SehwagVsGilchrist

[The Sean]

It's threads like this where I just really, really wish somebody would think of the children.

 

[Ikki]

And yet, he scores more than everybody else......

We're not talking about 50 and 0, vs. 50 and 50. We're talking about the same average but different distribution. E.g, 100 and 0 vs. 50 and 50.

Yes, but it's simply not those batsmen against each other. It is Team X vs Team Y. Other people will have to contribute runs.

See statement:

Yes and I am sure a bowler who takes 80% of wickets from the tail is as good as a bowler who takes 80% from the upper order. The wickets have the same value right? One later, the others earlier. Hmm.

The question was the toughest competition to Australia. Not the second best team in the world.

It was in the realm of the toughest test he'd have to face. Which wasn't India. Even though they showed up. I am sure you understand the clear difference. I didn't think I'd need to spell it out to you of all people.

 

[Ikki]

Incorrect: he has played 12 games against India IN India. He has played 23 games against India in total, out of which 12 were away and 11 were in Aus.

So it's 1/11.

No, it's not. For simply that stat says Ponting will be poor every 11th test on average. That doesn't say anything. We want to know why he is poor. So it's a matter of instances. He only fails against India and only away. So in the 18 circumstances he can possibly face, he is only fragile in 1.

Ponting's average drops from 62 in the first innings to 47 in the second innings. The differential is about 15 runs. Quite significant, and clearly nowhere as good as Hayden. Does this mean Hayden is more valuable to his team than Ponting? The latter clearly has more trouble in the latter innings.

The difference between 1st and 2nd innings is negligible. That's why they're grouped together. It's in those two innings that a batsman will bat for the first time. It's in the 3rd or 4th that he comes for the 2nd time.

See above. Sehwag's troubles apply to Ponting also, just to a lesser degree. It doesn't prove a damn thing one way or another.

No, they don't. You've just made a shotty argument with no sense.

Yeah, I was indeed talking about Tendulkar's away average.

Not sure what it means that the 3rd/4th innings average is much lower. Richards's ratio of century/innings is quite a bit lower than Tendulkar's, in spite of having played far fewer games. So one can argue that Tendulkar made up for his 2nd innings deficit by scoring a lot more in his first innings to make up for it.

Every batsman has his own quirks, whether it be a propensity to get out to a certain shot, certain ball, against certain bowlers or types of pitches. It's an extended, messy discussion, and nowhere as simple as you make it out to be.

Yes, but doing worse at home against a team is even less forgivable than doing worse away. Because you are accustomed to your home conditions are expected to deal with them better.

The reason 3rd/4th innings averages mean something is because it is usually at this stage that pitches tend to wear down and batting becomes more difficult. It isn't a quirk, anymore than the difference between a pitch that is suited for spin and one that is suited for pace. Ideally, you want a batsman that averages 50 against pace and 50 against spin than one who averages 60 against pace and 30 against spin.

 

[Precambrian]

Finding mention of Tendulkar/Ponting makes me want to "Ikki"nore this thread.

 

[Ikki]

Issue is with equating playing Bangladesh with playing others. Should be discounted. So it becomes 1/16.

1/15 if you discount the fact Aus have not played in Pakistan for a long time.

No, because he could fail there. But hasn't. Also, he has played Pakistan away and even on neutral soil, so that still increase that instance.

 

[Precambrian]

No, because he could fail there. But hasn't. Also, he has played Pakistan away and even on neutral soil, so that still increase that instance.

Hardly enough to make a case for or against.

 

[Evermind]

No, it's not. For simply that stat says Ponting will be poor every 11th test on average. That doesn't say anything. We want to know why he is poor. So it's a matter of instances. He only fails against India and only away. So in the 18 circumstances he can possibly face, he is only fragile in 1.

That makes even less sense now. He's not RANDOMLY poor every 11th test on average - he is poor against the exact same opposition.

Let's say out of 130 games, he had played 65 against India and 65 against the rest of the world. It would be absolutely absurd to say that he fails in 1/18 instances.

1/11 combines the fact that it's an instance and the fact that it's a certain opposition.

The difference between 1st and 2nd innings is negligible. That's why they're grouped together. It's in those two innings that a batsman will bat for the first time. It's in the 3rd or 4th that he comes for the 2nd time.

