*Official* South Africa in India

[Uppercut]

You guys are not considering that effect it has on the field settings, and the bowlers either - that helps all the other batsmen in the team. If you watch what happens to the other team when Sehwag scores a quick 50 or century, it's easy to see - compared to when a Dravid scores a century. It's one of the reasons Viv Richards was almost universally rated as a much tougher batsman to bowl to than someone like Boycott.

The intangibles. On one hand some bowlers find it demoralising to bowl to an attacking batsman. Others love it. Paul Harris thinks "hey, I might actually get a wicket despite being crap". On the other hand, if you're batting at 5 it's often preferable to come in against an attack that's been bowling for 100 overs rather than one that's been bowling for 60.

They're called intangibles for a reason. It's very difficult to decipher the overall psychological advantage, if there is one, of scoring quickly.

 

[Ikki]

Paul Harris might think so for a few overs but after 50 or so runs I am pretty sure he'd be begging not to see someone like Sehwag smash him like a high-school bully.

 

[silentstriker]

They're called intangibles for a reason. It's very difficult to decipher the overall psychological advantage, if there is one, of scoring quickly.

It's not intangible! Simply look at the field when Dravid is 50 (110) compared to Sehwag's 50 (30).

 

[Uppercut]

It's not intangible! Simply look at the field when Dravid is 50 (110) compared to Sehwag's 50 (30).

What's the advantage of the opposition having a defensive field? Just that it's easier to score runs. It's all a means to an end.

 

[Uppercut]

Paul Harris might think so for a few overs but after 50 or so runs I am pretty sure he'd be begging not to see someone like Sehwag smash him like a high-school bully.

I don't think that's any more true than it is that he'd be begging Dravid to get out after 50 runs. I'd much rather bowl to Sehwag personally. Period.

 

[Shri]

I see that you dont wub Mishy anymore! Traitor.

 

[silentstriker]

What's the advantage of the opposition having a defensive field? Just that it's easier to score runs. It's all a means to an end.

When the opposition switches to a defensive field, the other batsmen don't get out as often....

It's actually harder to score runs, but easier for batsmen to play themselves in. The advantage of a defensive field an hour into the first morning of a Test are huge for the batting side. Surely that's obvious.

 

[silentstriker]

And just looking at this Test, India would not have won if not for Sehwag's S/R.

 

[Ikki]

I don't think that's any more true than it is that he'd be begging Dravid to get out after 50 runs. I'd much rather bowl to Sehwag personally. Period.

While Harris would go at 2-3 runs an over with Dravid, he'd go at 4-5 runs an over with Sehwag. Apples and oranges.

 

[Jarquis]

How much can you read into the fact that had Sehwag made his runs at the same rate Tendulkar made his, India wouldn't have had time to win this match?

And just looking at this Test, India would not have won if not for Sehwag's S/R.

Oh, snap!

 

[silentstriker]

I don't think that's any more true than it is that he'd be begging Dravid to get out after 50 runs. I'd much rather bowl to Sehwag personally. Period.

By the time Sehwag made 50, you'd be taken off. By the time Dravid made 50, you'd be back for another spell at him.

So many times the best bowler is taken off when Sehwag is batting. That too is another huge advantage.

 

[Jono]

Uppercut and Prince, give me a situation where a player scoring at a lower strike rate is actually better in test cricket. Not that it's not worse, give me a situation where it is better.

Again, I stress, strike rate is not the same as deliveries faced. Sehwag and other batsmen that score quickly also face a lot of deliveries. Just because they are scoring more runs off those deliveries does not mean that they are giving their team a higher chance of losing by leaving more time for the other team to win. There is the same amount of time taken up (more actually considering the boundary balls) and yet their team has no runs.

With all due respect, can't see how your argument has any merit, and IMO is just an overreaction to counter people who put too much emphasis on SR when judging a batsman. Yes its far from everything, but don't try and pretend that a good strike rate can be a negative.

 

[jeevan]

I'm actually hoping for India to lose the ODI series. That way, my perverted thinking goes, we wont be among the top 2 favorites for WC 2011. India don't do being favorites well, let SAffies carry that millstone around their necks.

And with no Zaheer, Harbhajan, Yuvraj or Gambhir - I don't suppose I'll have to hope too hard.

 

[silentstriker]

Well I'm hoping the Indian ODI team implodes and no one goes to it anymore, so maybe we'll get more Tests where India will hopefully at least remain amongst the top three nations for a while.

 

[Debris]

Well I'm hoping the Indian ODI team implodes and no one goes to it anymore, so maybe we'll get more Tests where India will hopefully at least remain amongst the top three nations for a while.

Interest thought as to what would happen if India were great at tests but sucked at the short forms of the game for the next few years.

 

[jeevan]

On this board, not that many would care all that much. Especially under the assumption of being good at test cricket.

I for one would regard any accomplishments at ODIs/T20Is to be a smaller consolation when things aren't going too well with the real thing. That said T20Is are hugely entertaining, and Indian players being good at them adds to the entertainment. The primary use of ODIs these days is for SRT to crawl his way to a 100 international tons.

 

[Jono]

The primary use of ODIs these days is for SRT to crawl his way to a 100 international tons.

The only reason the ICC hasn't canned them yet

 

[Jono]

Lock for the team batting 2nd with the dew?

 

[Cruxdude]

Read somewhere that India is trying to convert a 7 match odi series against Australia to a 2 test + few odi series. Would be great if it works out.

 

[Jono]

Kallis has elected to bowl first, no doubt due to the dew factor (not the dew factor where the ball is soap, but rather where the ball skids onto the bat).