Sehwag vs Smith

[Prince EWS]

can we pls, throw this point out of the window?

can we throw the chances concept out of the window, pls?

thrown out of the window

 

[jeevan]

If we neglect to make note of chances during batsmen's knocks, then for e.g. we come to the conclusion that the best batting effort during the recent Australia-India test series came from Andrew Symonds at Sydney (shudder!!) .

Another conclusion could be that Sehwag is a better batsman than Laxman, for e.g.

While keeping track of such things requires considerable effort and memory, and is highly prone to falliability, that does not detract from the general desirability of doing so.

ps No problems with Sehwag being considered a bit better than Smith. Excluding BD,WI & Zim Smith'd avg drops a lot to 38.4 while Sehwag's marginally rises to 50.7. Quite a big difference.

 

[Protean]

WI now being excluded from averages too?

 

[tooextracool]

WI now being excluded from averages too?

With the exception of the odd performance in SA, i fail to see why not.

 

[funnygirl]

Sehwag is the better one in difficult conditions against top quality sides .He proved that .

 

[Richard]

ok so lets get what u r saying here

- Smith is a better batsmen but hasn't scored 100s against quality bowling coz he hasn't got any let-offs in your opinion, while others have

Nope, have never once said Smith's done better so far. I've merely said Sehwag hasn't done as well as some claim. Anywhere near as well, in fact.

- Generalzation should only be used when it supports your PoV

Nope, should never be used. Ever.

- Dropped catches are the ones which touch the hand, those that touch the finger-tips are not dropped catches, even though some commentators say thats a chance technically

Yes, these commentators don't know what they're talking about. You cannot catch a ball in the fingertips of 1 hand, bar flukes and freaks.

- If let-offs to Lara on his way to his 501 doesn't undermine Lara's accomplishment and his ability as a batsman but it for Sehwag as he is being compared to Smith, who surprisingly never gets a let-off

Eh? Where did I say the let-off (on 17) doesn't undermine that Lara innings? He still played damn well for his last 484 chanceless runs, but he wouldn't have had the chance to do so had Scott not dropped him. I've said this in every single post I've ever made on the matter, if you care to look rather than making false accusations.

- Smith has never got a let-off of any kind against Australia, source: Richard

If we can get another source which shows otherwise, then we'll re-examine the matter. Right now, all we have is "he must have done because he's played quite a few innings". Which is not good enough.

Ok, lets play by your rules, so then can't i argue that Smith is not good enough to earn a let-off against quality bowling, while other quality batsman are

No. Batsmen do not earn let-offs.

356 runs in 8 tests is pathetic, if he is good enough to score chanceless 100s against WI, BD, Zim, Eng, Pak n NZ then why not Aus?

Because Australia have bowled better at him and he's played less well against them than others.

Are you implying that every score that Sehweg got, he was let-off.

No.

if not then that also throws your point out as his record his much better than Smith's .... then you argued that only 100 Sehwag got against SA as an opener was on a flat pitch but then what was Smith doing on that flat pitch? I guess doing the leather hunt

But I never once said all of this adds-up to Smith > Sehwag. Simply that the Sehwag many assume < the Sehwag of reality.

there are two reasons to debate; one for the right thng, while the other is to show that you are right. i don't know what exactly your case is but it's lurking on the 2nd option

These two things are the same.

can't you get the point that i find it hard to believe that Smith would not have got any let-offs in the 16 games that he has played against the Australians. I feel that Smith would have got let-offs, just like other batsmen. and a let-off becomes obvious when someone gets a big one. Smith could hv survived a close LBW call but no one cared coz he probably got bowled after a few overs, thats what I believe but then again thats not the case in your book coz you probably don't remember that but somehow remember Sehwag's let-offs [which i don't recall] and we are suppose to go by you, the source

That's possible, but it's more likely I haven't forgotten one than it is that Smith has had let-offs purely because he's played lots of innings. Until you can actually show me a let-off he definately got, my contention has more strength than yours.

can we pls, throw this point out of the window?

No.

 

[Richard]

BTW, what abt Smith's 14 100s .... hasn't he got any let-offs in any of them? If he has then your point on Sehwag's 100 gets thrown out of the window AND if he hasn't then it puts a Q over his ability to do the same against quality bowling .... so whichever side you chose, your point gets thrown out of the window

Of course Smith has had let-offs, never worse than when he was dropped on 7 and ended-up with 259 at Lord's in 2003. This doesn't change the fact that Sehwag has had abnormal numbers of let-offs.

 

[Richard]

WI now being excluded from averages too?

With the exception of the odd performance in SA, i fail to see why not.

I don't see why that should be done. WI, for all their weakness, remain a Test-class side, and clearly far better than Bangladesh (and Zimbabwe on whichever wretched occasions they play). You can't have it two ways, WI are either worthy of Test status or they're not.

Of course, runs against weaker attacks count for less than ones against stronger ones. But I don't see that West Indies fall short of Test standard the way Bangladesh do.