Dude, I obviously meant HIS 1st and 2nd innings. 62 average is in the TEAM'S 1st and 2nd innings combined, 47 average is in the TEAM'S 3rd and 4th combined. It'd help if you could just look at the stats yourself and not go into these irrelevant strawman asides.

1st team innings 1995-2009 130 7792 257 61.84 31 5 1/0 26.40 0 70 0
2nd team innings 1995-2009 128 3156 156 47.10 6 0 - - 0 77 0

Yes, but doing worse at home against a team is even less forgivable than doing worse away. Because you are accustomed to your home conditions are expected to deal with them better.

So it's awful if you do worse away than at home, which would implicate that you're a home-track bully, and it's awful if you do worse at home than away, because it's unforgivable that you're used to home conditions and still can't score. It seems like the batsman just can't win. He must average the same everywhere in all instances and all innings, against all opposition home and away to be considered great. Not a single batsman (Chappell?) manages that.

If you can't see how random it is to pick one stat over another in this manner, I don't know what to say to you.

The reason 3rd/4th innings averages mean something is because it is usually at this stage that pitches tend to wear down and batting becomes more difficult. It isn't a quirk, anymore than the difference between a pitch that is suited for spin and one that is suited for pace. Ideally, you want a batsman that averages 50 against pace and 50 against spin than one who averages 60 against pace and 30 against spin.

The more I read this argument, the more futile it seems. I can flip it around and say that as openers, Sehwag and Hayden face the most difficult pitch conditions in the first innings, when the ball is seaming around the most. And Sehwag yet is able to score nearly 15 runs more than Hayden on average. Plus, in the second innings of the team, they're usually playing on the 4th day, when the conditions aren't as bad as on the 5th. So it's possible that for openers, the first few hours of the first day are far more difficult than the 4th day. In this case, Sehwag comes out on top.

To me Sehwag and Hayden average about the same. And so they're equally effective for the team - runs are runs, whether more are scored in the first innings or second is irrelevant because as we all know, in test cricket, they combine the score of both innings for one team and see who has more. The whole act of splitting it up into first and second innings is pretty irrelevant in terms of a batsman's contribution to the score.

 

[Ikki]

Hardly enough to make a case for or against.

50 degree heat, batmen dropping like flies and averaging about 86...I think it makes a case.

 

[Ikki]

That makes even less sense now. He's not RANDOMLY poor every 11th test on average - he is poor against the exact same opposition.

Exactly, he is only poor against the same opposition and only away. Hence 1/18 instances. He isn't going to be poor every 11th test if we extrapolate the stats; it would only remain true if we kept playing India at home at the same rate.

Let's say out of 130 games, he had played 65 against India and 65 against the rest of the world. It would be absolutely absurd to say that he fails in 1/18 instances.

1/11 combines the fact that it's an instance and the fact that it's a certain opposition.

I agree with you, if that were the case, it would be absurd. In this case, it certainly isn't. He only failed in 12 tests. So to say he failed 1/11th of the time is misleading, because it was only in one circumstance. It doesn't mean if he played S.Africa 11 times he will fail, because the 1/11th stat only has meaning if all the opponents are the same.

Conversely, if a player failed in 6 tests each against 4 countries and succeed in 70 against another, it would be misleading to say the batsman was a success 75% of the time. In reality, he had the stick over one opponent and against the others was a failure.

Dude, I obviously meant HIS 1st and 2nd innings. 62 average is in the TEAM'S 1st and 2nd innings combined, 47 average is in the TEAM'S 3rd and 4th combined. It'd help if you could just look at the stats yourself and not go into these irrelevant strawman asides.

1st team innings 1995-2009 130 7792 257 61.84 31 5 1/0 26.40 0 70 0
2nd team innings 1995-2009 128 3156 156 47.10 6 0 - - 0 77 0

How is averaging 47 in 3rd/4th innings bad? I assume that was your point because it'd be irrelevant to bring it up.

So it's awful if you do worse away than at home, which would implicate that you're a home-track bully, and it's awful if you do worse at home than away, because it's unforgivable that you're used to home conditions and still can't score. It seems like the batsman just can't win. He must average the same everywhere in all instances and all innings, against all opposition home and away to be considered great. Not a single batsman (Chappell?) manages that.

