Sehwag, an all-time Indian great?

[ret]

Why on Earth would one want to take one batsman away from his best slot in order to put another in a slot he prefers not to bat in?

Merchant is an opener; Sehwag is a middle-order batsman. That's how they should play in any XI they play in together (presuming Gavaskar is also in said XI).

A line up with Gavaskar, Sehwag and Merchant offers a lot of flexibility. I see Sehwag as an opener and I would probably open with him considering his ability to take the game away from the opposition from the start. If he fails then Merchant and Gavaskar can play their regular game, if he fires then Gavaskar and Merchant can provide the support

In terms of composite-accross-ages teams, there is no such thing as "real" selectors. Because such teams do not and cannot play together.

That's understood .... My comment is based more on his criteria of selection (leaving out players) and his personal bias

Coming back to the topic, have you included Sehwag in your 11 or are you still working on FCA based on dropped catches (while ignoring other forms of getting out like LBWs, RO)

 

[marc71178]

Okay, make that clearing the bar.

High jumper then.

 

[Prince EWS]

Coming back to the topic, have you included Sehwag in your 11 or are you still working on FCA based on dropped catches (while ignoring other forms of getting out like LBWs, RO)

Nah he doesn't do that. It's all part of the same theory. If you should've been out, he gives you out.

 

[ret]

Nah he doesn't do that. It's all part of the same theory. If you should've been out, he gives you out.

to do that he has to analyze a lot of stuff, i guess

 

[Prince EWS]

to do that he has to analyze a lot of stuff, i guess

Which is precisely why he can never actually produce any player's FCA. It's an imaginary statistic that would be quite interesting to look at if it actually existed, but it doesn't.

 

[Uppercut]

If by "imaginary statistic" you mean, "load of bollocks".

 

[NUFAN]

I'm actually waiting for the Sehwag vs Gavaskar thread soon.

 

[ret]

Would be interesting to see FCA of Vijay Merchant esp in those first class games .... Also considering how the fielding standards have improved, a throw just missing the stump would probably go against a modern player

 

[nightprowler10]

I'm actually waiting for the Sehwag vs Gavaskar thread soon.

Dream opening pair for Tests.

 

[Pratters]

In Merchant's day the distinction between domestic-First-Class and Test was nowhere near so pronounced as it is today. You simply cannot assess a player of the 1930s purely based on Test deeds, IMO.

Really? India was a minnow in the 1930s and Merchant feasted on domestic attacks. His FC average is highly inflated.

 

[Pratters]

Lara's 14 centuries that came in losses have no value then? Jokes apart, I understand your point. But what I am saying is that if someone scores a potentially match winning century, and the rest of the team mess up, it is hardly the batsman's fault. As a case in point, Sehwag's 195 in Melbourne and Lara's 600 odd runs in the 2001 series against Sri Lanka.

It does not always hold good but more often centuries in winning causes are more valuable.

 

[Furball]

Why on Earth would one want to take one batsman away from his best slot in order to put another in a slot he prefers not to bat in?

Merchant is an opener; Sehwag is a middle-order batsman. That's how they should play in any XI they play in together (presuming Gavaskar is also in said XI).

Merchant's as much an opener as Sehwag is. You'd do well to read SJS' posts on Merchant's early First Class career.

I have no idea why you can't get your head around the idea that players can move around the order and find a position that they're better suited to than when they first started. Your insistence that Sehwag is a middle order batsman is about as logical as if I were to claim that Anil Kumble was a medium pacer (after all, it's what Kumble started off bowling.)

 

[Richard]

Really? India was a minnow in the 1930s and Merchant feasted on domestic attacks. His FC average is highly inflated.

As I say, the game in the 1930s was vastly different to how it is now. I don't agree that India was a substandard side not worthy of playing Tests in the 1930s (they had a number of outstanding cricketers including Merchant) BTW. But First-Class cricket was not then as it is now encompassing near-exclusively inter-domestic competitions (in those Merchant averaged over 100 BTW and I don't care how poor the standard of bowling, that's still one hell of an achievement); rather it included a great many tours, not all of which featured official Test matches, of other countries. Some tourist fixtures were barely below the standard of a Test match. Merchant excelled constantly at these, as well as feasting on attacks in the domestic cricket of his day. I don't care that he only played 11 Tests; AFAIC there's just about enough evidence to suggest he was a truly phenomenal player fit to rank with the very best ever to have played the game.

