Sehwag, an all-time Indian great?

[Sanz]

based on what Tendulkar displayed during the period of 1989-1999, it was clear 'then' that he was amongst the top two talented batsmen in the history of Indian cricket and thus an all-time Indian great .... i doubt whether most ppl would have selected Amarnath, Vishwanath or Vensarkar over him. He had proved then that he was easily the best

You really do not know what most people would have done. You can only make an assumption about them. Which is fine by me. But at the same time I can have an opinion too. If you believe he had proved it fine, IMO Tendulkar had not as a test batsman ahead of the likes of some of the people I mentioned.

again when you say that he didn't have a test double by then thats called putting in meaningless stats to show your point of you

Yes, SRT didn't have a double ton by the 100th inning, all his bigger scores came after his 100th inning. It was a one of the signs that he had much to achieve as a test batsman before he was considered as good as Sunny Gavaskar.

you probably don't even have the rationality to think that having 4 all-time Indian greats is better than having 3!!!! .... it's like someone is giving you $100K and you debate whether he should give you that

Yes, I will always debate if someone gives me $100K for no reason, because

a. Who knows what this person wants in lieu of that ?
b. Who knows how this person earned this money ?
c. Why would I want something I didn't earn/deserve ?

 

[ret]

It is a Random stat because :-

a. You do not post their averages (which is a better reflection of the actual performance), Dravid's average (despite the recent poor form) is 57.4 compared to Sehwag's 54.

b. Dravid has been struggling lately and is mostly likely past his peak

c. Dravid has had the burden of captaincy during this period

Sure...And are you going to to give the lesson on 'Correct' perspective ? Please learn to change your diapers first.

i m focusing on the positives of the two batsmen here, so I m showing that Sehwag has achieved as much as Dravid in the matches that they have played together. Those games [58] and the period [2001-2008] involves the best and worst of both players ....You seem to have the habit of making everything X vs Y. I don't really care if Sehwag is better than Dravid or vice versa, whats improtant to me is that they both are on the same plane .... by saying that Sehwag outscored Dravid, I m not saying that Sehwag is better than Dravid but saying that by outscoring a player like Dravid, Sehwag has shown that he is on the same plane

even if Sehwag had 4882 runs and Dravid 5082, it would have still meant that they are on the same plane, period .... and if you are arguing on averages then Gavaskar averages less than Dravid, so arging on averages goes against whatever crap you typed so far and you can't even understand that!!!

on changing diapers ----> unlike you atleast, I can change my own diapers

 

[WhatisRight]

You guys still wear diapers?

 

[Sanz]

on changing diapers ----> unlike you atleast, I can change my own diapers

Then Change it, It is wet, again.

 

[WhatisRight]

Then Change it, It is wet, again.

 

[ret]

Then Change it, It is wet, again.

who's going to change yours?

 

[Fusion]

Couldn’t have predicted diaper talk when I first started reading this thread tbh.

 

[Sanz]

Couldn’t have predicted diaper talk when I first started reading this thread tbh.

I sincerely apologize for starting that my friend, I should have just left before that.

 

[Fusion]

I sincerely apologize for starting that my friend, I should have just left before that.

Ah no worries. We all get down and dirty from time to time.

 

[Fusion]

Sorry to hijack this thread like this, but a note to Sanz and SS (since they are likely to read it here): A new NFL Fantasy league has been created in the General Sports forum. Sign up fellas!

 

[Ikki]

Yes Averaging 64 in Australia is beating minnows to pulp. Scoring close to 7000 runs with 21 100s is beating minnows to pulp.

Do I have to list his records against everybody else at the time to prove a point?

Tendulkar averages 54 with B&Z and 48 without them. If you don't see a difference, then let's leave it at that.

ESPN legends of the game came out in Aug 2001(not in 1999), Tendulkar was at his peak during 1997-2002.

After his 100th inning :-

1. Tendulkar Averaged - 68 in 1999, 70 in 2000, 63 in 2001, 56 in 2002 and again 70 in 2004.

2. Between 1999-2005, Under Ganguly's and his own captaincy he averaged 60. Must have been pulping the minnows like Australia then.

I am sure they spent a long time producing it, and didn't just wake up one day in August to suddenly create such a list. Regardless, you are being dishonest because you are ignoring my point. From his arrival from about his 100th inning Tendulkar made his legacy. From about after that he has fallen somewhat.

Tendulkar's matches from between his 100th inning and when ESPN made their list.

So before such a list he wasn't renown as great and only after it did they decide to put him at #7. LOL

 

[Ikki]

Yes, SRT didn't have a double ton by the 100th inning, all his bigger scores came after his 100th inning. It was a one of the signs that he had much to achieve as a test batsman before he was considered as good as Sunny Gavaskar. ?

Jaques Kallis still doesn't have a double century. Do you think people are going to say he isn't an all-time S.African great?

 

[Uppercut]

Do I have to list his records against everybody else at the time to prove a point?

Tendulkar averages 54 with B&Z and 48 without them. If you don't see a difference, then let's leave it at that.

