he is playing on a sub-continental dustbowl, usally would come on the 4th & 5th days of a match when the pitch begins to deteriorate right?. But Warne, Murali & (maybe O'Reilly as well) are the only spinners in the games history who had the unique ability to be effective from day 1 when the pitch is still solid - instead of just when the pitch begins to deteriorate. This is why they are rated so highly (some people even reckon Murali is greatest bowler of all-time because of this).
Theirfore generally unless the spinner is Warne, Murali or O'Reilly, batsmen wont have to worry about a spinner being a threat to them until the 4th or 5th days of a test unless its on a dustbowl that they are playing on.
So generally to your question of -
why If the test for a great spinner is to do well against quality spin-playing batsman regardless of pitch, then why is it that Sehwag needs not only to score against quality pace bowlers but also needs to do that in what you define as good bowling conditions? ...For that great spinner like Warne or Murali who can take wickets at any point of test. When they encounter a great player of spin its basically the spinners repotoire of deliveries (since he doesn't need the pitch to be bad for him to be effective) vs the great batsman's technique againts spin i.e Lara vs Murali
Who tend comes out victorious is such a titantic encounter (although Lara won that example) is a matter of ability.
This again overall again has absolutely no comparison to Sehwag or any batsman needing to score runs againts a quality pace attack in testing conditons to be considered tur quality for reason i already stated.
jeevan said:
Huh? Warne averages 43 in India vs 25 overall. Murali averages 45 in India vs 22 overall.
Pretty safe to consider bowling in India for non-Indian spinners as being testing conditions based on this, at least for the time period we're talking about.
Thats because of IND batsmen. But as i told you before winning in IND since IND became a force at home has basically being done by opposition fast bowlers who could reverse swing the ball. (Outside Saqlain Mushtaq no major non spinner has really troubled the IND batsmen in IND)
Both Murali's & Warne's record at their
peaks (we probably have do discredit Murali's just concluded tour to IND, since he definately is passed his best ATM) in India, where affected by the fact that they were lone rangers & never had quality fast bowling support.
With Warne well we all know his story lack of support (98) & injury woes (2001) affected his performance. But in 2004 when he had those great quicks in to give him support, he did solidly in that 2004 series.
[Of course, it has more to do with the Indian batsmen rather than Indian pitches, which is why it is the perfect counter-example to whatever point you were making.]
No it is't,. Any non-Indian spinner would love to get the chance in his career to bowl on the Indian wickets. As you rightfully said over the last 20 years or so, the fact the Indian batsmen being so good againts spin would make things difficult for the spinner. But it doesn't change the fact, that bowling in IND for non-Indian spinner is always the preffered destination to bowl. You can definately say a bowler like Vettori who generally has had to play on greentops in NZ, would love to get the oppurtunity to get to bowl on Indian wickets.
So the counter-example that you are trying to draw in this comparison to the criteria that Sehwag & most batsmen have to pass doesn't add up sir..
Almost missed this gem. If the test for a great spinner is to do well against quality spin-playing batsman regardless of pitch, then why is it that Sehwag needs not only to score against quality pace bowlers but also needs to do that in what you define as good bowling conditions?
See above..
(Note that no one is under any illusions about Sehwag - he definitely is vulnerable to swing bowling, especially early in his innings. I suspect that Sehwag Mk 2 - i.e. after he returned to international cricket - plays very cautiously for the first few overs precisely as an adaptation to this.
I have seen no evidence of this from Sehwag MK2 since he returned in Adelaide 08. I presume you watched the 2008 SA tour to IND right?.
Well as i've contionously mentioned before, after he smoked the tremedous 317 @ Chennai on that road. When Steyn & co got him in the next two test on very bowler friendly decks by Indian standards, Sehwag tried to hit himself out of trouble & he never tried to consolidate. Thus Steyn & co exposed him technically & he failed.
One recent innings he was on ~ 6 after having faced 24 balls, while Gambhir was in his 20's. He of course made up for it in a hurry shortly thereafter.)
I sort of presume you are refering to recent test vs SRI when Vijay outscored him intially?
jeevan said:
aussie,
One prime example of your "selective logic" is the match context at Adelaide in 2008.
You've claimed repeatedly that India was never in danger of losing it. Well let me lay it out once more: India were trailing by ~ 40 runs when they batted again on the 4th day with ~ 110 overs to go in the test. The rest of the Indian lineup made ~120 and Sehwag made 150 and was the last specialist batsman out (only the last 2 wickets remained at close of stumps).
If Sehwag had made, say 20 (he already had a 50 in the first innings) is it a stretch to imagine that Australia needing to make ~ 100 in 30 overs would've taken it?
If it looked like India was never in danger of losing that match, it was mostly because Sehwag (esp Mk 2 of his career) is not the one dimensional "ftb" that you're trying so hard to categorize him as.
Not this againnnn...
Firstly why do you have to go into hypoteticals about if Sehwag had failed?. I haven't in my position on that innings, so it looks like you are the one who is trying to under-rate that innings of his.
In that Adelaide test by the end of the 4th day barely 2 innings where completed. India closed 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 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. Are you clear about my position here now sir???