Bradman to Sehwag - Redefining Great Batsmanship Through Defying Tradition

[jeevan]

. Really this does deserve a dignified response. Either you dont know anything about Warne's test career. Or you do & you have decided to come up with this BS stats arguments.

QUOTE]

I am very much aware of both Warne's record and of the fact that he's a better cricket player than Kumble by possibly every measure (except not having scored a ton with the bat). That's precisely why I'm using that comparison to discredit some of your logic - i.e. of using facts and anecdotes pretty selectively and coming up with your own criteria for bestowing or denying greatness.

I also appear to have way too much time on my hands at the moment.

 

[jeevan]

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.

 

[aussie]

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.

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?

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???

 

[jeevan]

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.



Not sure what you mean here especially with the 'wrt' phrase..





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 in his "domain", thus dominating him/the attack in his "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.






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.



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..



See above..



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.



I sort of presume you are refering to recent test vs SRI when Vijay outscored him intially?






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???

In Adelaide, if Sehwag had performed like every other Indian batsman (i.e. 21 in 40 odd deliveries rather than 151 in 240 odd deliveries), India would've been all out for ~ 139 with 30 overs to spare and Australia would've needed ~ 100, as explained.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Well Mahmood clearly fluked it, since he didn't build on it to become world-class all-rounder. Next you might tell me Hirwani taking 16 wickets in a test againts the great Windies side, showed he was great spinner...

Man I can't even bother going through your crap again. You do deserve credit though for single handedly annoying the hell out of everyone else with your crap. Just one last question for you - if it is so easy for a batsman to fluke 3 centuries against great bowlers like you say Mahmood did, then how does it matter if Sehwag has one against great attacks or not

 

[SJS]

Well IMO he has very average technique when facing the very good fast-bowlers early in his innings in on sporting wickets or flat decks that has troubled him countless times. SJS himself did not deny this:




Plus for more proof. Look at these cricinfo descriptions of him being dismissed that way over the years.



















































This test pitch was road. But Lee wasn't exactly bowling well, but he was still able to expose him technically in both innings.












HAA. I said once SA carry a full-strenght bowling attack like what they did when they toured IND in 08 & get similar conditions to what they got in the final 2 test of that series. I will back Steyn & co to expose him again.




I would think its a fairly unanimous opinion among many that Ponting, Dravid & KP are proven againts quality pace attacks in bowler friendly conditions.





I definately agree that "you dont have enough recollection of that series" since you are totally off.

In the previous series before ENG 05/06 he faced PAK 05/06 & smoked one of the fastest ever test double centuries. As we have discussed before he failed on the only bowler friendly wicket of that series in the final test in Karachi.

So clearly he went into that series vs ENG 05/06 in TOP FORM. What occured is just that he was owned technically by the England pacers. Simple.





. Yo there is no desperation on my part. You want to know what im doing now, watching the PAK vs AUS test & turking PS3.

Just lets me clear finally on the circumstances of Adelaide 09:

- Sehwag played very well, i dont discredit his innings & i never have
- It was a flat deck (thus in innings disqualifies under the criteria "runs againts quality pace-attacks in bowler-friendly conditions.
- India where never in danger of losing the test




HA. Well sir let me give you a lesson on why that AUS attack in 03/04 was an average attack on those flat pitches:

1. Gillespie: He played the entire series injured & was below his best (he missed the MCG test of that series because of this).

2. Lee: In 2003/04 was a poor test bowler. Lee in general between Ashes 2001 to 2005 was a poor test bowler where he averaged 38 with the ball. Every Australian fan or anyone who has followed Lee's career in general would know this.

3. Bichel was always an average test bowler. On those flat pitches in 03/04 he never had the skills to bowl on those wickets, thus struggled againts the Indian batsmen.

4. MacGill. Although a very solid back-up to Warne (especially on matches played at the Sydney Cricket ground). He was always dominated by very goor players of spin & IND exposed him in 2003/04.

5. Bracken & Williams . Although they earnt a place in that series after destroying IND in the TVS Cup ODI series just before that tour began. As the always say "ODI from doesn't equal test success". They didn't translate their ODI form from the TVS to the tests & where average.

Hopefully you accept now that was average AUS attack in 03/04



It is since clearly an opposition team under such a hypotetical scenario would have found winning in IND much more easier if they didn't have to face Kumble/Harbhajan - but instead Raju & Kapoor. Theirfore that oppositions victory in IND cannot be rated highly.