If you can't see how random it is to pick one stat over another in this manner, I don't know what to say to you.

Obviously, if you average 30 against S.Africa in S.Africa it is bad. Averaging 30 against S.Africa at home is worse. Solution: do better. If you average 45 at home and 50 away against the same opposition, it's not a talking point. You did very well regardless. But when you score that low, then yes, there is a distinction, if slight.

And yes, obviously, the batsman that scores more runs on more occasions in varying circumstances is the best batsman. Chappell does very well, Richards too, Ponting is very close. It's not the only thing, of course, but it is an important thing.

For example, a bowler could average 28 against all nations and that's acceptable when you look at it in a broader view and another bowler could average a superlative 19 against all nations but average 35 against one. Obviously, you use your head. Does being univerally decent outshine being superlative every other place bar one? In my mind it doesn't.

There is nothing random about it.

The more I read this argument, the more futile it seems. I can flip it around and say that as openers, Sehwag and Hayden face the most difficult pitch conditions in the first innings, when the ball is seaming around the most. And Sehwag yet is able to score nearly 15 runs more than Hayden on average. Plus, in the second innings of the team, they're usually playing on the 4th day, when the conditions aren't as bad as on the 5th. So it's possible that for openers, the first few hours of the first day are far more difficult than the 4th day. In this case, Sehwag comes out on top.

Yeah, only for about 15-20 overs, maybe and depending on the pitch. But overall, not. Sehwag has a, frankly, huge drop between the innings averages. It works a lot against him. It's like looking at two different batsmen.

To me Sehwag and Hayden average about the same. And so they're equally effective for the team - runs are runs, whether more are scored in the first innings or second is irrelevant because as we all know, in test cricket, they combine the score of both innings for one team and see who has more. The whole act of splitting it up into first and second innings is pretty irrelevant in terms of a batsman's contribution to the score.

Nah, never.

 

[Evermind]

Exactly, he is only poor against the same opposition and only away. Hence 1/18 instances. He isn't going to be poor every 11th test if we extrapolate the stats; it would only remain true if we kept playing India at home at the same rate.

1/14, actually, discounting the minnows. Also, see below.

I agree with you, if that were the case, it would be absurd. In this case, it certainly isn't. He only failed in 12 tests. So to say he failed 1/11th of the time is misleading, because it was only in one circumstance.

Incorrect: to say that he failed 1/11 times is accurate because he in fact DID fail one game every eleven. Now the fact that it was in special circumstances against a particular opposition simply happens to be a curious aside. It doesn't make him any more effective statistically. Statistics do not bend according to circumstance: you can instantiate and categorise according to any specific variable you choose. Maybe he failed when temperature was over a certain value. The fact that Sehwag failed in 3rd 4th innings is awfully convenient in this case.

Let's take this hypothetical situation: a #10 batsman averages 70 in the first innings and 20 in his second innings. He has played 100 games, but unfortunately, has had the opportunity to bat only 10 times in the second innings, because his team has either won or drawn by then. Do you still say he has failed in 1/2 instances? Sure, but his average will be phenomenal, and his contribution to his team invaluable. It's really silly.

Do you realise how skewed this criterion of comparison is?

And saying that he failed 1/18 times is equally misleading, because it assumes that he played all the different opponents equal number of times. He has played India more often than any other opposition (narrowly barring England, 26 over 23). This suggests that there is a serious flaw, mental or physical, in his game that works against him.

Conversely, if a player failed in 6 tests each against 4 countries and succeed in 70 against another, it would be misleading to say the batsman was a success 75% of the time. In reality, he had the stick over one opponent and against the others was a failure.

Agreed. So stretching hypotheticals either way doesn't work, which means there has to be a different way of reviewing his case.

How is averaging 47 in 3rd/4th innings bad? I assume that was your point because it'd be irrelevant to bring it up.

It's not bad, but it's worse than Hayden's average. Also, the vast difference (15 runs) is statistically signifcant, meaning he can't manage runs in the second innings as well as he can in the first. Sehwag's case is just significantly worse, being a worse batsman. See below.

