Sehwag vs Smith

[Richard]

Could you be 100% sure that none of them ever survived a close LBW?

You can be about as sure as you can be about anything in this game - if players should clearly have been out lbw, it'll be written about in reports on the game.

In any case, the overwhelming majority of lbws that should be given are given.

 

[ret]

Don't think Hawk-Eye was around in the early part of their careers, so obviously it would of been hard to judge with one look.

Obviously since 2000 () that problem would have been eradicated and we could of had as many looks at contentious lbw's.

yep, and how many times have we seen the ball going on to hit the stumps but the batsman getting the benefit of doubt

then it also questions the performances of all the greats in the past wrt chances, when it was not possible to have an account of let-offs rather than the obvious ones .... We can never know of sure, how many close calls a batsman like say Gavaskar survived coz 1. we didn't have the technology, 2. ppl focus more on the positives rather than mundane things like let-offs 3. those giving accounts didn't watch every ball of every game to come up with an honest comparison

and then the bowlers can also come up and say that i would have got 500 wkts in stead of 350, if that guy had caught that one, stumped that one, if the umpire had given that close call in my favor and so on

Debating things on let-offs when we don't have complete reliable information on is not only foolish but also unsporting .... and such points also shows that there is nothing else that can be brought to the table


Below is a hilarious pattern of debate going on

Sehwag gets lets-offs
Smith got let off too, so how did it hurt his record, no answer

Sehwag gets let-offs
Others don't
Proof ?

Sehwag gets let-offs
We can say that others do well in seaming conditions
How?
coz they don't get let-offs
Proof?

Without even thinking you can guess that whatever point that is going to come up will be hypocritical as no reliable source will be provided, it will be assumed that others don't get let-offs and Sehwag gets lol

 

[ret]

You can be about as sure as you can be about anything in this game - if players should clearly have been out lbw, it'll be written about in reports on the game.

In any case, the overwhelming majority of lbws that should be given are given.

So who is going to present those reports?

And could you also show reports where it says a player was dropped?

 

[Richard]

Without even thinking you can guess that whatever point that is going to come up will be hypocritical as no reliable source will be provided, it will be assumed that others don't get let-offs and Sehwag gets lol

It won't. But I'm really sick of discussing the matter with you, you are not prepared to accept the realities and will manufacture nondescript criticism after nondescript criticism. I'm not going to waste my time trying to persuade you to see the truth of the situation regarding let-offs any longer.

 

[ret]

It won't. But I'm really sick of discussing the matter with you, you are not prepared to accept the realities and will manufacture nondescript criticism after nondescript criticism. I'm not going to waste my time trying to persuade you to see the truth of the situation regarding let-offs any longer.

I know the truth abt let-offs, it's just that I don't give it much importance Someone could say that XYZ would have done much better if he had not received bad decisions against him. Bad decisions are another dimension of the game but just like let-offs, i wouldn't give them much importance too

And do we see bowlers claiming more wickets against their names of the basis of let-offs? No bowler can say that I would have got 200 more wkts, if the batsmen weren't let-off .... Similarly, no batsman can say that he would have got 2000 more runs, if I hadn't got wrong decision

I have seen a horrible decision go against Hansie Cronje in Abad. A ball from Hirwani pitched miles outside the leg-stump, which prompted Hansie to just stand in front of his stumps and allow the ball to hit his pad .... the umpire gave him out

I have seen Tendulkar get some horror decisions against him like in one game in Australia where he got LBW when he ducked and the ball stuck his helmet. No do you want people to argue what his average would have been if he had not got that bad decision

If you can argue, how a batsman does well on the basis of let-offs then ppl can argue why a batsman didn't do well on the basis of wrong decisions he got

In both cases, the debate will be highly subjective and both of the above scenarios are different facets of the game but just like wrong decisions don't make a good point, the let-offs don't too

To illustrate, You go to a restaurant. It has a great atmosphere. It served you some great dishes but one of the dish was bad. Now will you argue that how the restaurant is bad based on that one dish or will you look at the overall picture .... And then by arguing that that restaurant is not that good based on one bad dish, you are ignoring other restaurants who may have more bad dishes or may be they serve that dish equally badly, or may serve that dish superbly but may have other dishes that are bad. In short too many variables, so most people usually look at the overall picture and don't waste time discussing a bad dishes which can be variable. Who knows the next time you go that dish would have improved