Its just like when India beat England in 2007 in England. India where lucky the entire England first choice pace attack of Hoggard/Flintoff/Harmison/Jones.

Well maybe u have sh**ypants, given that you where in the previous discussion in the Anwar vs Sehwag thread. But as you can see it was poster ret who probably wasn't involved in that discussion, thus i had go this over again.

CC is indeed way over my head...GOD DAMNNN i love this siteee






Can you find examples of this?. Since i find this a very weird criticism to make.




You make it sound like if being termed a FTB is a compliment...






Coincidentally the two most batting friendly eras have been this 2000s era & the 1930s & 20s. So that sort of explains why such scores have happend in these two eras alone i guess.





Ok later sh***ypants . This site is the bestttt!!





Totally disagreeing. Since you are overplaying the significance of him smoking those triple centuries on those flat decks.

As i said 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.

This example with Fredericks:



Is to give an example of another opener smoking a EXCELLENT pace attack in very bowler friendly conditions Sehwag style. Do you understand this??

Good so i'm saying i want to see Sehwag do what Fredericks did there, like Sehwag himself did when he scored his 254 & 317 & smoke a good/very good/excellent pace attack in bowler friendly conditions.

*SIGHS* When i hear these comments i just know some people just dont watch cricket.

Look at this way then. The IND tour South Africa was in November 2001 right.

That SAME SA attack then played AUS in 6 test home/away between december 01 to March 02 & they where nothing but crap. If that attack was "very good" they would have done better vs AUS at that time.



Where did i ever suggest this??. Dont put words in my mouth yo..



Of course not. How is this relevant?




A few?? Haa...you living in wonderland



No saying he has is plain ignornace. I will not go through this again, since i have gone to death. Read back through this thread & you will find me answering this question of Sehwag many failures in bowler freindly conditions againts good/verygood/great pace attacks.

Well i have never said or suggested this & also i think you have taken that little point in made in that post wayyyy out of context.

By saying "Sehwag's SR is irrelevant" i was refering to the fact that he has never being able to replicate such a rate of scoring againts a quality pace attack in testing conditons. All have come on roads.

Even one of his better innings againts AUS @ Adelaide 09, he played pretty conservatively compared to usual almost run-a-ball/run-a-ball standards..

I went and re-read the original post just to make sure. The poster you responded to was talking of Sehwag's career SR. That's what you dismissed.

It is now that youre putting a riders on it.

(In Adelaide, with the game in balance as the rest of Indian team made ~ 120 runs, Sehwag slowed to an SR of 64 vs a career SR of 80. When Ponting has a game on the line, he's been known to slow down too - at Fataullah against the BD attack he scored at ~ SR of 46 vs career SR of 58).

I'm in it to amuse myself over a long weekend.

But it is fun to apply aussie's selective logic to other situations in his style.

For eg he's made the assertion that the mark of a good player is performance in (1) testing conditions against (2) quality opposition. The skills of your own team mates be damned, just what the opposition puts out is all that matters.

Well, let's apply that logic to spinners shall we. For any spinners, India offers the ultimate testing conditions - i.e. condition 1. Kumble & Warne have both played 9 or 10 matches there and bowled to good batting opposition, i.e. condition #2. Kumble averages 24 at a SR of 53 and Warne averages 43 at an SR of 81.

Since we are not allowed to factor in the fact that Kumble is not bowling to Sehwag, Tendulkar & co - the only aussie-style conclusion to draw is that Warne fails to be a great bowler. Spinning out sub-standard batting sides on pitches of his liking makes him merely the spin bowling equivalent of an FTB

[ In Australia , Warne averages 63 against India and Kumble 37. So it isnt that Kumble has only home field advantage to bank on.]

Well then this becomes a mater of ideology. Since my view of FTBs is totally different.

A FTB IMO is a batsman who is good on flat decks/or in non pressure situations. Who tends to fail an bowler friendly decks/or in pressure situations. So any batsman who has thae "FTB" tag will never be rated highly for me.

But if you think differently about the FTBs, no issue..




As i said before NO ONE should doubt Sehwag's unique ability to smoke an attack at rate when he gets conditions perfectly in his favour.

