Sehwag, an all-time Indian great?

[bagapath]

What is only happens for a split-second. Thereafter, it's gone, it's in the past. Ergo, reality is concerned with what has been - because what is being is not being for long enough to be of any relevance.

And clearly reality cannot concern what will be, because it hasn't happened yet.

nonsense. sehwag is an opener. period.

and richard, you can rival the deepak chopras of this world if you hone your philosophical bull****ting.

 

[mohammad16]

I Seriously feel Viv would average in the 90s had he been in Sehwags shoes and faced the bowling he has faced in the most flattest of tracks since the start of 2000s.

And sehwag dominating shoaib is just nonsense, on very few occasions has Sehwag really taken it to Shoaib. Tendulkar only dominated Akhtar in that world cup game. Since then Shoaib has had an upper hand on both these batsmen.

The only batsmen who has consistently dominated Shoaib is Jayasuriya.

 

[ret]

He averages over 90 against Pakistan!

 

[funnygirl]

I Seriously feel Viv would average in the 90s had he been in Sehwags shoes and faced the bowling he has faced in the most flattest of tracks since the start of 2000s.

And sehwag dominating shoaib is just nonsense, on very few occasions has Sehwag really taken it to Shoaib. Tendulkar only dominated Akhtar in that world cup game. Since then Shoaib has had an upper hand on both these batsmen.

The only batsmen who has consistently dominated Shoaib is Jayasuriya.

The upper hand was there to be seen like 309 and 254.The bowler who found Sehwag out was Asif.Boogey man was the name given by great Khan to Sehwag not to Akhtar.Also a bowling average of 34 against India didn't show much upper hand.Not to mention his bowling average is 60+ in those matches Sehwag played.

 

[Ikki]

Well Sehwag can't be an all-time Indian opening great really...because he didn't start off as one.

 

[Richard]

He averages over 90 against Pakistan!

And, as pointed-out by Osman Samiuddin (not me), it could conceivably be half that if the Pakistan fielders could catch.

 

[Richard]

nonsense. sehwag is an opener. period.

No, Sehwag has mostly opened in Tests (and ODIs). That's all there is to it.

and richard, you can rival the deepak chopras of this world if you hone your philosophical bull****ting.

Thanks, that's a considerable compliment.

 

[Richard]

waffle.jpg

Reality is what is, the past and present.

In one split second many things can happen-the big bang for instance. However the big bang is irrelevant because it only lasted for a split second.

When did I say what happens in a split-second won't have any long-term relevance? All I said is that what happens in a split-second (which is all that comprises the present) has no relevance to reality.

Anyway, let's leave it at the reality is no more than that Sehwag has opened mostly in Tests and ODIs. Not because he's a natural there, but because he was successfully manufactured into the position.

 

[Jono]

What the hell s an opener if its not opening the batting at the elite level over a significant number of years?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Isn't Deepak Chopra the bloke who preaches spiritual love and cons people out of thousands of dollars in the process?

 

[Richard]

What the hell s an opener if its not opening the batting at the elite level over a significant number of years?

What'd be fair to say is that you cannot say someone "is" something unless they've played the same role throughout their career of significance.

However I tend to classify someone as what they were when they moved into the game of a serious nature. Mark Richardson, for instance, was not actually an opener, he was a left-arm fingerspinner, who only became an opener after losing his ability to do what he originally did.

 

[ret]

And, as pointed-out by Osman Samiuddin (not me), it could conceivably be half that if the Pakistan fielders could catch.

Not anybody's fault .... And it also implies that anyone who ever got a big score never got a chance (which is not the case so I don't see much point in the argument). Also anyone who gets dropped don't go on to get a big one

 

[Jono]

He became an opener, so at some point HE WAS an opener.

You know how you become are in a certain position in the company, and then get promoted. You don't stay a business analyst your whole career, your skills, experience, desire etc. change and you might change your position, and become an associate.

Or you may leave and become a consultant in a different industry.

You aren't one thing forever.

 

[Richard]

Not anybody's fault ....

Well... yeah it is. The chance being given is Sehwag's fault and the chance being dropped is the Pakistan fielder's fault.

And it also implies that anyone who ever got a big score never got a chance.

Does absolutely nothing of the sort.

Also anyone who gets dropped don't go on to get a big one

So?

People who get dropped - especially multiple times - have an exponentially greater chance of getting bigger runs than those who don't.

 

[aussie]

What'd be fair to say is that you cannot say someone "is" something unless they've played the same role throughout their career of significance.

However I tend to classify someone as what they were when they moved into the game of a serious nature. Mark Richardson, for instance, was not actually an opener, he was a left-arm fingerspinner, who only became an opener after losing his ability to do what he originally did.

Urrr??. I hope i am confused & have misunderstood here, since i hope you not saying here that you consider Richardson a left-arm spinner instead of an opener??

 

[Richard]

He became an opener, so at some point HE WAS an opener.

You know how you become are in a certain position in the company, and then get promoted. You don't stay a business analyst your whole career, your skills, experience, desire etc. change and you might change your position, and become an associate.

Or you may leave and become a consultant in a different industry.

You aren't one thing forever.

I realise that, and in fact it's precisely the point I'm making. Plenty of players cannot be classified as one thing. And regardless of the fact that Sehwag's Test and ODI careers have mostly encompassed opening the batting, he has not come remotely close to making his entire career of significant cricket doing the same thing.

 

[Richard]

Urrr??. I hope i am confused & have misunderstood here, since i hope you not saying here that you consider Richardson a left-arm spinner instead of an opener??

Richardson was a left-arm fingerspinner who manufactured himself into an opener after losing his ability to do what had initially brought him into cricket.

Simple as that.

 

[Pratters]

Tendulkar didn't start off as an ODI opener. So obviously he was not an ODI opener and can't be selected as one in an all time ODI XI.

 

[Shri]

So, Sachin Tendulkar was an aspiring fast bowler who was 'manufactured' into a batsman by Lillee's(?) advice?

 

[Richard]

Tendulkar didn't start off as an ODI opener. So obviously he was not an ODI opener and can't be selected as one in an all time ODI XI.

What you are implying I implied I did not imply. As I say, the fact that someone was manufactured into a rule - as Tendulkar was into opening in ODIs (as in fact was Sehwag) - does not impact at all on whether one can or should pick them in composite teams.

Mountain-out-of-molehill time.................... again.