Well that proves why you didn't understand either of our posts that since your intial point did not make any sense.
Nah it shows that you don't understand whats being implied and are
As i told you before. It doesn't make any cricket sense to say in your words..."
A good bowling performance now on a batting friendly pitch doesn't downgrade bowling performances of those in past eras
I think that answers one of your Q as to how would ppl rate batting performances in 2000s if their is going to be a revival in bowling. By drawing parallels, I am implying that if a bowler performs well in this good batting idea (in your words), it doesn't mean that performances of those who bowled well when there was balance b/w bat and ball (in your words) get under-rated (put 2+2 together)
A great bowler which fits this build is obviously McGrath. But not because McGrath bowled on more flat decks this 2000s era than Marshall is he better than him because he bowled on more bowler friendly decks in his career than McGrath. ALLLL the great bowlers of the past from Harold Larwood to Allan Donald would have done well in this 2000s era if they played since they where just as great as McGrath.
So we can imply the same abt batsmen batting in 2000s, can't we? So whats the point in asking Q like (iirc) how would you rate batting performance in 2000s, if there is going to be a revival in bowling duh
Gaekward was better than any opener IND had in the 90s & would have opened for IND in this 2000s era ahead of Jaffer, Das. Surely he must have been good if the IND selectors backed him to open againts the Windies.
By that argument, I can say that Lee is better than most Indian bowlers, and bowlers from some of the other countries too like BD DUH
The argument is not whether they where rated in IND or outside AUS. During the 83/84 series they where good enough to play for IND againts the Windies.
You are debating against your own points. I am saying something similar abt the Aus attack of 03/04. Also McGrath and Warne are like all time bowlers of Australia, so when we talk abt batting we look at batsmen of such level
Gaekward was better than any opener IND had in the 90s & would have opened for IND in this 2000s era ahead of Jaffer, Das. Surely he must have been good if the IND selectors backed him to open againts the Windies.
It may not have been Dravid/Tendulkar/Ganguly/Lamxan(Azharruddin). But its not as if that batting line-up had to play in 83/84, they would have stopped the Windies from winning
*yawn* too much repetition
Arguably your country's greatest ever keeper batsman. Alot people would have him in an IND ALL-TIME XI, although some would also go for Engineer (my preference).
What cherry picking?. What details about that 74/75 series is inaccurate?.
Cherry picking because I gave examples of Lillee too
What does you rating Lillee highly despite having a weak record in the sub-continent have to do with that 74/75 series?
Ah ha more spoon feeding. Looks like you only remember things that you can answer too or twist. Put 2+2 together and you will get your answer.
I have not made up anything. You just making up dull excuses about the IND batsmen in the two series they lost to the Windies in 74/75 & 83/84.
There is no comparison between Ponting or Viv Richards not being able to score runs againts its own attack because that can't happen - and Sehwag not being able to score runs againts a full-strenght AUS attack in one series. Especially when in 2004/05 when he faced that full strenght AUS attack they exposed him techinically.
Brisbane & Adelaide is very much relevant since you claimed quite ludicrously that Melbourne wasn't a road:
I claimed Melbourne wasn't a road. Did I mention Brisbane or Adelaide
Im just making it CLEAR that the 2003/04 series was full of flat decks. There is no debating that. If you saw otherwise prove it to me.
I said that Melbourne wasn't (which is what counts)
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.
It's nice to know that you do understand that it's not only abt conditions
So you telling me his 317 & 254 was not scored on extremely flat pitches??
I am implying is that not anyone can score those type of scores, no matter what the pitch against top sides. It requires skills
It was indeed difficult batting conditions. But the great IND batsmen Rahul Dravid & Tendulkar stood up & scored half centuries respectively, while Sehwag failed miserbaly. This pretty much proves my point that only the
great batsmen, when conditions get tough, have the ability to stand up. Sehwag didn't have it there & has never shown it in his career to date.
Yeah some of those guys didn't stand up in earlier tests that much where Sehwag did. And no one looked that confident except Tendulkar, who actually turned the game for India
Plus ODI form/performances doesn't equal test success, so what he did in the ODIs on that NZ tour is irrelevant. The performances of Yuvraj Singh should tell you this quite clearly.
Because the conditions were similar i.e. very tough to bat on with others failing
No no i edited that portion of my post, must of been a computer glitch of soemthing. This is what is said:
That portion related to Bangalore 04, ENG 05/06 (the first two tests). Which where flat decks but the likes of McGrath & Hoggard all exposed him technically to delveries swinging back into his pads (a glaring weakness of his) - since they where expert inswing bowlers.
Both Melbourne 03 & Bangalore 04 are roads. Dont confuse yourself..
Rubbish.
- Firslty that game was no typical 4th Innings IND batting collapse. The AUS bowlers OWNED the Indian batsman in this test.
- Secondly its totally nonsense to say that IND batsmen weren't in form going into the series. ALL OF THEM where exposed by the AUS batsmen technically. Sehwag although he was exposed was the best batsman of that series.
The only IND batsman who gets an excuse was Tendy because he had his tennis-elbow issues & probably shouldn't have played in the series.
This innings is not relevant to argument againts Sehwag.
We are talking about RUNS AGAINTS A GOOD/VERY GOOD/QUALITY PACE ATTACK IN BOWLER FRIENDLY CONDITIONS. Understand the difference.
Even Darren Ganga & Lou Vincent was able to score runs againts a qaulity AUS attack on FLAT PITCHES.
As i said above Nagpur was an example on an test (the 1st innings) where McGrath got him out. It was the same way McGrath dismissed him in Bangalore 2nd innings & both innings in Mumbai. Which was the inswinging deliveries angling into his pad.
If you saw the series that was something that should be in your memory until now. Since McGrath kept getting him out the same way all series.
I never descedited the 58 in the second innings. You are just misunderstanding the dynamics of the argument.
So?
AHHHH And Laxman. You see by mentioning Tendulkar performance in the second innings who coincedentally was not at his best, you have pretty much proved my point.
Like what happened in the Wellington 2002 test that i showed above, on very difficult pitch. Only Tendulkar & Laxman - THE GREAT BATSMEN where able to stand up againts the AUS bowlers, although it was difficult them. Sehwag became a walking wicket, which McGrath easily cleaned up.
No. See here again just to make sure you are clear of what occured in the Nagpur test.
[/quote=ret]so it was time for others to step up anyways. And when I posted his performance at Galle, you had siad that you are talking abt his performance against pace bowler friendly conditions.
This pitch was spin friendly so you are not practicing what you are preaching! .... Another Q on your creditability