But It doesn't matter if more batsmen in the games history haven't been able to score triple hundreds at that rate. Since what Sehwag has done with those scores has been solely done to the amount of flat decks that are/were present in the 2000s era.

Since it is very conceivable to presume he would not have done that if he played in the 70s, 80s or 90s



- Firstly, so what if the two most successful bowlers in tests are spinners?. They weren't better than than great pacers like Marshall, Hadlee, McGrath, Lillee. So i dont see your point.

- Secondly of course pace bowling isn't the ONLY form of bowling in tests. Although one can argue facing high quality pace on a bowler friendly deck - is more difficult that facing a high quality spin attack on a raging turner. For example face the great Windies pace quartet on Kensington Oval/Perth was certainly more difficult mentally, physically & techincally (to a level) than facign the Indian spin quartet on a Indian dustbowl.

But Sehwag's ability againts spin HAS NEVER BEEN in question. Even Matthew Hayden dominated in India & Murali in SRI before he failed in Ashes 05 againts the English pace.

So the point still stands, he needs to be able to either smoke a good/very good/great pace attack in bowler friendly conditions like he did on flat decks when he scored his 254 & 317, for him to move out of FTB territory.

- Thirdly cant agree that Sehwag is better player of spin than anyone in the buisness. Blokes like Gambhir, Pietersen are definately better IMO. Plus others like Clarke, Katich, Sangakkara, M Jayawardene are very comparable IMO.




Not sure if it was that straightforward. You can argue Fredericks probably preferred the pace, but he definately showed to be a very sound all-round batsman againts both types of bowling far better than anything Sehwag ever has accomplished in his career so far.





1st Test: South Africa v India at Bloemfontein, Nov 3-6, 2001 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com
2nd Test: Sri Lanka v India at Galle, Jul 31-Aug 3, 2008 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Surely you off all people would have been reading through this thread & the Anwar vs Sehwag thread, with what i said about Bloemfontein 2001??. I'm not going to discuss that again..

Galle 08 as i said before is not relevant since his ability againts spin is not in question?. Are we clear here now??



Its not more important. But Sehwag isn't the first FTB of this era as i said to look brillaint againts quality spin on turners & look woeful againts good/very good/great attacks in testing conditions. Hayden was JUST like that before he corrected his faults after Ashes 05.

. I was waiting for somebody to say this..

Let me tell you what i will do. I will watch the series & make a judgment after the test has completed like i have always done.

If like on the last SA tour to India 07/08. If they prepare more wickets like Ahmedabad & Kanpur i expect him to fail. If its a road like the Chennai test where he scored 317 i expect him to score runs. Since these have been the trends of his career so far.

No, what you'll do is keep restating so called "facts" then when people pull your arguments to shreds you'll restate the "facts" in capitals because that then makes them true.

HA. Please in detail list where my argument about the great Sehwag has been pulled to shreds??. This i gotta see

Technique is subjective. But if you as everyone agree with SJS article. SURELY then you must agree that he has a clear technical deficiences??. Since SJS deliberated on it. Or didn't you actually read his two articles??



Onflat decks againts quick bowlers incapable of exposing that flaw, he certainly has been able to make big scores fairly conistently.

On bowler friendly decks againts bowlers capable of exposing that flaw, the opposite has occured.



Tendy & Dravid have no similar glaring weakness like Sehwag that opposition bowlers could have strategically targeted over the years. So i dont know what you are talking about..



Firstly since Sehwag began opening in ENG 2002. His form in test just kept getting better & better. This is all of Sehwag's series averages from ENG 02 to PAK 05/06 (leaving out ZIM & BANG)

- vs ENG 02: Averaged 39

- vs WI 02. Averaged 57

- vs NZ 02: Averaged 10

- vs NZ 03: Averaged 44

- vs AUS 03/04: Averaged 58

- vs PAK 04: Averaged 109

- vs AUS 04/05: Averaged 42

- vs SA 04/05: Averaged 87

- vs PAK 05: Averaged: 90

- vs SRI 05: Averaged 18

- vs PAK 06: Averaged 73

Fluctuate & overconfident my ass. You clearly dont watch cricket

As i said before with regards to PAK 05/06. All that happened in the final test in Karachi was that Akhtar & Asif failed himon the only bowler friendly deck of that series.