I hope you got the point

 

[Pup Clarke]

I have seen a horrible decision go against Hansie Cronje in Abad. A ball from Hirwani pitched miles outside the off-stump, which prompted Hansie to just stand in front of his stumps and allow the ball to hit his pad .... the umpire gave him out

I have seen Tendulkar get some horror decisions against him like in one game in Australia where he got LBW when he ducked and the ball stuck his helmet. No do you want people to argue what his average would have been if he had not got that bad decision

1) If the ball was spinning back at Cronje and he wasn't playing a shot the umpire would be perfectly justified to give it out, a "horrible" lbw decision by an umpire is usually one that pitches massively outside the leg stump

2) Am pretty convinced it struck him on the elbow and was heading for middle stump, Sachin is one for reacting to leg before's rather badly and there was no complaint here.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=P_efi3p5jQ4&feature=related

 

[ret]

1) If the ball was spinning back at Cronje and he wasn't playing a shot the umpire would be perfectly justified to give it out, a "horrible" lbw decision by an umpire is usually one that pitches massively outside the leg stump

2) Am pretty convinced it struck him on the elbow and was heading for middle stump, Sachin is one for reacting to leg before's rather badly and there was no complaint here.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=P_efi3p5jQ4&feature=related

1. sorry it's a typo, i meant the leg-stump in the Hansie case [will edit that]

2. as you can see by the comments below that clip, the decision is subjective

 

[Pup Clarke]

And these comments mean...?

 

[ret]

And these comments mean...?

the decision is subjective to one's perception

I m using the above as examples in relation to some of the points that I made in my earlier post .... And thats why one is an example of a subjective decision for Ind, while the other against Ind .... I would replace them with some other examples for e.g. from the recently concluded Sydney test

 

[Pup Clarke]

I would replace them with some other examples for e.g. from the recently concluded Sydney test

No, lets not get started on that again...there was the *Official Ind in Aus thread* which covered most areas.

 

[Lambu]

coming back to the topic, though both have obvious technical flaws,i think bowlers around the world rate Sehwag better,IMO.

Though both had a good outing recently,the difference in class was pretty much obvious for everyone to notice.

 

[shortpitched713]

Sehwag for Tests. Smith for ODIs by yards.

 

[Briony]

I, like everybody else, don't like Smith so I would take Sehwag over him but in relation to the matches against Australia, he's been disappointing but on the last tour here he copped the rough end of the pineapple from the umpires. He got 2 or 3 poor LBW calls go against him and in SA on the return tour was given out erroneously twice against Warne - the second time he was caught off his arm when on forty. The selectors will have to decide whether or not he should be picked to place against us as we have a hex over him.

Sehwag can be exciting but I believe struggles on pitches with venom in them. Apart from his innings of 300 on a dead track in the just completed series against the Saffers, he was disappointing. He failed to combat the pacemen in the second test when India really needed him to step up.

 

[Richard]

I, like everybody else, don't like Smith

 

[Perm]

Another good thread hijacked by Richard and his FCA theory, which, has some merits, but has been proven to be mostly a load of rubbish. I suppose it's always going to happen when one member has some 'interesting' ideas and is usually quite adamant on getting the last word in. Nevertheless, maybe we can get back to the real discussion. Might I add, a discussion that would have been much better if a poll was present.

Virender Sehwag is a fine Test batsman, and averages just a shade under 55 when he's opening against Test class opposition. His strike rate in the mid seventies is an added bonus too, meaning he scores quicker and gives his bowlers more chance to bowl out the opposition. If you look more closely at his record, his success has only come against three nations - Australia, Pakistan and South Africa. His record against those three teams is 3003 runs at an average of 66.73. Superb on the surface, but it doesn't tell the full story. In 13 innings against South Africa Sehwag has scored two centuries, one half-century and made six single figures scores. Both of his centuries (164 and 319) were made on flat tracks. His scores against Pakistan make for impressive reading. 309, 90, 173, 81, 201, 254. All of those knocks, bar his 90, were made on flat tracks and against some weak bowlers.

There is no doubt in my mind that Sehwag has been the more prolific scorer so far in his career, but also that he has benefited greatly from concrete wickets and shoddy catching. He has played some superlative innings at Test level though, mostly against Australia. I do think that Graeme Smith will surpass him as a Test opener in the future, but so far he doesn't compare IMO.