 

[ret]

But what if i want to go by the commentators' version of what constitutes a catch

Why don't you provide us with a reliable source that Smith hasn't got any let offs? It's you who is claiming that and I have no issues with let-offs. I don't care if X player got 2 let's off but got 11 100s vs Y who has just 5 100s against decent quality bowling .... By reliable source, I mean a source like the cricinfo .... i think that chanceless innings are rare

and if you see the overall record of both the players against Australia, Smith's pretty pathetic, let-offs or no let-offs

this thread is abt Shewag and Smith and not Shewag and Shewag, so I don't know what you will get by showing that Sehwag < percieved Shewag

 

[Richard]

But what if i want to go by the commentators' version of what constitutes a catch

Then you'll be misled.

Why don't you provide us with a reliable source that Smith hasn't got any let offs? It's you who is claiming that and I have no issues with let-offs. I don't care if X player got 2 let's off but got 11 100s vs Y who has just 5 100s against decent quality bowling .... By reliable source, I mean a source like the cricinfo .... i think that chanceless innings are rare

You are challenging my assertions. It is up to you to show that let-offs happened. Let-offs are far less common than things which should result in dismissals resulting in dismissals. You are very, very wrong that chanceless innings are rare. Only a minor proportion of innings involve let-offs.

and if you see the overall record of both the players against Australia, Smith's pretty pathetic, let-offs or no let-offs

I wish I knew why you keep repeating this, as I've never once said otherwise.

this thread is abt Shewag and Smith and not Shewag and Shewag, so I don't know what you will get by showing that Sehwag < percieved Shewag

The fact that Sehwag has not done as well as many people like to think is something I will always mention whenever the subject of Sehwag is under discussion.

 

[ret]

Then you'll be misled.

You are challenging my assertions. It is up to you to show that let-offs happened. Let-offs are far less common than things which should result in dismissals resulting in dismissals. You are very, very wrong that chanceless innings are rare. Only a minor proportion of innings involve let-offs.

why should i pick your version of a dropped catch over commentators'?

i m not challenging your assertations but asking for a reliable source that backs up your assertaions .... as you claimed that Smith never got a let-off, I would expect that you would back that up with a quote from a reliable source .... if you are not backing it up with a reliable source then I have the option to throw that point out of the window

and as I said let-offs is a broad term that covers dropped catches, close LBW calls, run-outs, missed stumping, and probably that French cut which just misses the stump by a whisker [a bowler would feel that he had a chance there]

 

[Richard]

why should i pick your version of a dropped catch over commentators'?

Because I make more sensible contentions about chances than one or two people. Are you honestly telling me that what I've said earlier this thread is less realistic than the notion that anything which touches a fielder is a chance?

i m not challenging your assertations but asking for a reliable source that backs up your assertaions .... as you claimed that Smith never got a let-off, I would expect that you would back that up with a quote from a reliable source .... if you are not backing it up with a reliable source then I have the option to throw that point out of the window

Unless you expect me to give every ball of every Smith innings, I cannot "back it up". And I'm not going to go and find some footage of every innings to investigate further, that'd be almost impossible. However, unless one knows of the existence of a let-off, the assumption will tend to be that it was not there. Until someone shows me a let-off Smith gained in either 2001\02 or 2005\06 against Australia, I won't see any reason to consider there were any, as I don't remember them. People don't write in a match report "the first chance Smith gave was taken" nor "the first shout for lbw against him which should have been upheld was". There will only be mention of a let-off if one did happen, not if it did not. It is, I repeat, up to someone to prove a let-off happened, not that it did not.

and as I said let-offs is a broad term that covers dropped catches, close LBW calls, run-outs, missed stumping, and probably that French cut which just misses the stump by a whisker [a bowler would feel that he had a chance there]

No, not the lattermost. That is completely different to missed catches, stumpings, run-outs. Those should always be out; a ball that misses the stumps can never be out.

 

[ret]

Because I make more sensible contentions about chances than one or two people. Are you honestly telling me that what I've said earlier this thread is less realistic than the notion that anything which touches a fielder is a chance?

Unless you expect me to give every ball of every Smith innings, I cannot "back it up". And I'm not going to go and find some footage of every innings to investigate further, that'd be almost impossible. However, unless one knows of the existence of a let-off, the assumption will tend to be that it was not there. Until someone shows me a let-off Smith gained in either 2001\02 or 2005\06 against Australia, I won't see any reason to consider there were any, as I don't remember them. People don't write in a match report "the first chance Smith gave was taken" nor "the first shout for lbw against him which should have been upheld was". There will only be mention of a let-off if one did happen, not if it did not. It is, I repeat, up to someone to prove a let-off happened, not that it did not.

No, not the lattermost. That is completely different to missed catches, stumpings, run-outs. Those should always be out; a ball that misses the stumps can never be out.

so why bring subjective points to the table?

And it's not Sehwag's fault IF he is let-off by Australia. At the end of the day, he did his job, i.e. get 100s and Smith didn't

the reason that Sehwag could be getting let-offs is may be he is hitting stinging shots and shots that make the fielders stretch i.e. something thats difficult to hold on to but technically is a chance [like what the commentator's say] .... while Smith could be getting caught playing loose shots which means edges going straight to the fielder .... there are so many things as to why a player gets let-offs, esp in catches .... Even in LBWs, a player with longer stride could get more benefit of doubt, so there are a lot of things that determines a let-off

 

[jeevan]

WI now being excluded from averages too?