That is my position as well. My point is to make sure you are clear that the Adelaide 09 wicket was a road.



Your parallel comparison where crap. All i want you to be clear about its the the AUS 03/04 was a average test attack on the. Thats not my opinion thats was the facts of their respective test careers at the time.



. Camn down uncle. Lets not forget you where the one who engaged me in this argument with Sehwag after i was peacefully discussing a little point with SJS.

I had abandoned debating him since a previous thread. So you forced me to go through all this again. Get it straight..








I'd say he is very much aware of his weakness. I remember a few times in the past Sehwag saying in interviews that eiter he has no intention of changing his technique, he is happy with his technique or something like that...not sure



Debatable..

Well i dont know who gave you this idea. Since in such circumstances if a quality pace attack blows away a team on a bowler friendly pitch. Then the batsman or batsmen who stand up, when the their other team mates have failed are generally the top quality batsman. (Since there have been times in test history when average batsmen have stepped up too)

Plus what i your defintion of a low scoring game?. You talking Mumbai 04 type low scoring game?






Go re-read again, since you misread again. This is what happened..






Poster Metallic never responded back to the part in bold which you quoted. He rather responded to the portion below. So clearly i couldn't have put riders/changed my mout.

If he had responded to bolded portion, i would have said the same thing to him with regards to that point like what i told you.



And your point??

Do you even read? Or a better question would be can you read? You go on and on with your rubbish arguments without even reading what the other person has to say.

I'll say this slowly because I think you have problems understanding English. A-N-Y......K-N-O-C-K .... C-A-N .... B-E ....D-I-S-C-R-E-D-I-T-E-D........B-Y......S-A-Y-I-N-G......T-H-E.....B-O-W-L-E-R-S.....W-E-R-E....P-A-S-T...T-H-E-I-R.....P-E-A-K-S....O-R...S-O-M-E-T-H-I-N-G...S-T-U-P-I-D....L-I-K-E...T-H-A-T.

The bolded part is more rubbish. I could easily list out some of their better bowling performances after the match in question. A Ntini-Pollock-Hayward-Kallis-Klusener attack is very good and at home it's more than just very good. Only a delusional fool like you would deny it.



So it doesn't matter that Sehwag was only playing in first match in hostile bowling conditions against a very good attack outside of home in a place where even the best batsmen have historically struggled.




Why isn't it relevant? He scored centuries against great attacks away from home. Isn't that your criterion? Oh wait, your criterion changes depending on where the batsman is from.






No that is you.





I'd rather not go back and read through your crap again. Reading it once was bad enough.

. Well i'll have to slow it down for you as well....

U-N-L-E-S-S......A-N.....A-T-T-A-C-K....O-R......B-O-W-L-E-R.......I-S.....L-E-G-I-T-I-M-A-T-E-L-Y.....P-A-S-S-E-D......T-H-E-I-R/H-I-S.......P-E-A-K......B-A-S-E-D.....ON....T-H-E......A-T-T-A-C-K/B-O-W-L-E-R.......S-H-O-W-I-N-G......A......C-O-M-B-I-N-A-T-I-O-N......OF F-A-C-T-O-R-S.....S-U-C-H.....A-S.....A....D-R-O-P...I-N.....P-A-C-E......L-O-S-S...O-F N-I-P...O-R.....P-O-S-S-I-B-LY.....B-E-I-N-G.....A.....R-A-W....T-A-L-E-N-T-E-D......B-U-T.......U-N-P-R-O-V-E-N.......Y-O-U-N-G.....B-O-W-LER......T-H-E.....A-T-T-A-C-K.....C-A-N-N-O-T.....B-E.....D-I-S-C-R-E-D-I-T-E-D





Only for Ntini you could since his peak as i said came until 2005 vs West Indies, which would basically be proving my point that he was crap in 2001 & better later on.

You definately wont find any for Klusener & Hayward againts quality opposition after 01.

You technically will find one better bowling performance by Kallis vs ENG @ Trent Bridge 2003 when he took a 6 wicket-haul. But as i said before based on my following of Kallis's bowling career IMO his peaked ended vs WI 2001. So how good he vs IND 2001 is definately not clear cut



Only on paper. Their performaces at the time (the Bloemfontein test) clearly proved otherwise. Saying that was a good attack in home conditions was like as others have suggested the England attack @ Nottingham 2002 where Sehwag scored a hundred of Hoggard/Flintoff/Harmison etc was a very good attack @ home.