Obviously, if you average 30 against S.Africa in S.Africa it is bad. Averaging 30 against S.Africa at home is worse. Solution: do better. If you average 45 at home and 50 away against the same opposition, it's not a talking point. You did very well regardless. But when you score that low, then yes, there is a distinction, if slight.

And yes, obviously, the batsman that scores more runs on more occasions in varying circumstances is the best batsman. Chappell does very well, Richards too, Ponting is very close. It's not the only thing, of course, but it is an important thing.

It's just more of cherrypicking criteria. If we look at away scores, Sachin has the advantage over Ponting, because his lowest away average is 40. Does that mean he's a better batsman? No. I personally believe that Ponting is the better batsman.

Yeah, only for about 15-20 overs, maybe and depending on the pitch. But overall, not. Sehwag has a, frankly, huge drop between the innings averages. It works a lot against him. It's like looking at two different batsmen.

Your point would make sense if Sehwag's overall average were lower than Hayden's - say if he had a 52 first innings average and 22 second innings average. That would mean that Sehwag's just as good as anyone, but he can't cut it in the second innings.

However, Sehwag's first innings average is higher than Hayden's, Tendulkar's, Ponting's, Hammond's, Richards's and Chappell's. To dismiss him as poorer because of his inferior second innings average and yet not acknowledge his superiority over the others because of his ability to negotiate the seaming new ball is illogical. In the end, he has scored, effectively, the same number of runs for the team - he did so more at the beginning than at the end.

How is it that if all of the above batsmen are better than Sehwag, they can't outscore him in the first innings - allegedly, in far easier batting circumstances, according to you? Sachin's indicted for failing to score in "easier" circumstances against SA at home compared to away. Why aren't the above batsmen, for failing to capitalise in the first innings, the way Sehwag obviously does?

And India were clearly the toughest opponents for all countries at home. Can't believe you're still contesting that point.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes and I am sure a bowler who takes 80% of wickets from the tail is as good as a bowler who takes 80% from the upper order. The wickets have the same value right? One later, the others earlier. Hmm.

A more apt comparison would be dismissing the top five (or bottom five) wickets in the first innings vs. taking them in the second innings. And whether it makes a difference which innings the bowler does it in.

 

[SJS]

Just repeating the Test average of Sehwag and Hayden in Sri Lanka and South Africa.

[B]Country	Sehwag	Hayden	Difference[/B]

[B]S.Lanka[/B]	68.8	40.1	28.8

[B]SAfrica[/B]	26.4	34.7	8.3

If anyone says that somehow the difference in average in South Africa is more significant, then the difference in Sri Lanka, he needs to get his head examined.

But if the argument is that Sehwag is more familiar to Sri Lankan conditions, there is some validity in it but by exactly the same logic Hayden is used to playing in conditions closer to those pertaining in South Africa than is Sehwag,

Read My Lips !!

 

[Ikki]

A more apt comparison would be dismissing the top five (or bottom five) wickets in the first innings vs. taking them in the second innings. And whether it makes a difference which innings the bowler does it in.

I guess, you mean for example comparing two bowlers where with one he takes wickets regardless of the situation where one only takes them once the wicket has aged and helps his bowling? In that context, sure.

 

[Evermind]

[B]Country	Sehwag	Hayden	Difference[/B]

[B]S.Lanka[/B]	68.8	40.1	28.8

[B]SAfrica[/B]	26.4	34.7	8.3

 

[silentstriker]

I guess, you mean for example comparing two bowlers where with one he takes wickets regardless of the situation where one only takes them once the wicket has aged and helps his bowling?

I think that's what you are saying.

What we're comparing is lots of runs in the first innings, while no runs in the second vs. decent amount of runs in both.

So, in bowling terms, a bowler who goes:

3/50, 3/50
vs.
1/50, 5/50

Assume all the wickets taken of are the same players in both cases.

Latter is Sehwag, former is [Insert your comparison]. Average is the same, which to you is more important?

 

[Ikki]

I think that's what you are saying.

What we're comparing is lots of runs in the first innings, while no runs in the second vs. decent amount of runs in both.

So, in bowling terms, a bowler who goes:

3/50, 3/50
vs.
1/50, 5/50

Assume all the wickets taken of are the same players in both cases.

Latter is Sehwag, former is [Insert your comparison]. Average is the same, which to you is more important?

