When 50= Greatness

[aussie]

Haha why would he though? There's no incentive. Anyway, last post on this matter; not going to let this turn into another ****ing Sehwag+aussie thread.

My last point on this as well here, before i go back to my other sehwag bashing thread

As you should remember Hayden had to make adjustments in his technique againts the pace after his Ashes 05 failures from "bully mode" or else his career would have been finished.

IND dont have much quality depth in opening like AUS, so after they dropped Sehwag for the entire 2007 there wasn't a any other opener in IND who could have kept him out forever.

 

[subshakerz]

Few reasons for the 50+ averages that are so common:

- Flat pitches obviously

- The lack of quality bowlers, particularly pace bowlers, and the breakdown of the few remaining quality ones due to packed schedules

- The introduction of Bangladesh giving two minnow options whereas in the 90s there was only Zimbabwe and before that there were none

 

[Sir Alex]

IND dont have much quality depth in opening like AUS, so after they dropped Sehwag for the entire 2007 there wasn't a any other opener in IND who could have kept him out forever.

This is just inviting reactions from Indian posters. Surely we don't need to "convert" an allrounder into opening for us unlike Australia had to. Also you might not have heard about Murali Vijay, Abhinav Mukund etc.

 

[aussie]

This is just inviting reactions from Indian posters. Surely we don't need to "convert" an allrounder into opening for us unlike Australia had to.

. Yes this is just one time & its not as if AUS dont have proper test match openers to chose from ATM, blokes like Hughes, Jaques & Rogers are available. Watson opening is just a choice the selectors have chosen to make. Many people still reckon like myself prefer him in middle-roder.

AUS traditionally & more specifically during the glory years just gone, always pick coventional openers who would have to earn their place via solid FC runs. Langer being the only exception to this.

Also you might not have heard about Murali Vijay, Abhinav Mukund etc.

I know all about Vijay. But where was he in 2007 when Sehwag was dropped? IND opened with Jaffer & Kartik in 2007 during the ENG tour.

Dont know about the other cat, but checking his profile now. It says he debuted in 2007/08 that was just before the AUS tour where Sehwag was selected. Obviously he wasn't ready for test cricket in 07..

 

[Sir Alex]

Who cares about back in 2007? At present India has better openers stock than Australia.

 

[Migara]

- The introduction of Bangladesh giving two minnow options whereas in the 90s there was only Zimbabwe and before that there were none

SL were minnows in 80s. NZ was until 1950s. India and Pakistan in 1950s. SAF in 1890-1910 period.

So there were plenty of minnows, and batsmen of yesteryear feasted on them as well. Not correct only to point fingers at current players.

 

[Migara]

Add Windies in 1930s as well.

 

[aussie]

Who cares about back in 2007?

Are you not following?. I am saying in 2007 the year Sehwag was dropped. IND didn't have any quality back-up opener to replace him since Jaffer's partners where Karthik in ENG & SA & Dravid in AUS.

At present India has better openers stock than Australia.

. So Vijay & this Mankud fellow are better back-ups than Hughes, Jaques & Rogers. Yo son dont let nobody hear you..

 

[Sir Alex]

Are you not following?. I am saying in 2007 the year Sehwag was dropped. IND didn't have any quality back-up opener to replace him since Jaffer's partners where Karthik in ENG & SA & Dravid in AUS.






. So Vijay & this Mankud fellow are better back-ups than Hughes, Jaques & Rogers. Yo son dont let nobody hear you..

Well they are better than Watson anyway.. That's all that matters

 

[G.I.Joe]

Few reasons for the 50+ averages that are so common:

- Flat pitches obviously

- The lack of quality bowlers, particularly pace bowlers, and the breakdown of the few remaining quality ones due to packed schedules

- The introduction of Bangladesh giving two minnow options whereas in the 90s there was only Zimbabwe and before that there were none

Packed schedules is an over rated excuse. Just go through the records of many old timers. The number of FC games they played puts the present lot to shame. If the present players can't cope despite better training/conditioning/travel/accomodation facilities, they're the ones to blame themselves.

 

[Shri]

Are you not following?. I am saying in 2007 the year Sehwag was dropped. IND didn't have any quality back-up opener to replace him since Jaffer's partners where Karthik in ENG & SA & Dravid in AUS.






. So Vijay & this Mankud fellow are better back-ups than Hughes, Jaques & Rogers. Yo son dont let nobody hear you..

Unless Hughes really starts to rip international bowlers apart, he will always be comparable to other up and coming opening batsmen from other countries. They all have one thing in common: inexperience.

 

[jeevan]

My last point on this as well here, before i go back to my other sehwag bashing thread

As you should remember Hayden had to make adjustments in his technique againts the pace after his Ashes 05 failures from "bully mode" or else his career would have been finished.

IND dont have much quality depth in opening like AUS, so after they dropped Sehwag for the entire 2007 there wasn't a any other opener in IND who could have kept him out forever.

