Sehwag, an all-time Indian great?

[Richard]

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)

I may or may not include Sehwag in an all-time Indian team (not convinced any one team can really be proferred) - he's certainly a candidate, though not to open. And as I say - understand how a first-chance record works before trying to criticise it.

 

[Prince EWS]

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.

If you don't do it on a large scale there is no context though. We don't know what a good FCA actually is and what the typical difference between a player's real average and his FCA would be if you only produce statistics for a few players.

Unlike most here I've always thought it had some deal of merit and it's always interested me, but until there's more data available for it, it's a completely useless measure.

 

[Pratters]

What exactly do you mean? Had only just been elevated to Test status?

No. That they were consistently weaker by a fair margin compared to sides like England and Australia.

 

[aussie]

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.

Word out. IND didn't move from minnow status until the mid 60s. (Although they did manage to sneak a test win vs Benaud's AUS in 59/60 in IND).

Merchant played in crap domestic IND competition in 30s. Those performances are a poor guide to judging whether he would have been a great. Him opening in a hypotetical All-time match vs AUS/WI/SA/ENG/PAK = BIG FAIL.

Hazare & Umrigar are the only early days IND batsmen who can qaulify as truly great batsmen.

 

[chicane]

If you don't do it on a large scale there is no context though. We don't know what a good FCA actually is and what the typical difference between a player's real average and his FCA would be if you only produce statistics for a few players.

Unlike most here I've always thought it had some deal of merit and it's always interested me, but until there's more data available for it, it's a completely useless measure.

It would need more than one interested person, considering the volume of data and the verification it would need. It is interesting however.

 

[ret]

And as I say - understand how a first-chance record works before trying to criticise it. .

forgive me for not being a rocket scientist, but isn't FCA the measure of how many a batsman scores before offering a chance (which is not taken by the opposition)

for e.g. Don Bradman gets dropped on 30 but goes on to score 200 to help his team win. According to FCA his average would be only 30 and because his avg is now considered 30, the impact of his other 170 runs get diluted as in reality Don would only have scored 30 if not for a stroke of luck. The other 170 runs were just runs that were not suppose to happen, so Don despite making his team win with a double hundred is only as good as those first 30 runs

In fact I am beginning to like this theory as it can be pretty useful in filing income tax returns. My salary is A and my bonus is B, my total income is A+B=C. But since I am only suppose to be making A per month and because B is probably just because of some stroke of luck (and varies according to season) it cannot be counted as my actual income (it's just some money that came in), so I pay taxes on only A!! I know that is not an exact parallel but am expanding the usefulness of the theory

 

[bagapath]

In my book he is a middle-order batsman, because Test cricket is not the only level of cricket that exists.

but sehwag opens in T20 and ODIs also. he is a middle order bat only in your mind and in your book. not in any level of reality.

remember sachin is the greatest ODI opener of all time and he is one of the best no.4s ever in test cricket. it is what you do in one particular format of the game that matters when you are discussing that format. sachin is not a test opener and he is not a middle order batsman in ODIs

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.

what a load of nonsense! by that logic curtley ambrose is a basketball player coz he did not take up fast bowling till he was 22. or should I say he is a basketball player manufactured into a fast bowler and not a fast bowler?

 

[Faisal1985]

Still would rate Sachin much higher............................................. and the all time Great in real terms.

 

[Cruxdude]

Still would rate Sachin much higher............................................. and the all time Great in real terms.

That is pretty obvious.

 

[Faisal1985]

^ Except when 17 years old get him

 

[Richard]

No. That they were consistently weaker by a fair margin compared to sides like England and Australia.

For pretty much all of the 1930s, England and Australia were way ahead of other sides. Similarly, in the latter 1980s West Indies, Pakistan and New Zealand were way ahead of other sides, and in the late-1990s and early-2000s Australia and South Africa were way ahead of other sides. That doesn't in my book make all other sides substandard; if there is one side who cannot compete with anyone else in the Test quota, or two sides who cannot compete with anyone bar each-other, then that is what makes them substandard.

India, let's remind ourselves, never had the chance that decade to test themselves against West Indies, and South Africa's customs (not yet formal policies) meant it was never remotely going to happen either. New Zealand at that stage of course were indeed substandard.

 

[Richard]

If you don't do it on a large scale there is no context though. We don't know what a good FCA actually is and what the typical difference between a player's real average and his FCA would be if you only produce statistics for a few players.

Unlike most here I've always thought it had some deal of merit and it's always interested me, but until there's more data available for it, it's a completely useless measure.