Again, it depends how the wickets are taken. All wickets are not of the same value, even if their averages are the same.

If Steyn takes batsmen in order 1,2,3,4 and 7 for 50 whilst Morkel cleans up the end with batsmen in order 6,8,9,10,11 for 50 are their contributions the same, merely because they took as many wickets for as many runs? No. Steyn did the more difficult task taking out the better batsmen.

The difficulty in making those runs, taking those wickets, should always be stressed. It's not like Hayden fails at making runs in the 1st team innings, but Sehwag does fail at making them in the 2nd team innings.

 

[Evermind]

Again, it depends how the wickets are taken. All wickets are not of the same value, even if their averages are the same.

If Steyn takes batsmen in order 1,2,3,4 and 7 for 50 whilst Morkel cleans up the end with batsmen in order 6,8,9,10,11 for 50 are their contributions the same, merely because they took as many wickets for as many runs? No. Steyn did the more difficult task taking out the better batsman.

The difficulty in making those runs, taking those wickets, should always be stressed. It's not like Hayden fails at making runs in the 1st team innings, but Sehwag does fail at making them in the 2nd team innings.

The difficulty in making runs is irrelevant to this issue, because Sehwag has already made the runs in the first innings that Hayden is catching up to in the second innings. Hayden has indeed failed to make as many runs as Sehwag in the first innings - 15 runs less, on average. I will remind you once again that Sehwag and Hayden average the same in tests.

Runs are equivalent: a second innings boundary does not go up as 8 on the scoreboard.

SS: The bowler comparison is awkward because if Steyn takes the top 5 wickets in the first innings and also the second, Morkel can never catch up because if he takes 0 in the first, ten wickets in the second innings will never be as valuable considering it's 5 lower order batsmen.

A wicket has different values in a game while a run is always a run.

 

[Ikki]

1/14, actually, discounting the minnows. Also, see below.

Does it really make a difference? Only against India in India.

Incorrect: to say that he failed 1/11 times is accurate because he in fact DID fail one game every eleven. Now the fact that it was in special circumstances against a particular opposition simply happens to be a curious aside. It doesn't make him any more effective statistically. Statistics do not bend according to circumstance: you can instantiate and categorise according to any specific variable you choose. Maybe he failed when temperature was over a certain value. The fact that Sehwag failed in 3rd 4th innings is awfully convenient in this case.

To imply that he failed in one game every 11th based on the fact that he only failed against India in India is misleading. I think I've reiterated it enough.

If Ponting played all opponents, bar India for 100 games, you are saying he would have failed 9 or so times because of his record in India which is irrelevant... because he hasn't played them.

Let's take this hypothetical situation: a #10 batsman averages 70 in the first innings and 20 in his second innings. He has played 100 games, but unfortunately, has had the opportunity to bat only 10 times in the second innings, because his team has either won or drawn by then. Do you still say he has failed in 1/2 instances? Sure, but his average will be phenomenal, and his contribution to his team invaluable. It's really silly.

No, I wouldn't say it. But your hypothetical situation is not comparable. Sehwag indeed played 66 first team innings and 48 2nd team innings - ~ 42%.

Do you realise how skewed this criterion of comparison is?

And saying that he failed 1/18 times is equally misleading, because it assumes that he played all the different opponents equal number of times. He has played India more often than any other opposition (narrowly barring England, 26 over 23). This suggests that there is a serious flaw, mental or physical, in his game that works against him.

It doesn't matter if he played them all the same number times. It's irrelevant; that's not what the 1/18 stat is about. When I am saying X succeeded in Y many times, how I figure that out is on their average in those circumstances.

Agreed. So stretching hypotheticals either way doesn't work, which means there has to be a different way of reviewing his case.

There is, looking at the circumstances they come to bat and seeing how they do.

It's not bad, but it's worse than Hayden's average. Also, the vast difference (15 runs) is statistically signifcant, meaning he can't manage runs in the second innings as well as he can in the first. Sehwag's case is just significantly worse, being a worse batsman. See below.

No, that doesn't quite begin to make sense. You're punishing Ponting for being extra-superlative in the 1st team innings but rewarding Hayden for being only a touch better in the 2nd team innings.

