ICC Greatest Test Team

[ankitj]

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.

He was getting the new ball to swing and the old ball to reverse. Either way, Sehwag did successfully deal with a very good spell of fast bowling, and deserves credit

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.

No one said he has no weaknesses!

In the subcontinent, he is king, I would put him above Tendulkar.

Yeah, that is what the discussion was about. We weren't defending his selection in the all-time world XI selected by ICC voting, but debating his place in an XI to play in subcontinent.

 

[hang on]

it seems that to suggest that sehwag would be one of the openers for an all time 11 in varied subcontinental conditions is anathema on here! not sure why that should be the case.

 

[ankitj]

it seems that to suggest that sehwag would be one of the openers for an all time 11 in varied subcontinental conditions is anathema on here! not sure why that should be the case.

Because Indian fan boys suck. That gives everyone a license to use strawman arguments, make snide remarks and at the end crib about the quality of discussions

 

[smash84]

it seems that to suggest that sehwag would be one of the openers for an all time 11 in varied subcontinental conditions is anathema on here! not sure why that should be the case.

Yeah do agree with your sentiments there

 

[G.I.Joe]

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.

Which becomes irrelevant if the batsman compensates by scoring more in the first innings. Scoring 70 and 30 in a Test is equivalent to scoring 50 and 50 as far as the outcome of the Test is concerned.

Edit: What PEWS said. I pulled a hb there, and PEWS's articulated it so much better anyway.

 

[archie mac]

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

I love when people critiicise me for knowing the history of the game

So you don't know much about Hobbs? Proud to say I do and have watched a lot of Sehwag as well.

Let me say it again. Hobbs scored runs in all conditions against some great bowlers on sticky wickets. He scored runs in the SC. To say he should be replaced by Sehwag in the SC for an all time team, is simply wrong. I think this was the first point I made when someone said Sehwag should replace him

To say Hobbs would not score runs on the SC and he would be an unknown quantity is silly, if you knew Hobbs ability and his record Although if your argument is that he is brown bread and would not score runs than I will have to re-evaluate your argument.

Can you follow this

 

[archie mac]

Which becomes irrelevant if the batsman compensates by scoring more in the first innings. Scoring 70 and 30 in a Test is equivalent to scoring 50 and 50 as far as the outcome of the Test is concerned.

Edit: What PEWS said. I pulled a hb there, and PEWS's articulated it so much better anyway.

Is this right

If runs are twice as hard to score in the second innings would not 30 be worth 60? So 50 & 50 is 150 and 70 & 30 is 130

 

[G.I.Joe]

I hope Martin Crowe isn't reading your post, Archie, or we'll have to put up with yet another of his new formats for the game

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Which becomes irrelevant if the batsman compensates by scoring more in the first innings. Scoring 70 and 30 in a Test is equivalent to scoring 50 and 50 as far as the outcome of the Test is concerned.

Utter tripe again. In the second innings on a turning pitch occupation of the crease is much harder and scoring opportunities fewer and it would take much longer to score the runs.

The whole discussion is about Hobbs and Sehwag and who you pick for an All Time XI to play in the SC. You can either blindly pick Sehwag because he has a good record in the SC whilst Hobbs has none at all or you can at least attempt to make some sort of objective guess as to who would be the more valuable player. There's no reason to believe that Hobbs would be sufficiently less effective than Sehwag in the first innings to not take into account his greater skill against the turning ball in the second innings.
Sehwag has a particular poor second innings record based on weight of runs, but it's not just about that. It COULD be that he's battled it out on a turning wicket for many hours and turned defeats into draws by occupation of the crease without scoring heavily. If he has I don't recall it and I don't personally think he's capable. I think this makes Hobbs (or Gavaskar) the better option. But if anyone is happy to settle for Sehwag the one trick pony then that's their choice but I would prefer the more rounded skills of the other two.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Utter tripe again. In the second innings on a turning pitch occupation of the crease is much harder and scoring opportunities fewer and it would take much longer to score the runs.

Yes, quite. Which is why you do the smart thing by realising that you're weak on that front, and so score the runs in the first innings that you won't be scoring in the second. You don't get extra credit for leaving it till the last minute and putting in extra efforts towards cramming the night before an exam.

The whole discussion is about Hobbs and Sehwag and who you pick for an All Time XI to play in the SC. You can either blindly pick Sehwag because he has a good record in the SC whilst Hobbs has none at all or you can at least attempt to make some sort of objective guess as to who would be the more valuable player. There's no reason to believe that Hobbs would be sufficiently less effective than Sehwag in the first innings to not take into account his greater skill against the turning ball in the second innings.
Sehwag has a particular poor second innings record based on weight of runs, but it's not just about that. It COULD be that he's battled it out on a turning wicket for many hours and turned defeats into draws by occupation of the crease without scoring heavily. If he has I don't recall it and I don't personally think he's capable. I think this makes Hobbs (or Gavaskar) the better option. But if anyone is happy to settle for Sehwag the one trick pony then that's their choice but I would prefer the more rounded skills of the other two.