 

[Pratters]

India was a minnow in 1930s despite a few outstanding players and the first class sides were weaker. Merchant was a very good batsman but never as good as he is made out to be. He didn't have success like a Hazare who scored two centuries in the same test in Adelaide in trying circumstances.

 

[Richard]

I have no idea why you can't get your head around the idea that players can move around the order and find a position that they're better suited to than when they first started. Your insistence that Sehwag is a middle order batsman is about as logical as if I were to claim that Anil Kumble was a medium pacer (after all, it's what Kumble started off bowling.)

It's as easy to get anyone's head around as that there's a logical threshold after which by-and-large a player's development is complete. That can generally be said to be the age of 17-18. Any large sea-change that occurs after that age (ie, move from opening to middle-order, change from bowling seam to spin) is pretty unusual and wholly different to the relatively frequent role-changes that a player goes through in his mid-teens. Sehwag was in his mid-20s before the idea of him opening the batting on a long-term basis was even remotely countenanced. Thus, he's a middle-order batsman manufactured into an opener, not an opener.

And in any case as I say the fact that he's a manufactured opener is not the only reason I have doubts about Sehwag being anything more than pretty good as such in normal (ie, outside the era of stupidly flat decks and weak seam attacks) circumstances.

 

[Richard]

India was a minnow in 1930s despite a few outstanding players and the first class sides were weaker.

India was not a "minnow" (whatever that means) and they competed at the Test level in their precious few chances. The First-Class sides were indeed presumably weaker than they might be, for instance, today, but as I say said sides were not the only ones Merchant played for and against, in fact far from it.

Merchant was a very good batsman but never as good as he is made out to be. He didn't have success like a Hazare who scored two centuries in the same test in Adelaide in trying circumstances.

He actually did - they're just not as obvious to modern eyes which, given that Tests are now the obvious barometer of excellence, do not always understand that Test success was not always the be-all-and-end-all.

 

[Richard]

Would be interesting to see FCA of Vijay Merchant esp in those first class games .... Also considering how the fielding standards have improved, a throw just missing the stump would probably go against a modern player

Understand what you're talking about before trying some vague generalisations attempting to undermine what you don't understand.

And that's being polite.

 

[Pratters]

India was not a "minnow" (whatever that means) and they competed at the Test level in their precious few chances. The First-Class sides were indeed presumably weaker than they might be, for instance, today, but as I say said sides were not the only ones Merchant played for and against, in fact far from it.

He actually did - they're just not as obvious to modern eyes which, given that Tests are now the obvious barometer of excellence, do not always understand that Test success was not always the be-all-and-end-all.

a) Disageed with you about India - minnow

b) I value quality FC performances like I stated about Barry Richards. However, Merchant didn't have many quality FC performances against opposition of the highest quality. As I maintain, Merchant was a very good batsman but his FC average is inflated. Do you really think he was good enough to average 70 in FC cricket. And you say FC cricket was better then than now. By that barometer, Merchant would be one of the greatest batsmen to have ever played the game which I find a foolish statement to make.

 

[Richard]

Which is precisely why he can never actually produce any player's FCA. It's an imaginary statistic that would be quite interesting to look at if it actually existed, but it doesn't.

I can and have produced said figures - over entire Test careers - several times. I don't intend to do it on a large scale because that'd be completely and totally pointless. It's only useful to emphasise when there's a large difference between scorebook and first-chance records.

 

[Richard]

a) Disageed with you about India - minnow

What exactly do you mean? Had only just been elevated to Test status? "Minnow" is a vague and pointless term IMO, in my book what matters is whether a side is Test standard or not. The standard of First-Class competition is not strictly relevant to that; Pakistan and Sri Lanka's First-Class competitions have routinely been a shambles but they've both remained easily Test-standard teams. Domestic cricket should be analysed on its own merits.

b) I value quality FC performances like I stated about Barry Richards. However, Merchant didn't have many quality FC performances against opposition of the highest quality.

Well I consider that he did. If you don't, I guess that's all as can be said on the matter.