Maintaining such a ludicrous position clearly proves you know nothing about the careers of those SA bowlers & are just arguing from reading the scorecards blindly.







hostile. Yea it was so hostile the SA manged to 550+. The more you talk about this test, the more i know you didn't watch it.





. No sir my criteria hasn't changed. You bringing the fluke effort of Azhar Mahmood scoring a hundred away from home againts a quality SA attack means abosulutely nothing & has NO relation to this argument. Since many joke/poor/average test players in test history have been able to produce the odd sparkling performance againts superior opposition.






Nah uncle i know i'm safe. Anybody calling the 2001/02 SA attack things like "very good" & the conditions in Bloemfontein 2001 "hostile" when a team scored 550+ in one innings, is the one who is in wonderland.





HAA, come on yo dont be spoilsport mannnn. You got my head hurting he with you calling the SA 01 attack "very good" & i aint backing out, so you owe me the right to at least read back

LOL Legimately means getting Aussie's approval







You are unbelievable man. On one hand you are vehemently arguing that the attack he faced was past his peak and point to their performances against Aus in the following series. Yet you want to gloss over the fact that each of Pollock, Ntini and Kallis have at least one extraordinary performance after the match in question.





As a matter of fact I don't rate his England century that highly. It was against a quality attack but in good batting conditions. His SA century however was not. I did watch the game and match reports back what I am saying as well.









SA were facing Pollock and Ntini, were they ? Or do you rate India's bowling as highly as SA's ? Knowing you and your biased nonsense, you might







So this will be your excuse when Sehwag manages to meet your biased and nonsensical criterion.










Interesting that you mention SA's score again and again. But yet ignore the team score when considering the 150 that Sehwag got against McGrath in Chennai when India shot Australia out for 230 odd on a day 1 pitch .







I got your head hurting? Excellent. Maybe that will stop you from coming up with more rubbish for the time being at least

I have always mainted that Pollock was the only good bowler in that 2001 attack. His peak ended in 2003 when he had a shoulder injury. So if you find a very good performance by him after IND 01, its not issue since it would be irrelevant to this argument. Since having one quality bowler doesn't make an "entire attack" very good.

My point has always been Ntini, Hayward, & Klusener where DEFIANTELY either not peaked yet this was crap (Ntini), was crap (Hayward) & was wayyy passed his peak as bowler since he was bowling off-cutters from a short run in 2001 (Klusener).

On Kallis how good he was then is whats debatable. But as is said he was woeful when i saw 2 months after that series when SA toured Austrlaia when i saw him. Which has always lead me to believe that he probably was passed his peak as a bowler already.







HA you were going so well until you said this. The ENG attack in 2002 was by no means quality. It was as average as the SA 01 attack.

The ENG attack with the likes of Hoggard, Jones, Flintoff, Harmison where all young & raw. Anyone familiar with English cricket would know all 4 of them didn't peak until WI 2004 when ENG won famously in the caribbean en route to the 05 Ashes victory.

While the likes of Caddick & Cork where definately passed it.




All the match reports say is that the first session of the first day was bowler friendly. Sehwag didn't open the batting he came in when the majority of the damage was already done. The vast majority of Sehwag/Tendy partnership was when the pitch flattened out on day one & for rest of the game the pitch flatterend out considerably which is proven by the SA scoring almost 550.

India second innings collapse AFAIC was down the India back in those days being woeful away from home.






Obviously SA would have better given those cats where home. But both attacks where average.





Ha na son. When Sehwag actually scores runs againts a good/very good/quality pace attack in testing conditions instead of on a road. You can depend on me to being the first man to be jumping up, since that the only thing stopping be from calling him a true great. I JUST WANT ONE INNINGSSSS, is that too much to ask mannnn???






Yes because the pitch after day 1 of the first test became slower & slower from day 2 onwards as i told you before. The fast spin that Kumble got in the first innings, he himself struggled to replicate as he struggled to dislodge Gillespie during that Martyn/Dizzy partnership in Australia's second innings.

But lets me clear since you along with most people have continiously mischaracterised my position regarding this Chennai knock. I have never looked down on that innings, IMO its still as his best test innings. Just that i know & accept it was on the flattest wicket of that 04 series. Simple.