 

[JerseyGuy]

Sehwag and Smith against Australia

Tests:
Sehwag 11
Smith 8

Runs:
Sehwag 1132
Smith 356

Avg:
Sehwag 53.90
Smith 22.25

HS:
Sehwag 195
Smith 68

100s:
Sehwag: 3
Smith: 0

i think that^ says a lot

You hit the nail on the head... Sehwag is most destructive opener in Tests out there. He just does not score hundreds but big hundreds at a very fast pace....enough to demoralize the opposition single handedly.

 

[JerseyGuy]

Another good thread hijacked by Richard and his FCA theory, which, has some merits, but has been proven to be mostly a load of rubbish. I suppose it's always going to happen when one member has some 'interesting' ideas and is usually quite adamant on getting the last word in. Nevertheless, maybe we can get back to the real discussion. Might I add, a discussion that would have been much better if a poll was present.

Virender Sehwag is a fine Test batsman, and averages just a shade under 55 when he's opening against Test class opposition. His strike rate in the mid seventies is an added bonus too, meaning he scores quicker and gives his bowlers more chance to bowl out the opposition. If you look more closely at his record, his success has only come against three nations - Australia, Pakistan and South Africa. His record against those three teams is 3003 runs at an average of 66.73. Superb on the surface, but it doesn't tell the full story. In 13 innings against South Africa Sehwag has scored two centuries, one half-century and made six single figures scores. Both of his centuries (164 and 319) were made on flat tracks. His scores against Pakistan make for impressive reading. 309, 90, 173, 81, 201, 254. All of those knocks, bar his 90, were made on flat tracks and against some weak bowlers.

There is no doubt in my mind that Sehwag has been the more prolific scorer so far in his career, but also that he has benefited greatly from concrete wickets and shoddy catching. He has played some superlative innings at Test level though, mostly against Australia. I do think that Graeme Smith will surpass him as a Test opener in the future, but so far he doesn't compare IMO.

You must hate Sehwag...."flat tracks" my foot...he is best opener out there and no one can deny that....including you.

 

[Perm]

You must hate Sehwag...."flat tracks" my foot...he is best opener out there and no one can deny that....including you.

I don't hate Sehwag at all. I don't like him very much due to his training and weight issues, but he's shown the World that he does have the ability to play some excellent Test innings. I'd really enjoy it if he continued scoring those, rather than slaughtering Mohammad Sami, Rana Naved and Danish Kaneria on a concrete pitch. I can deny that Sehwag is the best opener, as I'd far rather have Matthew Hayden and probably Alistair Cook too, both of whom are, or will be better Test openers than Sehwag. IMO.

 

[Richard]

Another good thread hijacked by Richard and his FCA theory, which, has some merits, but has been proven to be mostly a load of rubbish.

Nah. And really, if you look closely, it wasn't especially "good" either before or potentially ret got involved with his nonsensical rebuttals. It's a comparison of two players whose careers have taken extremely different paths.

 

[ret]

His scores against Pakistan make for impressive reading. 309, 90, 173, 81, 201, 254. All of those knocks, bar his 90, were made on flat tracks and against some weak bowlers.

There is no doubt in my mind that Sehwag has been the more prolific scorer so far in his career, but also that he has benefited greatly from concrete wickets and shoddy catching. He has played some superlative innings at Test level though, mostly against Australia. I do think that Graeme Smith will surpass him as a Test opener in the future, but so far he doesn't compare IMO.

that 309 was scored against likes of akthar and it's was a game that ind won. kaneria was in decent form at that time .... his 201 was in a game that ind lost, it was a game where it looked ind would win as long as he was there but as soon as he got out, the line up collapsed

2nd, playing on flat tracks doesn't automatically translate into big scores ... playing big innings on flat tracks and in the subcontinent offers challenges too like the ability to concentrate for long periods, the reverse swing coming into play .... the rate at which he scores also means that the bowler is in with a chance, i.e. he doesn't play like he is playing in the nets

3rd, he has notched up 100s at melbourne 195 on the first day on a seamer friendly pitch .... 150 odd at adelaide on the last day when others failed .... 155 at Chennai against Aus on a pitch favoring bowlers .... most ppl who have seen those would say that he is good enough to play on most surfaces