ICC Greatest Test Team

[archie mac]

But anyway, archie. You don't seem to post a lot these days. Let me tell you, there are a lot of people here who believe that achievements in the subcontinent are worth double anything else. Be it player or team, you can't be great until you achieve anything there. Of course, no-one in their right mind tries to claim that Sangakarra isn't a modern great despite his piss record in England. But there you go.

It always surprises me whether it is from SC supporters or Aussies about Aust conditions

If Greenidge had not finally scored a ton in OZ I would still think him a great batsman. Murli did not take a lot of wickets in OZ but his flight and control still left me in no doubt he was a great bowler. A bit more luck and his record could have been a fine one.

Where do we stop? Yeah he was good in Aust but he did not score runs at the SCG and we all know that turns the most, so he must be marked down.

Or he only scored his runs in first or second sessions never in third sessions so he can not be an all time great

Or he only scored runs when grounds were half empty, he could take the pressure of a big crowd

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Some people go on about batting on the sub-continent as though the pitches turn square from Day 1, whereas they're often as flat as Felicity Kendall's chest. Sehwag has made only one century in the second innings of a Test. There's little about his record to suggest that he's shown the technique required to battle it out in the second innings on the 4th or 5th Day when the ball might be turning.

 

[abmk]

And I will say it again

I don't think it makes any real difference if Sehwag scored runs in the SC still no need for him to replace Hobbs in a team in the SC.

yes, Sehwag has made runs in plenty in the SC at a very high average, against quality bowling attacks . That matters and makes a difference.

Hobbs would have made runs there, is there any doubt? He scored runs on uncovered pitches against some of the greatest spin bowlers in the history of the game. He faced some great seamers. He did it with a bat with half the power and longer boundaries.

yes, Hobbs would've made runs in the SC, no doubt. But would he have done as well as Sehwag has ? That is quite a bit of speculation ...

You would think that scoring runs in SC is a different sport

so the conditions do not make any difference ? Is that why the likes of Ponting, KP struggled in India ( KP in general in the SC ) ? Is that why Sehwag isn't that successful outside of the SC .

If Sehwag is not needed to replace Hobbs in anyother country there is no need to even consider replacing him in the SC

I read it once, twice, thrice. Still didn't make any sense !

 

[archie mac]

I read it once, twice, thrice. Still didn't make any sense !

To be honest you seemed to have learned very little

 

[smash84]

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Whatever happened to Steady Eddie, shortpitched and all those knowledgable posters from the past? These days you turn your back for a few months and the board has been infested by deranged druids.

 

[Cevno]

Interesting how everyone has to agree with your views and romanticise the past to a certain extent to be "Knowledgeable posters". The rest ofcourse are deranged druids or blabbering incoherently.
Hate this i am better than you attitude.

 

[abmk]

To be honest you seemed to have learned very little

For someone to even try to teach others a bit, they have to first make some sense - which you frankly don't with that statement. And you wonder why I told you to stop flattering yourself ?

Well , its understandable, some people like you are stuck in nostalgia land

 

[G.I.Joe]

One of the most unsubstantiated misconceptions in cricket is the importance of a second innings record. Runs in the second innings do not count for double the runs in the first innings. As long as you score a 100 runs a Test, you're gold, regardless of how equitably you manage to distribute them.

In fact, all else being equal, runs in the first innings may be more important because they contribute to scoreboard pressure.

 

[Howe_zat]

One of the most unsubstantiated misconceptions in cricket is the importance of a second innings record. Runs in the second innings do not count for double the runs in the first innings. As long as you score a 100 runs a Test, you're gold, regardless of how equitably you manage to distribute them.

In fact, all else being equal, runs in the first innings may be more important because they contribute to scoreboard pressure.

I don't think anyone has tried to say that runs in the second innings count more. Just that Sehwag's relatively poor second innings record goes against the idea that he's excellent on wearing, turning pitches.

 

[ankitj]

Whatever happened to Steady Eddie, shortpitched and all those knowledgable posters from the past? These days you turn your back for a few months and the board has been infested by deranged druids.

This.

Look at the nonsense arguments and strawmans being employed against a fairly innocuous suggestiojn of taking Sehwag over Hobbs in SC on account of latter's not having played there. How is that taken to mean Sehwag is better bat of the two or that Hobbs would have failed in SC is beyond me.

