So, batting strike rate in tests eh?
So, batting strike rate in tests eh?
There are two colours in my head
Who the **** cares about batting SR. I wanna hear more about market economics.
If we grant that higher strike rate for identical run production is inherently more result-oriented, then it leads to the following hypothesis:
If batsmen are of lower callibre (such as the lower order batsmen!), would the corrollary hold true ? As in, now, we'd prefer a lower order batsman with a lower strike rate for identical average ? The logic to this is, well, the lower order batsmen suck to begin with. If they took a more defensive approach and just ate up balls, would it not give more time (in general) to the top order batsmen to play out their optimal innings ? Ie, if you were the 'slowpoke' batting at #9 that allowed Brian Lara to score 165 instead of get stranded at 119*, isn't that more optimal for the team ?
Probably, if they were always batting with a better batsmen.
The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament.
So no, i don't really short-list him for the job.
To put it in perspective, if performances in Australia, vs West Indies ( who Richards also faced in the packer era) , Pakistan (same) and in England were all it took to forge a reputation, in the same era, we have Gavaskar ending all statistical debate to 'who's the best opener ever' by being posting ridiculously huge 'greater than contemporary' figures as 7540 runs @ 55+ average ( that would be a staggering 15% better than his next most successful direct contemporary, ie, another contemporary opener). To put that into context, a 15% gap over your next best rival today, would be the equivalent of Sangakkara ending with a ridiculous 66+ average to move 15% clear of his next best rival, statistically in the average department- Kallis, at the end of their careers.
So to stop rambling, yes, barry had a good case to be considered a very good batsman, one of the finest. But not qualified enough to be in an ATG discussion or 'dream team' of sorts for the test arena, atleast, not for me.
He is a better bat than the hyperboles i used, but that was just to get the point across a bit more, elementally.
Statistical debates don't apply to freaks of the game.
I will just leave this here:
Records | Test matches | Batting records | Fastest double hundreds | ESPN Cricinfo
5 out 10 is insane no matter how you choose to look at it.
Sehwag was a freak on flat wickets and very good against spin, but out of batsmen with elite records he would have to be right up the top for his inability to play the moving ball. That really lowers his rating for mine...it's a pattern I really hope Warner doesn't fall into, but so far the signs are pretty good.
Any lowering of his rating because of him being a liability in swinging conditions is completely compensated by him being an unstoppable force of nature when conditions suit him. FTB isn't even an insult in his case because other FTBs get runs on flat tracks at about a third of his pace. If the pitch is flat, the bowling side could pretty much throw in the towel when facing him at his peak. Doesn't matter who the bowler is, he d blast them, more often than not successfully.
No matter how flat the pitch is, no one in history has bullied quality bowlers like Steyn,McGrath, etc to the extent that Sehwag was capable of
Last edited by OverratedSanity; 04-03-2014 at 06:46 AM.
Pace - Pass
Spin - Pass
Movement - Fail
So, he is good at facing most bowlers really. Weakness against one attribute of bowling can be ignored in my opinion when looking at his record.
Calling Sehwag merely a pass against spin is kinda unfair. One of the top 5 ever against spin, arguaby
Look at the context ffs.
Pass and fail are the only words I am using to imply good and bad here. Cbf explaining how good or bad he was against different crap.
If I was to summarise Sehwag it would be:
Pace of any degree on flat wickets without much bounce - excellent
Pace on flat wickets with a good deal of bounce - mediocre
Pace on seaming wickets, or swinging conditions - poor
Spin - excellent
Last edited by Ruckus; 04-03-2014 at 07:22 AM.
Nah. Was great against fast pies regardless of the pitch as long as the ball was old and it was not moving. Bounce didn't trouble him when he was in form. Struggled against bounce very briefly when he was in poor form and when some bowlers had figured out he had a weakness against balls that rose to his ribs off just back of a length. When he was on form from 2008 - 2011, that didn't seem to bother him one bit.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)