Who Is The Second Greatest Batsman Ever?

[jeevan]

Problem with Australian tracks is that too often there is not enough in the wicket at the beginning, which can make over 15-79 far too simple to negotiate. The hardest time to bat is early. It's just that in recent times, the "hardest time to bat" hasn't been that difficult at all. The Sydney pitch vs Pakistan reminded me of watching cricket in the early to mid 1990s, where there was the possibility of losing three or four wickets in the first session; but you weren't out of the game because:
a) you were a chance of doing the same to the opposition in their first innings
b) the pitch would still be difficult to bat on last; the extra moisture in the beginning allowing some variable bounce and drying out towards the end of the Test

That rarely seems to happen anymore.

So, generally Australian pitches are easy to bat and get massive scores on. Good to know, as a lot of Ponting's and Hayden's tonnage in runs has come at home. (Like Sehwag who also has a great home record, but unlike them Sehwag has 2 major* away places where he has done better than at home - Aus, SL. )

And if they're not easy to bat on for openers, then Sehwag's average in Aus (almost the same as Ponting,Hayden's avg in Aus but against better bowling) has something in it to commend. Adelaide being one where he did in on final day too.

* By major I count the teams that have been contenders for top 3 test slots in this period - Aus,SA,Ind,SL,Eng in roughly that order. Ponting,Hayden have cashed in huge in WI and Sehwag has in Pak. If Sehwag did any better than he has, especially in seaming conditions - he'd be out of the Ponting/Hayden/Kallis/Dravid league and in the SRT/Lara/Richards one that are contenders for being #2 batsman from roughly the present times**. Actually I'm not sure if Hayden & Sehwag belong with Ponting/Kallis/Dravid but Sehwag has his collection of massive scores gotten at amazing strike rates that should easily put a couple of stripes on his shoulder.


* short list for 2nd includes Sobers, Hobbs from before and perhaps others as well.

BTW post not directed at you. Tired of certain posters dismissing Sehwag's achievements as home track bully and then talk of the subcontinent as they can sweep away some more things under the rug. Both Aus and India are relatively easy to bat on, for home batsmen but Indian batsmen of this period have generally done better in Aus than Ind, but the vice versa is not true at all. Ponting is the most glaring example, but not the only one.

Sehwag, even by his own ackowledgements, has limitations. In fact that's part of his reasoning on not trying to be defensive ever.

 

[Richard]

No need for this kind of stuff, Richard. If you don't want to reply to his posts, just don't do it, or put him on ignore if you have to. A post that you may want to scroll past could well be one that someone else is very interested in.

So that's why we've had large numbers of people moaning that it's the sort of thing they don't want to read?

Can you tell me why there's any point in someone arguing against a stance which the person taking the stance is never, ever going to change? Or in sitting back and watching it happen again and again? I cannot see one. I prefer to advise people that it's a pointless thing to do and make some attempt to stop it happening. Same way countless people down the years have advised others that it's pointless to argue against the first-chance theorem to me, because I'm never, under any circumstances, going to be convinced it is of little value.

 

[nick-o]

So that's why we've had large numbers of people moaning that it's the sort of thing they don't want to read?

Can you tell me why there's any point in someone arguing against a stance which the person taking the stance is never, ever going to change? Or in sitting back and watching it happen again and again? I cannot see one. I prefer to advise people that it's a pointless thing to do and make some attempt to stop it happening. Same way countless people down the years have advised others that it's pointless to argue against the first-chance theorem to me, because I'm never, under any circumstances, going to be convinced it is of little value.

Wow. It's a theorem now?

"...a theorem is a statement which has been proved on the basis of previously established statements, such as other theorems, and previously accepted statements, such as axioms..."

[One of the reasons I enjoy dropping by CricketWeb every once in a blue moon is because I enjoy reading up on Richard's latest "theorems", so that isn't meant as a personal comment; but it is quite amusing....]

Hobbs for me -- the question doesn't specify "test batsman" or whatever, just "batsman" and I think Hobbs' overall career as a batsman has yet to be surpassed.

 

[GIMH]

Same way countless people down the years have advised others that it's pointless to argue against the first-chance theorem to me, because I'm never, under any circumstances, going to be convinced it is of little value.

Since when???

edit, beaten to it!

 

[Richard]

Wow. It's a theorem now?

"...a theorem is a statement which has been proved on the basis of previously established statements, such as other theorems, and previously accepted statements, such as axioms..."

You could construct a decent argument for the first-chance, er, thing fitting such requirements... but you can call it the first-chance idea or the first-chance concept or suchlike if you prefer.

 

[GIMH]

Theory would work just fine no?