In the limited context of one more way of looking at batting performances against top bowling sides in the 2000 and onward time frame - not unreasonable. For anything more than that, clearly not.

Obviously SA losing one home test to WI recently, ( and, for this thread, Smith really milking them*) might cause SA fans to think differently.

* Sehwag has too. Just not quite as much and hasnt played as many against WI.

 

[Richard]

so why bring subjective points to the table?

Near enough everything involved in judging a cricketer is subjective.

And it's not Sehwag's fault IF he is let-off by Australia. At the end of the day, he did his job, i.e. get 100s and Smith didn't

It's Sehwag's fault he's given the chance. And I'm concerned with what the batsman's done when assessing the batsman's performance, not the fielders. Whether the chance is taken is irrelevant as far as the batsman's ability is concerned; what matters is whether it is given or not. Once it's given, the batsman has done everything exactly the same.

the reason that Sehwag could be getting let-offs is may be he is hitting stinging shots and shots that make the fielders stretch i.e. something thats difficult to hold on to but technically is a chance [like what the commentator's say] .... while Smith could be getting caught playing loose shots which means edges going straight to the fielder .... there are so many things as to why a player gets let-offs, esp in catches .... Even in LBWs, a player with longer stride could get more benefit of doubt, so there are a lot of things that determines a let-off

But that's not the way it is. Almost all catches Sehwag has been dropped off - and certainly the 2 against Australia - have been complete sitters, straightforward outside-edges into the cordon.

 

[Matteh]

Daniel Smith everytime imo.

 

[bond21]

Smith

Sehwag is a filthy hacker.

 

[tooextracool]

I don't see why that should be done. WI, for all their weakness, remain a Test-class side, and clearly far better than Bangladesh (and Zimbabwe on whichever wretched occasions they play). You can't have it two ways, WI are either worthy of Test status or they're not.

Of course, runs against weaker attacks count for less than ones against stronger ones. But I don't see that West Indies fall short of Test standard the way Bangladesh do.

They remain a test class side because they have 1 or 2 world class batters like Sarwan and Chanderpaul, while Gayle and Bravo are probably better than most on the Bangladesh side. However, i fail to see how a bowling attack of Taylor(averaging 38.06), Powell(45.33), Bravo(39.18), Gayle(39.59) and Edwards(44.41) are considerably better than Mortaza(41.63), Hossain(36.69), Rafique(40.79) and whoever else it is that has played consistently for Bangladesh over the years. Some things have to go beyond raw potential and the basic fact is that Bangladesh at home have put on a fair few threatening performances with the ball. Scoring runs against WI bowling attacks in recent times has been about as easy as scoring runs against any minnow side in the history of test cricket. I for one have no problem eliminating batting performances against WI ATM.

 

[Protean]

In the limited context of one more way of looking at batting performances against top bowling sides in the 2000 and onward time frame - not unreasonable. For anything more than that, clearly not.

Obviously SA losing one home test to WI recently, ( and, for this thread, Smith really milking them*) might cause SA fans to think differently.

* Sehwag has too. Just not quite as much and hasnt played as many against WI.

It has nothing to do with losing a test to them, SA should never have lost that and IMO it was a result of being over confident and under prepared. Just feel that it is not typical to exclude West Indies when looking at statistics on this forum, if you can pick and choose who you exclude for individual batsmen then you are not getting a consistent view. Also I think your figure for Smith was slightly off? ...

 

[ret]

Near enough everything involved in judging a cricketer is subjective.

It's Sehwag's fault he's given the chance. And I'm concerned with what the batsman's done when assessing the batsman's performance, not the fielders. Whether the chance is taken is irrelevant as far as the batsman's ability is concerned; what matters is whether it is given or not. Once it's given, the batsman has done everything exactly the same.

But that's not the way it is. Almost all catches Sehwag has been dropped off - and certainly the 2 against Australia - have been complete sitters, straightforward outside-edges into the cordon.

Nah, there are facts and figs that everyone can objectively discuss .... a point like let-offs is subjective and many would not even remember them. then we have no reliable source to go by, just the account that you give

Even though I feel that a statement like 'it's batsman's fault that he is dropped' is ridicilous, lets continue to play by your rules. For once, I find it difficult to believe that Australians would be dropping regulation catches but still just like anything that hit's the middle of the bat does not go to a boundry, anything that hit's the hand need not be caught. And again, it depends upon the angle of the ball, on what side of the fielder did the ball go, the time of the day, and so on

As i said that the point like 'Smith didn't get 100s against top quality bowling attacks like Australia coz he was never let-off' is not even a point .... It only reflects badly on Smith as ppl can imply that he needs let-offs to get 100s .... more I read your posts, the more they crack me up

and, you said that he was let-off when on 7 against Eng when he made that 259, so should we deduct that 100 from Smith's account .... and what abt his other 4 100s against top quality attack, were they chanceless?