Sehwag, an all-time Indian great?

[Lillian Thomson]

I do have proof that Sehwag is unusually lucky BTW, but it's really only something I can look at - ie, my own memory bank.

Hardly proof.

 

[Richard]

Well, it's proof to me, though obviously not to anyone else.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Well, it's proof to me, though obviously not to anyone else.

But if someone claims you don't have proof, just saying yes I do I remember it isn't really countering the claim with evidence.

 

[Ikki]

I believe you've been told to cut the "crackpot theories" stuff out? I'm also absolutely certain that equating AS to "crackpot" breaks forum rules, and not only that it's a revelation of exceptionally poor character.

I do have proof that Sehwag is unusually lucky BTW, but it's really only something I can look at - ie, my own memory bank. I can't be bothered making the effort to put it all down in writing, especially as it'll make roughly zero difference to anyone.

As opposed to statements like "only an idiot would believe x, y and z". Poor character. Lock that glasshouse Richard.

You are basing an entire argument on your "memory bank". How convenient. It doesn't pass as proof of anything but a poor argument.

No, you remember something else which could be twisted into that. I've never said luck evens itself out, I've said it doesn't favour anyone, because it doesn't. To favour requires a consciousness. It does, as a result of its random nature, not get distributed evenly, however.

Similarly, if luck isn't being distributed evenly and one is luckier than another then said batsman is obviously doing something different - not luck, but skill. You said otherwise there is no difference between batsmen. Oh, unless one is luckier than another based on your memory bank - opinion.

 

[Ikki]

TBF I don't think that Ikki's post was equating AS to crackpot.

Although I do agree that taking the piss out of anyone on the basis of having Asperger's isn't appropriate, and there's a risk of this thread degenerating into precisely that.

Yes, sorry, not appropriate - won't continue.

 

[ret]

Merely "Sehwag has been more lucky than most batsmen".

how would you be able to back that statement? have you done a study of 'luck factor' since the day when international cricket began?

 

[Uppercut]

how would you be able to back that statement? have you done a study of 'luck factor' since the day when international cricket began?

Don't bother. His utterly illogical, personal notion that Sehwag is a lucky batsman is loaded with so many fallacies it's untrue. Everyone else knows it makes no sense but we fail to make him see it.

 

[ret]

Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Sehwag [thats Dravid, i guess] didn't become all time greats after 100 innings, neither does Sehwag.

didn't know there was a rule like you can't become a great after 100 innings!! .... that rule would automatically disqualify someone like Don Bradman [80 innings]

as far as I know Tendulkar was already an all-time Indian great by the time he had played his 100th inning [1999]. he had almost 5000 runs and 18H [thats more 100s than most of the Indians who had played till then!!!!]. btw, his 99th inning is one of the all-time classics. I can't comment on Gavaskar but can assume that he would have been an all-time Indian great too based on his 5000+ runs and 21 100s then!!!

 

[Sanz]

didn't know there was a rule like you can't become a great after 100 innings!! .... that rule would automatically disqualify someone like Don Bradman [80 innings]

Didn't know Sir Don Bradman played for India. Please keep Sir Don out of your petty discussions.

as far as I know Tendulkar was already an all-time Indian great by the time he had played his 100th inning [1999]. he had almost 5000 runs and 18H [thats more 100s than most of the Indians who had played till then!!!!]. btw, his 99th inning is one of the all-time classics. I can't comment on Gavaskar but can assume that he would have been an all-time Indian great too based on his 5000+ runs and 21 100s then!!!

Even though Tendulkar had achieved much more(after 100 test innings) as a cricketer than Sehwag has done at this stage. Had he retired at that stage, he would not, IMO, be an all time Indian great.

Tendulkar, Dravid, Gavaskar have raised the bar for any Indian batsman to be considered an 'All Time Great'. For any current/future Indian batsmen to be considered at par with these 3 , 10000 Runs is the minimum Criteria. Until Sehwag does that, he will always be a notch below. Sehwag is well on his way, just not there yet.

 

[Sanz]

Don't bother. His utterly illogical, personal notion that Sehwag is a lucky batsman is loaded with so many fallacies it's untrue. Everyone else knows it makes no sense but we fail to make him see it.

Indeed.

 

[ret]

Didn't know Sir Don Bradman played for India. Please keep Sir Don out of your petty discussions

oh ok, so the 100 inning not being enough criteria is only for Indian batsmen

Even though Tendulkar had achieved much more as a cricketer than Sehwag has done at this stage. Had he retired at that stage, he would not, IMO, be an all time Indian great. Tendulkar, Dravid, Gavaskar have raised the bar for any Indian batsman to be considered an 'All Time Great'. For any current/future Indian batsmen to be considered at par with these 3 , 10000 Runs is the minimum Criteria. Until Sehwag does that, he will always be a notch below. Sehwag is well on his way, just not there yet.

and who set that criteria? .... you?