Ha, man i will call your points rubbish, you will call mine. Something will give eventually. The point is dont run from the arguments, you start something you better be prepared to finish it star...

Don't confuse opinions and facts. The fact that they churned out very good performance(s) after the match in question means that they weren't quite over the hill as you seem to think in 2001.









By quality I did not mean an all time great attack. It was merely a good attack.Anyway I mentioned that I don't rate this innings of his all that high, so you don't have to get your pants in a bunch.







Sehwag came into bat in the first session itself. Another one of ridiculous arguments goes out of the window. So SA scored 550 because the pitch flattened and India scored 200 odd because they couldn't bat? Interesting.

From the match report.

The pitch, relaid not many months earlier, was liberally grassed. It was not fast but initially provided bounce and lateral movement. By the fourth day, it became awkward, developing a mosaic of wide cracks at one end. Pollock's decision to bowl earned good returns in the short term - four wickets in 90 minutes - although his own hostility with the new ball brought him less reward than he deserved. However, South Africa's advance was halted by the awesome mastery with which Tendulkar scored his 26th Test hundred, and his partnership of 220 with Virender Sehwag, who made a flawless century in his maiden Test innings. Sehwag might not have played had Harbhajan Singh not been taken ill on the eve of the match.



Are you seriously saying that Nehra/Zaheer = Pollock/Ntini ?








What is the point? You will say he fluked it just like you are saying Mahmood fluked two centuries against Donald and Pollock in SA








During the hundred in SA, you were jumping up and down quoting SA scored 550 later on. Yet you make excuses for Australia getting bundled out for 230 odd on a day 1 pitch by a mediocre Indian attack.







Call my points rubbish all you want. I'll call yours like plenty of others already have. I haven't started anything, but I am quite prepared to finish it as long as it gives you headaches.

Ha & which award did you get? the Cricketweb Old Geezer of the Year Award

Who is they it can't be Hayward & Klusener since they didn't produce any notable performances againts a top quality team after that test. The rather failed in AUS & where dropped afterwards for the SA test set-up pretty much all together.

The "over the hill" argument doesn't apply to Ntini. Since i said he had not become test quality yet IMO. Ntini between his debut in 98 to 2003 was very average test bowler. IMO Ntini didn't become test quality until 2003 when he took 10 wickets @ Lord's

Kallis is the one thats debatable. I have said that from the start.






Well thank god you don't. This is an improvement from other posters who have been championing that innings..





Haa. Yo you doing a very good job of proving to me conclusively that you didn't watch a BALL of this test. Read what cricinfo overview of what occured on Day 1 of that test.






You see how the writer in a few quotes kept harping about how the SA bowlers wasted the conditions etc?. Well thats what i remember seeing in the Sehwag/Tendy partnership, wayward bowling, since all i ever saw from that test was highlights of that partnership.

he lunch time score was 123/4 off 27 overs & Sehwag came into bat with the score on 68/4 in 21 overs. So that has always given me the impression that any of movement was very much gone by the time Sehwag came into bat.




Thats how India usually fared away from home in those days. They didn't necessarily have to play on bowler friendly decks for the majority of the batsmen outside Tendy to look vulnerable. You remember how even an average Windies attack of Dillon/Cuffy/Collins/Sanford had defeat IND in 2002 in the caribbean on some flat pitches?







Ha no uncle. Im saying both attacks where poor, the Saffies where obviously better given that they where in home conditions. But if you compare that 2001 SA attack to some of the stuff they had in the 90s, it was clearly very average.

That again is proven by how poor they where againts AUS in 6 tests after that series. Since in SA vs AUS test series 1993/94 to 2008/09, the performances of the SA pace in the 2001/02 tests was the worst.






Well Mahmood clearly fluked it, since he didn't build on it to become world-class all-rounder. Next you might tell me Hirwani taking 16 wickets in a test againts the great Windies side, showed he was great spinner...

If Sehwag does that one innings, i'll be convinced he is great. Since i have never denied that he is special player. I just unlike most of you refuse to show a blind towards his consistent failures againts quality pace attacks in testing conditions.







Ha i like how you cats be trying to say i am making excuses for AUS when you yourself cant conclusively discredit what occured in that test.