That isnt how it went. In end 2007 Chopra, a classical opener if there ever was one in the last 10 years, had been doing fine in domestic and county cricket, as was Gambhir. They were the obvious backups to Jaffer+Karthik who had had a good run averaging over 50 for the opening partnership. Chopra in particular has a right to feel hard done by, for not getting a chance. Gambhir of course has also came back in full strength since around then. { Chopra+Gambhir are the regular Delhi openers - Sehwag plays #3 and the alternative opener for Delhi was & is Shikhar Dhawan who was also in good nick then. M Vijay did blossom later.} I recall the "logical" pecking order right before that Aus series was thought to be:
Jaffer+Karthik = incumbents
Chopra= based on performance
Gambhir= based on performance
Sehwag= based on past international experience, had an inconsistent domestic run.

Sehwag got a call-up to the squad, a bit surprisingly, upon the insistence of Anil Kumble and ahead of Chopra. (Sehwag wasnt even shortlisted initially). It was one of the few unconventional moves by Kumble. The rest, as they say, is history. What Sehwag did with the chance was quite up to him, and based on it will walk into any current team (except perhaps the fantasy teams of aussie & some others) that cap put a couple of decent conventional batsmen around him. [ Since his return, in 20 tests he averages 60 at an SR of 92 and this includes a series in NZ, bugaboo country for him. At least 4 match-impacting knocks and that does not include his triple.]

From that list of 5 above - Gambhir is doing extremely well too. The other 3 would also be fine in some of the other test teams, fair to say. (Chopra in particular would be a solid anchor and could pair up well with almost any one but Cook). So India not having opening depth in 2007 is not a good assesment. Might have been true of several years prior to that.

p.s. At the time, I myself was aghast at his selection (over Chopra). And in retrospect, as mistaken as mistaken can be.

 

[GIMH]

Thats a presumption. Its not like he hasn't had the oppurtunity to make adjustment to his technique in this era after failures. Since his retun in Adelaide 08 after being dropped due to those failures - no adjustments have been made.

LOL, what exactly would you call it every time you declare that X batsman would have averaged Y in the 90s?

 

[Shri]

Assumption.

 

[GIMH]

fair

 

[Ikki]

Few reasons for the 50+ averages that are so common:

- Flat pitches obviously

- The lack of quality bowlers, particularly pace bowlers, and the breakdown of the few remaining quality ones due to packed schedules

- The introduction of Bangladesh giving two minnow options whereas in the 90s there was only Zimbabwe and before that there were none

Overstated. Take a look at the 50s, 60s and 70s. India, Pakistan and New Zealand may not be what many consider non-Test class but they were minnows. Considering they were half of all available teams I'd say the likes of Sobers and Barrington had plenty of opportunity to lift their averages against these sides; possibly even more than batsmen nowadays. The bowling stocks weren't fantastic either; as bad if not worse than this decade.

One thing people haven't mentioned: there are more better batsmen. There are many more teams than there ever were and there's more class batsmen.

 

[archie mac]

Overstated. Take a look at the 50s, 60s and 70s. India, Pakistan and New Zealand may not be what many consider non-Test class but they were minnows. Considering they were half of all available teams I'd say the likes of Sobers and Barrington had plenty of opportunity to lift their averages against these sides; possibly even more than batsmen nowadays. The bowling stocks weren't fantastic either; as bad if not worse than this decade.

One thing people haven't mentioned: there are more better batsmen. There are many more teams than there ever were and there's more class batsmen.

It should be noted that Barrington had a great average against Aust

 

[subshakerz]

Overstated. Take a look at the 50s, 60s and 70s. India, Pakistan and New Zealand may not be what many consider non-Test class but they were minnows. Considering they were half of all available teams I'd say the likes of Sobers and Barrington had plenty of opportunity to lift their averages against these sides; possibly even more than batsmen nowadays. The bowling stocks weren't fantastic either; as bad if not worse than this decade.

One thing people haven't mentioned: there are more better batsmen. There are many more teams than there ever were and there's more class batsmen.

That's the key point. Bangladesh for much of the decade were clearly not fit to be considered test class, unlike the ones you mentioned. At least they were capable of sporadic test victories, whereas Bangladesh were not, aside from a victory against a third-string WI side.

My point was that this era is unique in that you can play against two bonafide minnows, one of which shouldn't even be playing test cricket.

 

[Ikki]

That's the key point. Bangladesh for much of the decade were clearly not fit to be considered test class, unlike the ones you mentioned. At least they were capable of sporadic test victories, whereas Bangladesh were not, aside from a victory against a third-string WI side.

My point was that this era is unique in that you can play against two bonafide minnows, one of which shouldn't even be playing test cricket.

Remove Bangladesh and there are still lots of batsmen who average above 50. I don't think Bangladesh is that much of a factor. Also Zimbabwe hasn't played cricket for most of this decade, so their influence is limited also. And in fact, at the turn of the millennium they weren't a minnow at all.

 

[Ikki]

It should be noted that Barrington had a great average against Aust

I know, but his average against the Windies and S.Africa? Point is, when 3 of 6 of the teams you face are quite inferior then that will affect your career average much more than if it's 1-2 teams in 10.

Another thing to note is that there are far less draws this decade. So you could say past batsmen had the advantage in that their era adopted a less aggressive batting style and created situations where more runs could have been made.