You're harping on the same point. You try and create an impression that a poor 3rd/4th innings is of greater concern than a poor record in an entire country, which I disagree with. Runs scored in the 3rd and 4th innings do not count double that of runs scored in the 1st or 2nd. As long as you're giving me 100 runs per test, why should it matter how you distribute them among the 4 innings'? The team still ends up with the same number of runs!
Except that's the problem. They are not worth the same amount when looking at the game situation. Runs scored at the start are easier to go by than on an aging pitch. Most batsmen are capable of scoring runs earlier on when there is less threat in the pitch. Not many can do so all through different innings. When you are comparing two batsmen of the highest quality, it's more than apt to address the fact that one batsman
also score runs when it was harder, as well as when it was easier. Few, or at least fewer, runs are scored in the 3rd and 4th innings so successful sides will need batsmen that can score runs when they are harder to come by.
And it should go without saying that failing in one instance(essentially 1/20) and failing in almost half of all instances (2/4) are completely different and the latter is worse.
However I would definitely be concerned if I had a bastman fail consistently in a country over multiple tours to the extent Ponting has, since that actually costs my team valuable runs. And its not simply a matter of Ponting playing spinners well in Pakistan and SL but not in India, but as you put it later in your post, its a question of negotiating a package of problems in a country. And if he fails to do that to a respectable degree against arguably the toughest opposition he's had to face, in their own backyard, it assumes a significance much much more than merely labelling it an aberration in a random country. Heck, if Tendulkar had averaged 20 in Australia over his career, you'd have trumpeted that as a very significant failure like there was no tomorrow.
And you know thats true, don't even bother denying it.
I wouldn't considering it's only a failure against that one team in that one place. Not in pretty much every game my player ever plays.
Again:
it should go without saying that failing in one instance(essentially 1/20) and failing in almost half of all instances (2/4) are completely different and the latter is worse.
And India the toughest opposition? Hardly.
Of course I would trumpet his failure in Australia. As I trumpeted his failure against S.Africa and, until they nose-dived, Pakistan. That's natural. It's a matter of who has failed the least, I guess. When we are comparing players, these are relevant.
He hasn't based on the criteria you yourself suggested. Check posts 141, 144 and 148. If you narrow the criterea, you're obviously going to end up with a smaller sample size.
No, it was the criteria
you suggested, and it
still goes against him.
Even though that the sample is still big enough. Your point about spinners was further refuted.
I do accept your point regarding Sehwag being troubled by much more than just the spinners in the 3rd and 4th innings, but I do not buy the different standards you apply to different players, and your reasons for categorising sample sizes. Its plainly obvious you're fixed in your reasoning for that, but I do not see merit in them, you do not see merit in my reasoning, and I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
Thus far, I've only seen disingenuous generalisations from you in this debate. Where do I apply different standards to different players? Answer that first. Thanks.
You said do I think Ponting's failure should be an aberration...and I said no, it shouldn't be. But that doesn't equate it with Sehwag's failure. Just because the innings in number (in your purposely myopic qualification) = 18, still doesn't equate them because Ponting has played double the amount Sehwag has, thus even as a proportion they are not the same. Regardless of the difference I illmuninate at the beginning of the thread.
Of course you can't separate the strength of an attack from the ease of the pitch. That is exactly what makes your list a futile exercise when it comes to comparing which batsmen have it easy batting at home, proving which, if I remember was the original purpose when it was compiled.
No, because then that would also not "compensate" the quality of the batsmen batting at home.
As I said, is India's attack worse than New Zealand's? No, it isn't. Yet their 'pitch stats' is inferior. Was Pakisan's? No, but they are much worse than both NZ and India. Deductible reasoning would lead you to understand that because the attacks weren't that different the reason why more batsmen score in one place than the other probably has something to do with the pitch.
It doesn't skew the data for visiting teams comparative to each other, but it definitely does when comparing the ease of run scoring for home batsmen against any set of visiting batsmen. The home bowlers could do well to bring down that per wickets average against visiting teams, but the home batsmen are free to score much more than that against the inferior visiting bowlers. This holds particularly true for Australia, by virtue of their excellent bowling attacks. Which is why it would be a fallacy in assuming that Australian batsmen bat in tougher conditions than Indian batsmen based solely on that data. I do not claim it as fact that Australian batsmen have it easier than Indian batsmen, but rather that it makes little sense reaching either conclusion based on that particular set of numbers.
You also can't make any conclusions based on the stats that you brought forth about the highest scores in Test stadiums, because that's even more flawed. That's where I gave you my set of stats.
What you're doing is exactly what you say you can't do when you talk about how in the sub-continent batsmen have it worse in the other innings. If you can't make these conclusions conclusion, as it's your opinion, then don't make it. What puts this discussion to an end is, inside, outside, anywhere, Sehwag's 3rd/4th innings record is poor. Trying to whittle it down to a sample that you think is not big enough, for reasons that are largely irrelevant, just seems dishonest.