Just answer the question do you deny that the fast spin Kumble got on day 1 when he spun out AUS int he aftermppm session was non-existant in AUS second innings as he & Harbhajan struggled to dislodge Gillespie?







Others haven't discredited anything i said. I've already done shot down like 10 posters in two different threads about this. You started this specific debate about Sehwag's innings on his debut i wasn't debating with you in the first place, so yes you have to finish it...

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. [ 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.]

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?

(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. 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.)

. Really this does deserve a dignified response. Either you dont know anything about Warne's test career. Or you do & you have decided to come up with this BS stats arguments.

QUOTE]

I am very much aware of both Warne's record and of the fact that he's a better cricket player than Kumble by possibly every measure (except not having scored a ton with the bat). That's precisely why I'm using that comparison to discredit some of your logic - i.e. of using facts and anecdotes pretty selectively and coming up with your own criteria for bestowing or denying greatness.

I also appear to have way too much time on my hands at the moment.

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.

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.



Not sure what you mean here especially with the 'wrt' phrase..





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.






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.



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..



See above..



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.



I sort of presume you are refering to recent test vs SRI when Vijay outscored him intially?






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???

In Adelaide, if Sehwag had performed like every other Indian batsman (i.e. 21 in 40 odd deliveries rather than 151 in 240 odd deliveries), India would've been all out for ~ 139 with 30 overs to spare and Australia would've needed ~ 100, as explained.

Man I can't even bother going through your crap again. You do deserve credit though for single handedly annoying the hell out of everyone else with your crap. Just one last question for you - if it is so easy for a batsman to fluke 3 centuries against great bowlers like you say Mahmood did, then how does it matter if Sehwag has one against great attacks or not

:​

 

[Shri]

 

[Sir Alex]

I half expect Aussie to quote each smiley and answer.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

mad:

Sehwag cannot play fast bowlers. The match reports are all false.

Don't divert the topic. In the match in question, Pollock wasn't bowling at his usual pace because of piles

yo you are giving me headaches. Look back at my arguments and you will see that Sehwag is a FTB.

No Brett Lee wasn't fit that day. Sehwag purposely made him eat Indian food prior to the match.

This was his best inning, but I don't rate this because McGrath was more interested in watching Archana Vijaya in the crowd than he was in getting Sehwag out.

This was a fluke. Even I, aussie, can make sense sometimes. It doesn't mean that I am always capable of making sense. Clearly a fluke

Can you read my arguments? The ball was moving into the right hander. Sehwag cannot play outswingers. Why did Johnson keep bowling inswingers? It seems like a deliberate ploy to let Sehwag score some runs. Unless Sehwag can prove that he can score runs against genuine outswinging deliveries, I won't rate him highly.

:

Yo I started this. Make sure you finish it. You feel me ? Yo

 

[Sir Alex]

 

[SJS]

Sehwag cannot play fast bowlers. The match reports are all false.



Don't divert the topic. In the match in question, Pollock wasn't bowling at his usual pace because of piles



yo you are giving me headaches. Look back at my arguments and you will see that Sehwag is a FTB.



No Brett Lee wasn't fit that day. Sehwag purposely made him eat Indian food prior to the match.



This was his best inning, but I don't rate this because McGrath was more interested in watching Archana Vijaya in the crowd than he was in getting Sehwag out.





This was a fluke. Even I, aussie, can make sense sometimes. It doesn't mean that I am always capable of making sense. Clearly a fluke



Can you read my arguments? The ball was moving into the right hander. Sehwag cannot play outswingers. Why did Johnson keep bowling inswingers? It seems like a deliberate ploy to let Sehwag score some runs. Unless Sehwag can prove that he can score runs against genuine outswinging deliveries, I won't rate him highly.



Yo I started this. Make sure you finish it. You feel me ? Yo

 

[aussie]

Man I can't even bother going through your crap again. You do deserve credit though for single handedly annoying the hell out of everyone else with your crap. Just one last question for you - if it is so easy for a batsman to fluke 3 centuries against great bowlers like you say Mahmood did, then how does it matter if Sehwag has one against great attacks or not

Thats cricket. Many average players have been able to produce the odd great individual performace but have never been able to maintain that high standards career wise. As i said if Mahmood today was one of the best all-roudners in the world, then you can compare him doing well.

- Darren Ganga is the only batsman between 1995-2006/07 to score back to back hundreds in tests vs AUS in the glory years. No way close to Windies team now.