 

[Richard]

Theory and theorem are, of course, from much the same root.

 

[fredfertang]

Theory and theorem are, of course, from much the same root.

An issue, I would suggest, strictly for the ineducated amongst us

 

[andyc]

So that's why we've had large numbers of people moaning that it's the sort of thing they don't want to read?

Can you tell me why there's any point in someone arguing against a stance which the person taking the stance is never, ever going to change? Or in sitting back and watching it happen again and again? I cannot see one. I prefer to advise people that it's a pointless thing to do and make some attempt to stop it happening. Same way countless people down the years have advised others that it's pointless to argue against the first-chance theorem to me, because I'm never, under any circumstances, going to be convinced it is of little value.

But if that's the policy we're going to take, we may as well delete half the threads here on CC and all the religious and political threads in OT while we're at it. I mean, can you honestly tell me that you expect to convince people that Fleming>Waqar in ODIs, or that they expect to convince you that it's the other way around? TBH the large majority of arguments on CC inevitably end with people having to agree to disagree. Ben's not breaking any rules, and if the argument's going nowhere it'll die out eventually anyway.

 

[Top_Cat]

An issue, I would suggest, strictly for the ineducated amongst us

haha

 

[Goughy]

An issue, I would suggest, strictly for the ineducated amongst us

 

[Burgey]

An issue, I would suggest, strictly for the ineducated amongst us

Gold to Fertang! Gold!

 

[Richard]

But if that's the policy we're going to take, we may as well delete half the threads here on CC and all the religious and political threads in OT while we're at it. I mean, can you honestly tell me that you expect to convince people that Fleming>Waqar in ODIs, or that they expect to convince you that it's the other way around? TBH the large majority of arguments on CC inevitably end with people having to agree to disagree. Ben's not breaking any rules, and if the argument's going nowhere it'll die out eventually anyway.

There's a significant difference between the latest (which happens to be Fleming-vs-Waqar-in-ODIs) and any number of previous examples and, for instance, the question of Hayden. I've been left in absolutely no doubt whatsoever that no long-term CW member wants to see the same Hayden-related debates by me with either different posters or the same ones over and again. Me and the Hayden question - or one or two others, such as for example Brett Lee or Mohammad Yousuf - is far more comparable to this wtf_ben-all-subcontinental-decks-are-exactly-the-same-and-easier-to-open-on-than-everywhere-else stuff than any one-off issue.

It's tedious in the extreme to see the same stuff over and again because people cannot see that there will be no dissuasion or persuasion. I'm not expecting any moderator to take any policy or instruct someone not to post something purely because it's the sort that will incite repetitious arguments - I'm just expecting not to be told "don't say that" when I'm merely trying to avoid said repeititious arguments which it's patent most people don't want to see repeated. I think you should encourage self-help schemes, such as "just don't bother, it won't get anyone anywhere", not discourage.

Of course the large majority of CC discussions (arguments or otherwise) end-up with people having to agree to disagree. The point is sometimes I think for the sake of wider sanity, that process needs to be hurried-up. If a poster has a view they will not budge on - and I myself have plenty - then people constantly trying to counteract that is going to do nothing but irritate the masses. It's why I recognise, these days, that discussion with me on the subject of Hayden is undesireable, and why I won't bother with people whose sole objective is to try to discredit the first-chance theory (I certainly have and will always continue to discuss it with those who explore and decide on it with an open mind).

 

[vic_orthdox]

Richard, you have to stop turning the thread into a debate every time a moderator asks you to do something.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

Australian pitches are generally tough for the first hour so or in the innings before flattening out. Hence why Sehwag's record in Australia is made up of two massive scores, rather then consistency.

You are right...just like KP's record against mcgrath/warne.

 

[Uppercut]

Richard, you have to stop turning the thread into a debate every time a moderator asks you to do something.

No he doesn't, for the following reasons...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Surely the First Chance Average isn't a theory or a theorem. It's just another stat. In this case a stat that can't be accurately calculated and only person in the entire Universe gives a toss about it.

 

[GIMH]

It's definitely not a theorem, I suppose it isn't really a theory at all, never thought of it like that

 

[jeevan]

Australian pitches are generally tough for the first hour so or in the innings before flattening out. Hence why Sehwag's record in Australia is made up of two massive scores, rather then consistency.

Sehwag has played 14 innings in Australia. Averages just about 60.

Two hundreds (195, 150)
Three fifties each around 70 runs
Five scores in the forties averaging 45 (which even for Sehwag would take about an hour to compile)

Not consistent enough for you, hey? And by the way, no not-outs.

 

[Furball]

If we're talking about Sehwag's record in places where batting is difficult, I don't know what relevance his record in Australia has.