Aye. Tendulkar is another one i consider great because an innings by him is so aesthetically perfect. When he hits the ball, he often does it so smoothly that it makes no sound. When you look at his record, in reality, it's not all that special. But IMO he's clearly a special batsman, and so is Sehwag. It seems more agree with me on Sachin than Sehwag.

 

[Burgey]

Don't know if he's an all time Indian great, but Sehwag belongs in the argument, as these 12 pages show.

Not a criticism of posters here, but sometimes when we look at players, we factor in how easy on the eye they are, rather than their pure effectiveness. To me as an Australian supporter, Sehwag is a man to be feared because of both his output and his rate of scoring. Given he opens (and was really made into an opener iirc) he's done a remarkably effective job for India. His style isn't as visually pleasing as the likes of Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman, who are more classical players to watch, but he gets the job done. Like Hayden, who's a more brutal player than a classical stylist, I think Sehwag's reputation suffers because of the way he plays.

Without wanting to take the discussion OT, I'd like to ask some posters who have followed Indian cricket for longer than I've taken an interest in it:

1. Would Sehwag be regarded as India's best opener since Gavaskar?
2. Gavaskar aside, is he India's best opener ever? If not, where does he rank as an opener for India?

 

[Uppercut]

Don't know if he's an all time Indian great, but Sehwag belongs in the argument, as these 12 pages show.

Not a criticism of posters here, but sometimes when we look at players, we factor in how easy on the eye they are, rather than their pure effectiveness. To me as an Australian supporter, Sehwag is a man to be feared because of both his output and his rate of scoring. Given he opens (and was really made into an opener iirc) he's done a remarkably effective job for India. His style isn't as visually pleasing as the likes of Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman, who are more classical players to watch, but he gets the job done. Like Hayden, who's a more brutal player than a classical stylist, I think Sehwag's reputation suffers because of the way he plays.

Without wanting to take the discussion OT, I'd like to ask some posters who have followed Indian cricket for longer than I've taken an interest in it:

1. Would Sehwag be regarded as India's best opener since Gavaskar?
2. Gavaskar aside, is he India's best opener ever? If not, where does he rank as an opener for India?

Personally i love watching Sehwag bat. It's not like all he can do is slog, but he is very good at that, really he can play every shot under the sun from classic on and off drives, straight drives, cuts and an excellent late cut to pulls, hooks, sweeps, leg glances and a really rather tight defensive technique which he chooses rarely to use. It seems there aren't many besides me on this forum who enjoy watching him anywhere near as much as i do.

 

[Sanz]

Do I have to list his records against everybody else at the time to prove a point?

You dont really have any point. Saying things like "I don't think All-Time status is bestowed upon a batsman for having beaten minnows to a pulp." dont have any meaning esp when the guy has scored 7000 runs in that period.

 

[Sanz]

Tendulkar averages 54 with B&Z and 48 without them. If you don't see a difference, then let's leave it at that.

And If you can not see that it has more do with Tendulkar's decline and also injury since 2005 than playing against the likes of BD and Zim then I have to pity your understanding of the situation. Even during these periods he has shown flashes once in a while like he did in recent Australian tour.

Also by what criteria, Zimbawe were a minnow in 2000-2002 ? And If scoring against BD is so easy, why doesn't Sehwag inflate his average against them ?

 

[gwo]

Die-rolls are hardly comparable to let-offs. A coin-toss is far more viable, in that there are 6 possible values to a dice and just 2 for a coin or a let-off.

As I said - you'll almost certainly have to do a flip-coin experiment one hell of a lot of times before you get 500 heads and 500 tails out of 1000 flips.

Wow.

Talk about talking out of your ass.

P (Heads = 500, 1000 coinflips) = 1000! / [500!*(1000-500)!] *0.5^500*0.5^500 = 2.5%

ie. you have to do it approximately 40 times to get exactly 500 heads and 500 tails.

Not "one hell of a lot of times"

or

exceptionally unlikely every single time

Don't talk about stuff when you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Sanz]

Jaques Kallis still doesn't have a double century. Do you think people are going to say he isn't an all-time S.African great?

Blah..How many South African Batsman have 30 100s and close to 10K runs ? Dude He is the one setting the mark there, He is the all time SA Great.

But, for argument's sake, if there was another SAffie before Kallis who had as much consistency and longevity as him and also had multiple Double tons then I obviously Kallis Legacy will be definately lower compared to this gentleman with bigger scores.

 

[gwo]

Well, if you were trying to argue that luck evens itself out in every case and every case was the same... yes, you would.

Look at it this way. You do the coin-flip-1,000-times experiment 100 times. Each of these experiments is equable to one player's career. While many of them will come fairly close to 500\500, it's very unlikely you'll get any that are exactly that, and it's also very unlikely you'll get any two cases which produce the exact same result (say, 468 heads and 532 tails). You will also probably get one or two very anomalaic cases (say, 406 heads and 594 tails).

What you are doing in the post above is basically akin to combining every delivery faced by every batsman into one whole, and having no individual cases.

You get 406 heads or less once every 661874421 times(ie I'm giving you 0 heads all the way to 406 heads). If you wanted to get exactly 406 heads...you would get it once every 2046791790.

Stop talking out fo your ass.