I don't care either way. It's fair enough to make subjective comparisons. What is plain wrong is to afford one batsman the advantage for scoring more in the second innings while ignoring that the other batsman compensates for his weakness on that front by scoring more in the first innings. Teams don't wipe the slate clean at the start of the third innings of a Test. The runs scored in the first innings still matter equally towards the outcome.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yes, quite. Which is why you do the smart thing by realising that you're weak on that front, and so score the runs in the first innings that you won't be scoring in the second. You don't get extra credit for leaving it till the last minute and putting in extra efforts towards cramming the night before an exam.



I don't care either way. It's fair enough to make subjective comparisons. What is plain wrong is to afford one batsman the advantage for scoring more in the second innings while ignoring that the other batsman compensates for his weakness on that front by scoring more in the first innings. Teams don't wipe the slate clean at the start of the third innings of a Test. The runs scored in the first innings still matter equally towards the outcome.

Ignoring most of that which is plain irrelevant piffle.
But for the bolded part, I didn't afford one batsman the advantage and ignore the other. I said that in my opinion, which is the only one I can give, Sehwag wouldn't be sufficiently superior to Hobbs in the first innings to negate Hobbs greater skill against the turning ball in the second. I also said it's up to everyone to make their own choice and stated why I would prefer Hobbs or Gavaskar.

 

[NUFAN]

Wow this Sehwag vs Hobbs debate is crazy.

Sehwag obviously makes the SC team ahead of Hobbs as Hobbs record is the same as yours and mine.

It's also the reason why Bradman and that man again Hobbs do not make an all time ODI team or why Viv Richards doesn't make the all time T20 side.

If the question was to select the XI cricketers who you think would excel the best in SC conditions, it would be a different story and I would be completely happy with anyone to include Jack Hobbs.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Wow this Sehwag vs Hobbs debate is crazy.

Sehwag obviously makes the SC team ahead of Hobbs as Hobbs record is the same as yours and mine.

It's also the reason why Bradman and that man again Hobbs do not make an all time ODI team or why Viv Richards doesn't make the all time T20 side.

If the question was to select the XI cricketers who you think would excel the best in SC conditions, it would be a different story and I would be completely happy with anyone to include Jack Hobbs.

How do you know that isn't the question? That would imply that you've read the whole thread, which would make you a better man than me.

 

[NUFAN]

How do you know that isn't the question? That would imply that you've read the whole thread, which would make you a better man than me.

I haven't read the entire thread but I'm pretty sure the situation is that a few people picked Sehwag in a SC team. Archie thought they were crazy and said Hobbs makes the team because he's an excellent bat and would easily be able to handle SC conditions.

I don't think anyone has denied the fact that Hobbs would likely succeed in the conditions.

 

[ankitj]

I haven't read the entire thread but I'm pretty sure the situation is that a few people picked Sehwag in a SC team. Archie thought they were crazy and said Hobbs makes the team because he's an excellent bat and would easily be able to handle SC conditions.

I don't think anyone has denied the fact that Hobbs would likely succeed in the conditions.

Precisely. That we are still having this debate boggles my mind

 

[abmk]

I love when people critiicise me for knowing the history of the game

So you don't know much about Hobbs? Proud to say I do and have watched a lot of Sehwag as well.

I do know about Hobbs, though I don't claim too much about him. I am not criticizing for knowing about the history of the game, I am criticizing you for failing to look past it

Let me say it again. Hobbs scored runs in all conditions against some great bowlers on sticky wickets. He scored runs in the SC. To say he should be replaced by Sehwag in the SC for an all time team, is simply wrong. I think this was the first point I made when someone said Sehwag should replace him

when did hobbs score runs in the SC ( he didn't in a test as far as I know ) ?

To say Hobbs would not score runs on the SC and he would be an unknown quantity is silly, if you knew Hobbs ability and his record Although if your argument is that he is brown bread and would not score runs than I will have to re-evaluate your argument.

Can you follow this

My point is Hobbs, being an all-time great would do well in the SC. But how well is the question ? Sehwag on the other has done very well in the SC, we know.

I am not against you picking Hobbs over Sehwag in the SC, but explaining why picking Sehwag over him in the SC isn't something to be scoffed at.

 

[abmk]

I haven't read the entire thread but I'm pretty sure the situation is that a few people picked Sehwag in a SC team. Archie thought they were crazy and said Hobbs makes the team because he's an excellent bat and would easily be able to handle SC conditions.

I don't think anyone has denied the fact that Hobbs would likely succeed in the conditions.

^^

This .......

 

[Outswinger@Pace]

Straws flying everywhere.

 

[smash84]

Wow this Sehwag vs Hobbs debate is crazy.

Sehwag obviously makes the SC team ahead of Hobbs as Hobbs record is the same as yours and mine.

It's also the reason why Bradman and that man again Hobbs do not make an all time ODI team or why Viv Richards doesn't make the all time T20 side.

If the question was to select the XI cricketers who you think would excel the best in SC conditions, it would be a different story and I would be completely happy with anyone to include Jack Hobbs.

This

 

[GIMH]

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.

cbf with the rest of your posts because we'll go round in circles, and aside, I find discussions with you annoying because you try the high horse approach, which ****s me at the best of times

But I've been trying to work out what you are saying in the 'sentence' I've quoted there and can't figure it out. Please assist.