And then the whole dreamt up **** about Indian fans giving importance to only performance in SC. Give me a ****ing break.

 

[GIMH]

The bolded part partially salvaged an otherwise dire post.

And get over your, erm, "victim mentality"

It's not a victim mentality. I don't care if you're dumb enough to think Sehwag would go better than Hobbs. I'm just calling your opinions and the basis for them out.

 

[Jacknife]

It's not a victim mentality. I don't care if you're dumb enough to think Sehwag would go better than Hobbs. I'm just calling your opinions and the basis for them out.

I was going to say this after I finished reading the thread, where did the victim mentality term relate to in what you posted because I can't see it, looked like a dig for no reason imo.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Interesting how everyone has to agree with your views and romanticise the past to a certain extent to be "Knowledgeable posters". The rest ofcourse are deranged druids or blabbering incoherently.
Hate this i am better than you attitude.

I mentioned no names but if you recognised yourself in the description - congratulations.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

One of the most unsubstantiated misconceptions in cricket is the importance of a second innings record. Runs in the second innings do not count for double the runs in the first innings. As long as you score a 100 runs a Test, you're gold, regardless of how equitably you manage to distribute them.

In fact, all else being equal, runs in the first innings may be more important because they contribute to scoreboard pressure.

Utter tripe. Numerically the runs count for the same but on a good Test wicket that deteriorates as the match goes on second innings runs are harder to come by and require greater skill on the part of the batsman - especially on a turning wicket against a good spinner.

 

[Cevno]

I mentioned no names but if you recognised yourself in the description - congratulations.

Where did i refer to you naming me or anyone else?
The point stands whether you are talking about X,Y or Z and specially if they are presenting a logical argument which you are choosing not to respond too but just coming in time and again as if you are a authority to pass judgement on others and on their knowledge and name calling.
My bad if you were not referring to this thread at all though or just to the bots who register....

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I never pass judgement on anyone's knowledge, only on their lack of knowledge.

Anyway I can't be arsed with this. Someone wake me if Richard or Fiery (under another name) ever come back.

 

[Prince EWS]

Utter tripe. Numerically the runs count for the same but on a good Test wicket that deteriorates as the match goes on second innings runs are harder to come by and require greater skill on the part of the batsman - especially on a turning wicket against a good spinner.

There's no doubt scoring second innings is far more often than not harder than scoring first innings runs, but in terms of actual value to the side and winning matches, it really doesn't matter which innings you score the runs in as long as you score them. It's a different argument to scoring heavily on flat tracks and being an abysmal failure in bowler-friendly matches due to the nature of the game.

If you're evaluating skill and overall adaptability then it has to play a big part but if you're looking at utility then first innings/second innings breakdown doesn't mean anything at all.

 

[ankitj]

It's not a victim mentality. I don't care if you're dumb enough to think Sehwag would go better than Hobbs. I'm just calling your opinions and the basis for them out.

It's tiring to deal with strawman. I will give you the benefit of doubt and try a sane debate.

One, tell me where did I or anyone say that Hobbs will not do as well as Sehwag? We just said it's speculative to say one way or the other. If someone wants to pick on the basis of potential than that's a perfectly valid argument. There's bo need to use strawman and patronizing tone.

Two, your assertion that some people think performance in subcontinent has absolutely no basis, and is actually laughably inaccurate.

Defend your above two arguyment with what you based it upon or simply take them back.

 

[subshakerz]

Got hundreds against attacks led by McGrath, Pollock, Steyn and Akhtar. Couldn't have done much more than that. His hundred against SA in Nagpur was against a red hot Steyn on a pitch that assisted pace bowlers.

You evidently didnt watch that game in Nagpur, that pitch was an absolute road, it was only that Steyn was exceptional enough to counter it.

Sehwag's biggest weakness is that he can't play well in swinging conditions, which automatically disqualifies him from consideration in any all-time XI. He averages 20 in NZ, 25 in SA and 39 in England (let's see how he does after this series), the only three places consistently conducive for swing bowling nowadays. In the subcontinent, he is king, I would put him above Tendulkar.