Sehwag vs Smith

[Lillian Thomson]

Nah, there are facts and figs that everyone can objectively discuss .... a point like let-offs is subjective and many would not even remember them. then we have no reliable source to go by, just the account that you give

Even though I feel that a statement like 'it's batsman's fault that he is dropped' is ridicilous, lets continue to play by your rules. For once, I find it difficult to believe that Australians would be dropping regulation catches but still just like anything that hit's the middle of the bat does not go to a boundry, anything that hit's the hand need not be caught. And again, it depends upon the angle of the ball, on what side of the fielder did the ball go, the time of the day, and so on

As i said that the point like 'Smith didn't get 100s against top quality bowling attacks like Australia coz he was never let-off' is not even a point .... It only reflects badly on Smith as ppl can imply that he needs let-offs to get 100s .... more I read your posts, the more they crack me up

and, you said that he was let-off when on 7 against Eng when he made that 259, so should we deduct that 100 from Smith's account .... and what abt his other 4 100s against top quality attack, were they chanceless?

You can play 100 false shots in an innings without giving a chance or you can play 1 false shot which just happens to go to hand. That doesn't make the innings with the 100 false shots a better innings, that's why no else is interested in the first chance average mumbo jumbo.

 

[ret]

You can play 100 false shots in an innings without giving a chance or you can play 1 false shot which just happens to go to hand. That doesn't make the innings with the 100 false shots a better innings, that's why no else is interested in the first chance average mumbo jumbo.

err .... how does that relate to things that been said here

 

[Lillian Thomson]

err .... how does that relate to things that been said here

err........The discussion was on about using the number of dropped chances in an innings to judge a players ability. A batsman could edge a ball to second slip and be a)Caught b)Dropped or c)There's no fielder there. The batsman's ability remains the same. It's just a general point on the subject not specifically related to Sehwag or Smith.

 

[dontcloseyoureyes]

I'd take him down in 3, itbt.

 

[ret]

err........The discussion was on about using the number of dropped chances in an innings to judge a players ability. A batsman could edge a ball to second slip and be a)Caught b)Dropped or c)There's no fielder there. The batsman's ability remains the same. It's just a general point on the subject not specifically related to Sehwag or Smith.

exactly .... he is saying that Smith didn't get 100s against top quality bowling like Australia's coz he was not 'let-off', which is hard to believe coz he has played 16 innings against them .... and not once was he good enough to score a 100 against Australia, let-offs or no let-offs .... even though, he is defending Smith on the basis of 'let-offs', what he is probably doing is closing doors on Smith .... and it's all happening within the rules that he has set up

 

[Hit4Six]

econometric analysis would suggest that any drops/missed chances would be balanced out over time by equal errors such as incorrect decisions when a batsmen is not out.

The problem with Richard's first chance is that he seems to remember all these from memory which is wonderful but not particularly scientific, so to argue Sehwag or Smith's first chance average is higher/lower than each others is a bit foolish given it is debatable what constitutes a chance (as mentioned earlier) equally if we were regress such a thing it would carry ommitted variable bias thus an accurate representation of a batsmens ability cannot be measured.

if we go on statistics and purely statistics we should do as is done in finance compare the average on the two batsmen relative to an average of every other top order batsmen or opener present at that time on each respective ground against each respective attack.

I cba to do this therefore I am going to go to and eat lunch.

 

[Richard]

Nah, there are facts and figs that everyone can objectively discuss .... a point like let-offs is subjective and many would not even remember them. then we have no reliable source to go by, just the account that you give

If some people don't remember them, it's up to others to remind them.

Even though I feel that a statement like 'it's batsman's fault that he is dropped' is ridicilous

Which I never said. I said it's a batsman's fault if he gives a chance.

lets continue to play by your rules. For once, I find it difficult to believe that Australians would be dropping regulation catches

Well you'd better believe it, because there's been more than a few occasions in the last 5 years when they have.

but still just like anything that hit's the middle of the bat does not go to a boundry, anything that hit's the hand need not be caught. And again, it depends upon the angle of the ball, on what side of the fielder did the ball go, the time of the day, and so on

Anything that a fielder gets a decent hand, and certainly two hands, on, should be caught. Simple as. Not remotely analogous to cases of hitting the middle of the bat and going to the boundary.

As i said that the point like 'Smith didn't get 100s against top quality bowling attacks like Australia coz he was never let-off' is not even a point .... It only reflects badly on Smith as ppl can imply that he needs let-offs to get 100s .... more I read your posts, the more they crack me up

I'm well aware of that. And once more if you look carefully, I've not remotely suggested that it'd reflect well on Smith if he had received let-offs to score centuries.

and, you said that he was let-off when on 7 against Eng when he made that 259, so should we deduct that 100 from Smith's account .... and what abt his other 4 100s against top quality attack, were they chanceless?

The first against England was, the one against New Zealand was, and the second against Pakistan was. The first against Pakistan wasn't.

