Interested to see what Yousuf, Younis and Inzamam end with when runs on all those feather beds are reduced where even Chris Martin can score 50.
Why do you think Pietersen is better than Sangakkara? Pietersen would be classified as good as Jayawardane. (Jayawardane's non SC average is similar to Pietersens SC average, and vice versa).
Earlier I said that there isn't much difference between Hayden and the likes of Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting and yet I put Hayden a barrier underneath them; likewise with the Pietersen & Sehwag scenario, with Sehwag being only one barrier beneath Pietersen. I'd range the classes between players like this:
SL is not an easy place to make runs. Every big team failed with the bat here more than once in a series. Sehwag's that knock in Galle is one of the top drawyer. Only better knock I have seen in SL was when Lara locked horns against Vaas and Murali in full cry and scored 220 & 123 (who took 26 and 24 wickets respectively in the series), and De Silva battling against Kumble in 1994.
Flower>>Pietersen. Should be in all time great list. Sangakkara > Pietersen.
Yeah he agrees with you, he was being sarcastic as the tendency on here is to not value knocks in the subcontinent over others.
Because Pietersen was the only batsman to average 50 at home and 50 away against McGrath and Warne as a combination. And also because before Pietersen had a rough trott and injury, whenever he made runs, it inspired his team mates to make runs. I fondly remember South Africa vs England in 2008. Bell wouldn't of made 199 if it wasn't for Pietersen's 152 and Collingwood wouldn't of made a career-saving 100 if it wasn't for Pietersen's 94. In the big series' (apart from the recent South Africian one, where he came back from injury), Pietersen stands up, I guess in my opinion, that's what seperates him from others that many believe are close-to or better then him.
Brian Lara and Steve Waugh's Test average often dropped below 50 throughout the 00's... did they suddendly become lesser players because of that? At one point during the 00's Lara was averaging 47. If his career had've ended at that point in time, would you still consider him an alltime great? At that same point in time Hayden was averaging 58-59. So would that make Hayden undeniably better then Lara?
Didn't you used to say that runs inside the subcontient weren't as valuable as runs outside the subcontient?Ben rates Pietersen very highly because he scored a few runs against Australia. Ignores the fact that Pietersen's been incredibly inconsistent in the past 2 years or so. He looked terrible in New Zealand and a scratchy hundred salvaged his figures, did ok at home against NZ but again only made 1 score of note, was excellent against SA at home, did ok in India, was disappointing on the flat pitches of the West Indies though his 1 century of the series almost set up a victory; then his achilles injury really started to affect his game, and his 3 series since then have been poor. KP's got a lot of potential, but that's been the story of his career for a while, he's not really kicked on and I don't honestly think he's a better player than Virender Sehwag. He could end his career as a better player, but there's no chance he's in a league above Sehwag right now.
Sure I'll get a VM message from Ben now asking me how I can 'bag out' my favourite player.
If I ever said that, it wouldn't have been as simple a point as that. I'm pretty sure my point was that runs outside your own conditions are more impressive. Sehwag's grown up on Indian/subcontinental conditions, so obviously he's going to score more runs in those conditions; Pietersen grew up in South Africa in those conditions, so obviously he's going to be more used to scoring runs in those conditions. So runs in conditions you're not used to, can often be more impressive. If I ever said that runs outside the subcontinent were more 'valuable' than runs inside, then I was wrong.Didn't you used to say that runs inside the subcontient weren't as valuable as runs outside the subcontient?
Outside the subcontient
Pietersen: 4132 runs @ 51.65
Sehwag: 1947 runs @ 41.42
Hmmmm...
Yeah, but it's not as if Pietersen's done well against Australia and then is averaging 35 in Test Cricket with the bat. His averaged around 50 his whole career until just recently. Here's another way at looking at it:
And averages 25 against a side with Murali away.
I would pont out much better knocks by Sanga against better attacks. Ex. 230 against Pakistan on a green top.
Pietersen played on roads of Adelaide, Sydney, MCG and Brisbane while Sanga played in Cairns and Darwin on seaming tracks. What a comparison
And Warne and McGrath are not the only good bowlers that were bowling that time as well.This has nothing to do with my argument. I have a high regard of Hayden. My problem is that Pietersen is kept above Sangakkara, who is a much better batsman than KP.
Pietersen did nothing against Asif as well. He failed Miserable against Murali as well. So that would make the scores even.
Facing Murali in SL is different kettle of fish than playing him in England. Pietersen was simply manhandled by Murali in SL. Even in 3rd test in that English tour Murali was bossing KP. And in every ODI match theymet Murali always had upper hand against KP. While Sehwag played Murali beautifully in both home and away. Sangakkara played Warne and McGrath in their peak, whick KP did not do.
No. Steyn looked clueless bowling in England full stop. I don't think that series is any proof of Pietersen dominating Steyn, just that Steyn was in such poor form and bowled pretty awfully throughout the series.
First of all, it's not a completely different kettle of fish. English tracks are a lot more spin friendly that you'd think.
2 Tests.
Warne was at peak bowling to a English side and picking 40 wickets in 6 tests. If that is Warne's peak performance, there's no point arguing with you as well. I'd back Murali to take 50-60 in six tests against england, and same amount for Warne pre 2000.