 

[silentstriker]

and who set that criteria? .... you?

As opposed to you?

Considering the status of an "all time great" is a subjective one, the answer is obviously yes, he does.

 

[ret]

As opposed to you?

Considering the status of an "all time great" is a subjective one, the answer is obviously yes, he does.

based on his 1OK runs criteria, for example Waugh, Border and Ponting are Australian greats but Chappell and Bradman are not

 

[adharcric]

Sehwag may appear to be more fortunate than most because his approach to batting appears to be more risk-involved than most. He'll appear to give more chances so obviously, he'll have more chances put down and you'll think he's lucky. Having the umpire save you with an incorrect lbw decision too often can be called pure luck but perhaps there's something to be said about Sehwag cracking it harder than most. That's one reason why it's harder to catch him and that's not what you call luck. Oh yeah, the use of LLN, CLT and all of these probabilistic theorems here has been weak - this time, Richard's right as you can't use any of those theorems to conclude that every batsman has similar "luck", outliers always exist.

 

[adharcric]

Oh yeah, Sehwag's a very good test batsman and since his comeback, he's shown the potential to be a great test batsman. All-time Indian great? Not sure what the hell that means but he's one of the three best openers and ten best batsmen (right?) ever in Indian cricket.

 

[Top_Cat]

No, it'd involve a hell of a lot of effort I can't be arsed to put in. If people wish to bury their head in the sand and think I'm making it up, that's their choice.

I do have proof that Sehwag is unusually lucky BTW, but it's really only something I can look at - ie, my own memory bank. I can't be bothered making the effort to put it all down in writing, especially as it'll make roughly zero difference to anyone.

That's pretty intellectually dishonest, Rich. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and Sehwag being somehow more luck than other batsmen remains firmly in the 'extraordinary claim' category. I, personally, am open to the notion that Sehwag might be considered more lucky if there's proof - an attitude I take to everything. But refusing to make an argument at all because you can't be arsed or because of the claim that it won't make a difference is mentally lazy in the former and inaccurate in the latter. Could you imagine if Einstein didn't bother with that whole silly general relativity thing because no-one in his time would have grasped the finer points (which, if he made that claim, was actually pretty true)? And I don't think I need to go on about the reliability (or lack of) memories if used for anything other than a vague guide.

I can only speak for myself but I'd rather you either make the claim with evidence or at least an attempt at an argument or don't make the claim at all.

 

[Sanz]

and who set that criteria? .... you?

Yes. It is my criteria based on the question you asked which was :-

"IS Sehwag an all-time Indian great, along with Gavaskar, Tendulkar and Dravid?"

All the three gentlemen are Legends of Indian Cricket. Putting Sehwag ,now itself, in the same bracket will mean that he has achieved as much as them as a batsman.

If Sehwag retires today, will the history put him in the company of these 3 men, Certainly not.

Lastly, If you can not respect the opinions of others, dont bother about asking questions. Mocking and attacking anyone whose opinion doesn't match yours isn't going to work in your favor.

 

[Sanz]

based on his 1OK runs criteria, for example Waugh, Border and Ponting are Australian greats but Chappell and Bradman are not

This statement is so stupid that I am not even going to try.

 

[Sanz]

That's pretty intellectually dishonest, Rich. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and Sehwag being somehow more luck than other batsmen remains firmly in the 'extraordinary claim' category. I, personally, am open to the notion that Sehwag might be considered more lucky if there's proof - an attitude I take to everything. But refusing to make an argument at all because you can't be arsed or because of the claim that it won't make a difference is mentally lazy in the former and inaccurate in the latter. Could you imagine if Einstein didn't bother with that whole silly general relativity thing because no-one in his time would have grasped the finer points (which, if he made that claim, was actually pretty true)? And I don't think I need to go on about the reliability (or lack of) memories if used for anything other than a vague guide.

I can only speak for myself but I'd rather you either make the claim with evidence or at least an attempt at an argument or don't make the claim at all.

Now you want him to open his skull & put in on youtube for you ? Talk of being demanding.

PS :- He said 'proof' is in his 'memory bank'.

 

[Top_Cat]

Now you want him to open his skull & put in on youtube for you ? Talk of being demanding.

I'd only ask of anyone what I'd provide myself although it'd be more suitable for YouPorn.

PS :- He said 'proof' is in his 'memory bank'.

I knew it - he's a cyborg.