 

[Richard]

A batsman could edge a ball to second slip and be a)Caught b)Dropped or c)There's no fielder there. The batsman's ability remains the same.

Batsmen will never be caught if a ball goes where there isn't a fielder. Never. The possibility of it is zero. Batsmen should always be caught if the ball goes in the air where there is a fielder. Yes, if it's an out-and-out false stroke and edge it's the same as far as what the batsman's done is concerned, but unless you're opining that every edge should result in dismissal it's completely irrelevant.

 

[Richard]

You can play 100 false shots in an innings without giving a chance or you can play 1 false shot which just happens to go to hand. That doesn't make the innings with the 100 false shots a better innings

Which is why the number of runs scored isn't the only important thing to look at when judging how good an innings is.

 

[ret]

If some people don't remember them, it's up to others to remind them.

The first against England was, the one against New Zealand was, and the second against Pakistan was. The first against Pakistan wasn't.

The logical way to remind should be by using some reliable source

Now we have come to a point where 2 out of 5 100s that Smith has hit against Eng, Pak & NZ have had let-offs [according to you memory] .... so how does that reflect on Smith's record?

Finally, according to your assesment, 2 of Sehwag's 3 100s against Australia have had let-offs, which means that 1 of his 3 100s is chanceless!!! so still he has 1 chancless 100, while Smith has none, let offs or no let-offs. so don't really understand how Smith not getting any let-offs against Australia means anything to this discussion .... Like, I said earlier, your point on let-offs offers little to this discussion

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Batsmen will never be caught if a ball goes where there isn't a fielder. Never. The possibility of it is zero. Batsmen should always be caught if the ball goes in the air where there is a fielder. Yes, if it's an out-and-out false stroke and edge it's the same as far as what the batsman's done is concerned, but unless you're opining that every edge should result in dismissal it's completely irrelevant.

You're attempting to belittle a batsman's ability based on whether or not he gave a chance, which is completely irrevevant. If he plays a false shot and there's no fielder there his ability is 100% the same as if a fielder is there. You might as well try to assess a batsman's ability on the opposing captain's ability to set a field.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Which is why the number of runs scored isn't the only important thing to look at when judging how good an innings is.

..........and is also why a chanceless innings isn't automatically better than one where a chance is dropped.

 

[Richard]

Exactly. Something I've never once claimed.

 

[Richard]

You're attempting to belittle a batsman's ability based on whether or not he gave a chance, which is completely irrevevant. If he plays a false shot and there's no fielder there his ability is 100% the same as if a fielder is there. You might as well try to assess a batsman's ability on the opposing captain's ability to set a field.

The opposing captain's ability to set a field is indeed one of the things (along with the quality of the bowling) that should be assessed when assessing the quality of an innings.

These, however, are intangibles, things that run along a continuum. Giving a chance is something that either is done or isn't done - it's a straightforward yes or no. Of course I'm "belittling" (rather an OTT term really) an innings if a chance was given when not-many were on the board - normally, when a chance is given dismissal is the result. So the innings stops there. And you can't score runs from in the pavilion.

It's something you can put a number on, whereas things like the calibre of the bowling are not.

 

[Richard]

The logical way to remind should be by using some reliable source

I could give you a second citation of near enough any let-off which I mention, TBH.

Now we have come to a point where 2 out of 5 100s that Smith has hit against Eng, Pak & NZ have had let-offs [according to you memory] .... so how does that reflect on Smith's record?

Finally, according to your assesment, 2 of Sehwag's 3 100s against Australia have had let-offs, which means that 1 of his 3 100s is chanceless!!! so still he has 1 chancless 100, while Smith has none, let offs or no let-offs. so don't really understand how Smith not getting any let-offs against Australia means anything to this discussion .... Like, I said earlier, your point on let-offs offers little to this discussion

It offers something to any discussion about Sehwag. As I've said probably several hundred times now, I am not saying Smith's career as a Test opener to date is a better one than Sehwag's. My interest in discussions like this is not purely related to comparing the two.

 

[ret]

why would let-offs to Sehwag mean anything when the same desn't mean for other batsmen?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Exactly. Something I've never once claimed.

Why then must not giving a chance at all clearly be marked way above giving one and being let-off.

There might have been 100 false shots without giving a chance, so is this marked way below playing one false shot and giving a chance or not? If it's not necessarily the better innings why is it marked way above just because it doesn't contain a let off.

 

[funnygirl]

Smith

Sehwag is a filthy hacker.

I wonder why this guy is being given so many ''let offs '' inspite of showing constant disrespects against particular races.

 

[ret]

I wonder why this guy is being given so many ''let offs '' inspite of showing constant disrespects against particular races.

haha, i guess that very few read his posts

 

[funnygirl]

why would let-offs to Sehwag mean anything when the same desn't mean for other batsmen?

The fact is the Sehwag hit the ''newball '' too hard that can't be taken so easily even by the expert fielders of Australian side .That is more because of his strength .