I'm very interested indeed in finding-out what a typical difference is between scorebook and first-chance average. And yes, it's perfectly acceptable to want more data than I've ever yet produced on the matter before declaring real interest or accepting real merit.

What is unacceptable is people who try to discredit it purely because it makes a player they think is good look much less good. That's very common - as is people who don't like the principle of the removal of substandard teams from Test status because it makes a player they think is good look much less good. Those who don't have said agendas generally have more time for both methods - yes, there are indeed more than a few people who believe the first-chance idea has an amount of merit. It's just they tend to be less vocal than those who don't, so even though only rarely does anyone actually make a good point against the first-chance idea, the fact that so many agree on erroneous points makes it look like the vast majority think it has no merit.

 

[Richard]

forgive me for not being a rocket scientist, but isn't FCA the measure of how many a batsman scores before offering a chance (which is not taken by the opposition)

for e.g. Don Bradman gets dropped on 30 but goes on to score 200 to help his team win. According to FCA his average would be only 30 and because his avg is now considered 30, the impact of his other 170 runs get diluted as in reality Don would only have scored 30 if not for a stroke of luck. The other 170 runs were just runs that were not suppose to happen, so Don despite making his team win with a double hundred is only as good as those first 30 runs

As I say - it's best to fully understand something before trying to criticise it. Never once have I suggested that the first-chance method is the be-all-and-end-all and that any runs scored after a let-off are completely irrelevant.

The first-chance score is indeed a method which involves considering the score made up to when the batsman gave the first chance of the innings (thus disregarding whether or not that chance was taken, as this has nothing to do with the batsman's skill). It is not, however, the only method which should be used to assess a batsman's performance.

 

[Richard]

but sehwag opens in T20 and ODIs also. he is a middle order bat only in your mind and in your book. not in any level of reality.

He is a middle-order batsman. Reality is concerned only with what has happened; thus reality says merely what Sehwag has done - which is mostly opened a Test and ODI level (couldn't care less about Twenty20). It says nothing about what is.

remember sachin is the greatest ODI opener of all time and he is one of the best no.4s ever in test cricket. it is what you do in one particular format of the game that matters when you are discussing that format. sachin is not a test opener and he is not a middle order batsman in ODIs

Tendulkar like Sehwag is a middle-order batsman who has been manufactured, with great success, into a ODI opener. Several of the best-ever ODI openers were manufactured and never batted there in Tests - Ganguly, Mark Waugh, Gilchrist to name three.

Why is it that being manufactured seems to be regarded by some as an affront?

what a load of nonsense! by that logic curtley ambrose is a basketball player coz he did not take up fast bowling till he was 22. or should I say he is a basketball player manufactured into a fast bowler and not a fast bowler?

What's nonsense is considering changing sports as the same as changing roles within one sport.

 

[Flem274*]

He is a middle-order batsman. Reality is concerned only with what has happened; thus reality says merely what Sehwag has done - which is mostly opened a Test and ODI level (couldn't care less about Twenty20). It says nothing about what is.

Tendulkar like Sehwag is a middle-order batsman who has been manufactured, with great success, into a ODI opener. Several of the best-ever ODI openers were manufactured and never batted there in Tests - Ganguly, Mark Waugh, Gilchrist to name three.

Why is it that being manufactured seems to be regarded by some as an affront?

What's nonsense is considering changing sports as the same as changing roles within one sport.

Sorry to break it to you, but reality is what is, otherwise it can't be reality.

 

[Richard]

What is only happens for a split-second. Thereafter, it's gone, it's in the past. Ergo, reality is concerned with what has been - because what is being is not being for long enough to be of any relevance.

And clearly reality cannot concern what will be, because it hasn't happened yet.

 

[ret]

If a man who was poor goes on to become rich and is rich now, what is he? a poor man or a rich man

 

[Richard]

A better analogy is "if a lower-class (working-class being the modern term) citizen suddenly wins the lottery, does he cease to be lower-class and become upper-class?"

No, in my book. Though there are those who'd argue otherwise, as there are in the cricket case.

Rich and poor is black-and-white; things like middle-order-batsman\opener and upper-class\lower-class are not.

 

[ret]

depends up on the amount he wins in lottery *winks*

 

[Flem274*]

What is only happens for a split-second. Thereafter, it's gone, it's in the past. Ergo, reality is concerned with what has been - because what is being is not being for long enough to be of any relevance.

And clearly reality cannot concern what will be, because it hasn't happened yet.

waffle.jpg

Reality is what is, the past and present.

In one split second many things can happen-the big bang for instance. However the big bang is irrelevant because it only lasted for a split second.