If Bradman, let's say did:

1st team innings 150
2nd team innings 51

And Hayden is, let's say:

1st team innings 50
2nd team innings 52

LOL, and then saying because Bradman drops 99 points Hayden was better.

The difference between Hayden and Ponting is

       [B]1st    2nd[/B]
[B][COLOR="DarkGreen"]Hayden[/COLOR][/B]  50    52
[B]Ponting[/B] 62    47

It's just more of cherrypicking criteria. If we look at away scores, Sachin has the advantage over Ponting, because his lowest away average is 40. Does that mean he's a better batsman? No. I personally believe that Ponting is the better batsman.

Hardly. Talking about how one batsman's away record is inferior to another's, disregarding the fact that overall the former batsman's record can't compete is cherry picking.

When you are talking about 3rd/4th innings, you are essentially talking about half the innings they ever face, across numerous teams.

Your point would make sense if Sehwag's overall average were lower than Hayden's - say if he had a 52 first innings average and 22 second innings average. That would mean that Sehwag's just as good as anyone, but he can't cut it in the second innings.

No, incorrect. It actually makes more sense because it isn't higher than Sehwag's overall average. Because what it shows is that Sehwag's average is boosted by performances when it was easier to score whereas Hayden's is not, and is balanced. Making that 1 average point look very insignificant.

However, Sehwag's first innings average is higher than Hayden's, Tendulkar's, Ponting's, Hammond's, Richards's and Chappell's. To dismiss him as poorer because of his inferior second innings average and yet not acknowledge his superiority over the others because of his ability to negotiate the seaming new ball is illogical. In the end, he has scored, effectively, the same number of runs for the team - he did so more at the beginning than at the end.

LOL, I feel you are being too flattering to Sehwag. Indeed, he has done well when the ball has been seaming but a lot of the time he hasn't been. Take his record against Pakistan where he averages almost 100. Flat, dull and lifeless wickets where he's gorged himself on runs. Being superlative in the first team innings is fine, but being woeful in the 2nd team innings is not fine.

What's better, a bowler who averages 25 against 6 teams and plays them the same amount or a bowler who averages 18 against 3 team and 35 against the other 3, playing the same amount?

How is it that if all of the above batsmen are better than Sehwag, they can't outscore him in the first innings - allegedly, in far easier batting circumstances, according to you? Sachin's indicted for failing to score in "easier" circumstances against SA at home compared to away. Why aren't the above batsmen, for failing to capitalise in the first innings, the way Sehwag obviously does?

Well, I feel like I have to borrow a bit of Richard, but not all batsmen faced the same problems/easiness as Sehwag. And whilst he might be superlative, more so than the others, at battering attacks when the pitch offers less demons, he is frankly woeful when it does. Ideally, you want a balance.

And India were clearly the toughest opponents for all countries at home. Can't believe you're still contesting that point.

Whether they were tough to get a result off is quite a different argument to whether one could make runs there.

 

[Ikki]

The difficulty in making runs is irrelevant to this issue, because Sehwag has already made the runs in the first innings that Hayden is catching up to in the second innings. Hayden has indeed failed to make as many runs as Sehwag in the first innings - 15 runs less, on average. I will remind you once again that Sehwag and Hayden average the same in tests.

Runs are equivalent: a second innings boundary does not go up as 8 on the scoreboard.

SS: The bowler comparison is awkward because if Steyn takes the top 5 wickets in the first innings and also the second, Morkel can never catch up because if he takes 0 in the first, ten wickets in the second innings will never be as valuable considering it's 5 lower order batsmen.

A wicket has different values in a game while a run is always a run.

It is relevant, because neither Hayden nor Sehwag bat alone. Just as Sehwag will find it easier, so too will the batsmen in both teams - even if it isn't to the same extent - but only a select few will continue scoring runs when the pitch is much harder to bat on.

 

[Ikki]

Also, what's not mentioned is that Hayden played more 2nd team innings; if you standardise it he actually averages less than Hayden. Had Sehwag played the same proportion of those innings, his average would be 50.25. So not only scoring less than Hayden, but also not doing it when his team may actually need him to. Anyway, this is my last post on this as I feel it's a waste of time. We'll see in the end if Sehwag gets to Hayden's peaks. I personally don't think he will as I think he relies too much on his vision; but it's almost pointless now.