Soth Africa's boring tactics

[Richard]

There'll be a lot less going on after he's had serious chin music from myself to deal with after Christmas.

We'll see, after I've repeatedly slammed you into the side-netting. Or else ducked disdainfully as the innocuous delivieries fly harmlessly by.
Be interesting to see if you've found a way to cope with my outswingers, incidentally - rather than the rather illustrious groping of last time...

 

[Richard]

Once again talking out of your 'you know where' without seeing a ball of the series bowled. Most ridiculous post I've seen in a long time.

How so, then?
Why do I need to see anything to know that Sehwag has once again scored a load of runs thanks to a let-off or two?

 

[marc71178]

So you'd say a batsman who scores 20 in every innings and the only time he is out is through an unplayable ball is more successful than someone who scores 50 every innings but is dropped twice?

 

[Deja moo]

How so, then?
Why do I need to see anything to know that Sehwag has once again scored a load of runs thanks to a let-off or two?

What let off were you aware of in this innings?

 

[Richard]

So you'd say a batsman who scores 20 in every innings and the only time he is out is through an unplayable ball is more successful than someone who scores 50 every innings but is dropped twice?

If someone's out to a RUD every innings I'd call it something of a special circumstance!
Depends, incidentally, on what the 50-scorer was dropped on - if it was 19, yes, if 21 - no.

 

[Richard]

What let off were you aware of in this innings?

An lbw that every report I read said was out and was given not-out.

 

[marc71178]

No, because he still averages 50 which is a hell of a lot more successful than one who averages 20.

 

[Deja moo]

An lbw that every report I read said was out and was given not-out.

There were LBW appeals against Kallis yesterday (off Ganguly ) which the commentators reckoned should have been given out.

Kallis is rubbish too , I guess.

 

[DocHead]

Crickey, it's so refreshing to see India flay the SA attack, even after Sehwag went out. Dravid was tonking everyone around, so was Ganguly before he just went out. Their run rate's an awesome 2.5.....err, no that can't be right. That would mean that India are batting at the same rate as SA.

The differencemaker was Sehwag, SA didn't have someone like him in their lineup. Without Gambhir, who went quickly, and Sehwag, the run rate plummeted, indeed, take him out of the equation, and India's rate is less than SA's.

Certainly a case for SA's defence there innit?

 

[Majin]

You make it sound as if Sehwag is the only cricket player in history to ever have been let off when he should have been out. Just because he decides to carry on attacking and make big scores rather than going defensive and getting himself out doesn't make him any less of a player. The amount of times i've seen that happen is daft. There are let offs of all kinds in every game of cricket, it's part of the game. Sehwag just takes advantage of it more than other batsmen do. If every decesion was made using hi-tech video and computers to make sure batsmen were out every time, cricket would be a very boring game. Let the man do what he wants. Let offs or not, you can't deny the runs are flowing, he's making the most of his chances, and he's doing a bloody good job of it as well.

 

[Richard]

There were LBW appeals against Kallis yesterday (off Ganguly ) which the commentators reckoned should have been given out.

Kallis is rubbish too , I guess.

Yes, Kallis should have been out at least once.
This innings was not one of Kallis' finest (because it wouldn't have happened but for luck).
Thing is, it hasn't happened to Kallis all the time - Kallis has been scoring truckloads of runs for ages now with no more than the normal amount of luck that batsmen gain.

 

[Richard]

You make it sound as if Sehwag is the only cricket player in history to ever have been let off when he should have been out. Just because he decides to carry on attacking and make big scores rather than going defensive and getting himself out doesn't make him any less of a player. The amount of times i've seen that happen is daft. There are let offs of all kinds in every game of cricket, it's part of the game. Sehwag just takes advantage of it more than other batsmen do. If every decesion was made using hi-tech video and computers to make sure batsmen were out every time, cricket would be a very boring game. Let the man do what he wants. Let offs or not, you can't deny the runs are flowing, he's making the most of his chances, and he's doing a bloody good job of it as well.

Oh, yes, and if he weren't getting the abnormal amount of let-offs he'd not be doing anywhere near so good a job of it.
If every decision was made with as much to help make it correct as possible, cricket would actually be far more entertaining, rather than the bat-monopoly it presently is.

 

[Deja moo]

So what is this normal amount of luck that batsmen have ?

What are the respective figures for Kallis and Sehwag in this database of yours ?

How many lives does Sehwag get per innings ?

 

[Majin]

Test matches would last about 2 days as well, great fun all round, and a lovely long wait while the third umpire decides on every decision. How exactly is he getting an abnormal amount of let offs? I do watch the indian test matches, and to be totally honest I can't say he does. Like I said, his let offs just gain more attention because he usually takes advantage of it.

 

[Richard]

So what is this normal amount of luck that batsmen have ?

What are the respective figures for Kallis and Sehwag in this database of yours ?

How many lives does Sehwag get per innings ?

Almost every single innings Sehwag has played in the last year has required a let-off or two.
Some examples:

195
309
155
165
70
82*

Dropped by Katich on about 40 - a sitter.
Dropped at least twice in the deep in the 70s and 80s - total sitters again.
Thus, the two highest innings have needed some luck, and nearly 500 runs which have not been earnt have been scored. You can add the blatant lbw turned-down at Eden Gardens, too - though fortunately that hasn't cost as much as it looked like doing.
I'll confess I haven't actually read any reports on the 155, 165 and 70, but I'll not be too surprised if they needed let-offs too.
I'll try and find-out Sehwag's first-chance average since last year's Border-Gavaskar.

 

[Richard]

Test matches would last about 2 days as well, great fun all round

Rubbish - but yes, 2-day Test-matches are always fun. They'd occur, as now, once in a blue-moon.

and a lovely long wait while the third umpire decides on every decision.

That's an exaggeration and everyone knows it - there is already a stupidly long hiatus between deliveries.

How exactly is he getting an abnormal amount of let offs? I do watch the indian test matches, and to be totally honest I can't say he does. Like I said, his let offs just gain more attention because he usually takes advantage of it.

So? That makes it even more important to identify them.

 

[Deja moo]

So if a batsman does not take advantage of any let offs , its okay ?

And if you make a list of all the big scores by all batsmen , you would find pretty much the same rate of let offs too .

 

[Richard]

OK, a couple of things:
Yes, you do get let-offs quite a bit, especially in this day and age of incompetant fielding - but nonetheless, Sehwag in the last year has gained more from luck than possibly anyone I've seen - yes, including Gilchrist in 2000-2002. The let-offs have usually at least quadroupled his scores.
No, there's no point saying "so-and-so was dropped on 45" if he was out for 46, is there?

 

[Deja moo]

No, it just means he wasnt good enough to make use of a life . Thats the only difference .

 

[Richard]

It does - it does not, however, mean that a batsman who "was" good enough to make use deserved his life any more.