- Vinod Kambli has a test record of one of the few batsmen to score back to back test double centuries, that doesn't make him comparable to any of the other truly great batsmen who have that record.

- Ashley Giles has a better record in India than both Murali & Warne. Does the fact that he did better than the best players of spin in their own backyard, make him a better spinner than does greats?.

- Ricky Ponting scored hundreds againts Wasim/Waqar & Donald/Pollock while Lara didn''t. Does that make him a greater batsman than Lara?.

- The NZ bowlers gave Sobers his worst record vs any individual team during his test career. Does the fact that Kiwis failed Sehwag (statistically) make the NZ attack in Sober's career better than the AUS, ENG attacks, given that he did well againts AUS & ENG & failed againts NZ?

- Upul Chandana took 10 wickets in a test match in AUS. While Murali has an appauling record statistically in AUS not even taking a 5-wicket haul. Does that make Chandana a better spinner that Murali?.

- Kapil Dev has a better record againts the West Indies than Ian Botham. Does that make Kapil a greater all-rounder than Beefy?

- Allan Border took 11 wickets in a test match vs West Indies. None of the great spinner between 1976-1995 (excpet Qadir is Faisalabd 1986) managed such a beat againts the windies. Does that make Border a greater spinner than Underwood, Bedi, Venkat etc etc??

- Jermaine Lawson 7/78 @ Antigua 03 & Agarkar 6/41 @ Adelaide 03 are the most destructive spells by an opposition fast-bowler has produced againts AUS during the glory years of 95-2006/07 in test cricket. (Only Akhtar's 5/21 @ Colombo 2002 & S Jones comes close).

Does the fact that none of Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Wasim, Waqar, Pollock, Gough didn't manage to produce something similar ever againts the best team of their time, make Lawson & Agarkar better than them???

Look i can go on & on here...but i hope you see your ignorance now..

 

[aussie]

. Even i got to laugh at them jokes yall good. But the war continues..

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Thats cricket. Many average players have been able to produce the odd great individual performace but have never been able to maintain that high standards career wise. As i said if Mahmood today was one of the best all-roudners in the world, then you can compare him doing well.

- Darren Ganga is the only batsman between 1995-2006/07 to score back to back hundreds in tests vs AUS in the glory years. No way close to Windies team now.

- Vinod Kambli has a test record of one of the few batsmen to score back to back test double centuries, that doesn't make him comparable to any of the other truly great batsmen who have that record.

- Ashley Giles has a better record in India than both Murali & Warne. Does the fact that he did better than the best players of spin in their own backyard, make him a better spinner than does greats?.

- Ricky Ponting scored hundreds againts Wasim/Waqar & Donald/Pollock while Lara didn''t. Does that make him a greater batsman than Lara?.

- The NZ bowlers gave Sobers his worst record vs any individual team during his test career. Does the fact that Kiwis failed Sehwag (statistically) make the NZ attack in Sober's career better than the AUS, ENG attacks, given that he did well againts AUS & ENG & failed againts NZ?

- Upul Chandana took 10 wickets in a test match in AUS. While Murali has an appauling record statistically in AUS not even taking a 5-wicket haul. Does that make Chandana a better spinner that Murali?.

- Kapil Dev has a better record againts the West Indies than Ian Botham. Does that make Kapil a greater all-rounder than Beefy?

- Allan Border took 11 wickets in a test match vs West Indies. None of the great spinner between 1976-1995 (excpet Qadir is Faisalabd 1986) managed such a beat againts the windies. Does that make Border a greater spinner than Underwood, Bedi, Venkat etc etc??

- Jermaine Lawson 7/78 @ Antigua 03 & Agarkar 6/41 @ Adelaide 03 are the most destructive spells by an opposition fast-bowler has produced againts AUS during the glory years of 95-2006/07 in test cricket. (Only Akhtar's 5/21 @ Colombo 2002 & S Jones comes close).

Does the fact that none of Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Wasim, Waqar, Pollock, Gough didn't manage to produce something similar ever againts the best team of their time, make Lawson & Agarkar better than them???

Look i can go on & on here...but i hope you see your ignorance now..

Please go on. I cannot ***see*** my ignorance.

 

[James]

What an absolute mess this thread has turned into.

Thread Closed.