Soth Africa's boring tactics

[Deja moo]

Whether batsmen deserve lives or make use of them is a different matter altogether. The point is that Sehwag does not get any more lives than other batsmen .

 

[Richard]

I think he does.
No, I admit, I haven't actually looked it up, but I must do so.

 

[marc71178]

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

Not under your utopian idea that any chance is out.

 

[Jono]

So the only explanation of Sehwag's immense success in international test cricket must be divine intervention. I mean, he's scored against Australia (with and without their best bowlers), South Africa, Pakistan etc. If he's no good, as Richard seems to think, the hand of God is the obvious answer.

 

[Jono]

Like I said, his let offs just gain more attention because he usually takes advantage of it.

Excellent post!

Ganguly was dropped today, and only went on to score 40. Sehwag could have been given out LBW, he went on to score 88 without giving another chance (wait, what is the definition of a chance again?).

Oh and Kallis had more than one life. He was dropped the ball before Ganguly clean bowled him. Granted he didn't make India pay, but that still means 2 lives.

 

[Jono]

I'll try and find-out Sehwag's first-chance average since last year's Border-Gavaskar.

Don't bother, no one cares.

Those 'undeserved' runs are quite deserved. He played the ball bowled by a McGrath, an Akhtar or a Gillespie, he smashed it into the boundaries, he gained the runs.

 

[Deja moo]

Don't bother, no one cares.

Those 'undeserved' runs are quite deserved. He played the ball bowled by a McGrath, an Akhtar or a Gillespie, he smashed it into the boundaries, he gained the runs.

I dont think theres any need to be so harsh on him.

I understand his philosophy of batsmen deserving no more than the number of runs they score till they provide a chance.

All the same , it is not feasible in practice .We have the best possible system in place now .It just wouldnt be cricket without the uncertainties and player flaws.

 

[SJS]

No, of course I haven't seen this series, it's not being shown in The UK.
Of course it's possible that Sehwag can play well and score runs - it has happened, I watched more closely than most when it happened spectacularly at Trent Bridge in 2002.
But I'm getting sick of it happening with the regularity it's happened since the Border-Gavaskar of last winter.

BOY ! You must be thrilled you never saw Bradman. The 'monotony' of his run getting would have killed you

 

[Jono]

I dont think theres any need to be so harsh on him.

I understand his philosophy of batsmen deserving no more than the number of runs they score till they provide a chance.

I wouldn't say I'm being harsh, I would say I'm being realistic. First off, his definition of a chance is vague and inconsistent. He has no idea of Sehwag's LBW appeal, which though generally would have been given out, wasn't a plumb "OMG What a shocking decision".

How is an edge which goes wide of slip, and the fielder dives but is unable to get a finger to it not a chance, but an edge which goes slightly over his head, and the fielder manages to get a finger to it a chance?

The philosophy is flawed.

 

[Deja moo]

I wouldn't say I'm being harsh, I would say I'm being realistic. First off, his definition of a chance is vague and inconsistent. He has no idea of Sehwag's LBW appeal, which though generally would have been given out, wasn't a plumb "OMG What a shocking decision".

How is an edge which goes wide of slip, and the fielder dives but is unable to get a finger to it not a chance, but an edge which goes slightly over his head, and the fielder manages to get a finger to it a chance?

.

I know, which is why I said it isnt feasible in practice .

 

[ReallyCrazy]

all batters offer chances, thats part of the game. The fielding field should not miss those chances. It's not the batter's fault if they do. If the fielding side is not good enough to take those chances, the batter still deserves to be in the middle.

 

[Richard]

all batters offer chances, thats part of the game. The fielding field should not miss those chances. It's not the batter's fault if they do. If the fielding side is not good enough to take those chances, the batter still deserves to be in the middle.

No, he doesn't. It is not to his credit that the fielders aren't good enough.
It does not matter that it is not the batsman's fault - the batsman has not lost anything, so fault is not the issue.

 

[Richard]

Not under your utopian idea that any chance is out.

Believe me, "normal" Tests would still last considerably longer than 2 days, even if every catch was caught and every decision was given correctly.

 

[Richard]

So the only explanation of Sehwag's immense success in international test cricket must be divine intervention. I mean, he's scored against Australia (with and without their best bowlers), South Africa, Pakistan etc. If he's no good, as Richard seems to think, the hand of God is the obvious answer.

No, dropped catches and Umpiring reprieves are a far, far more feasible explanation.

 

[Richard]

Don't bother, no one cares.

Those 'undeserved' runs are quite deserved. He played the ball bowled by a McGrath, an Akhtar or a Gillespie, he smashed it into the boundaries, he gained the runs.

Yep, and he didn't deserve them.
And I can assure you, people do care - there are more than a handful on this board who have said they see the logic behind looking at unaccepted chances and Umpiring reprieves as dismissals.

 

[Richard]

BOY ! You must be thrilled you never saw Bradman. The 'monotony' of his run getting would have killed you

Nah, the monotony of Graeme Smith's run-getting 2 summers ago never killed me (even against my own team), nor Jacques Kallis' and Gary Kirsten's of, well, 3 years at least.
There are some batsmen I take to heart, I am fairly confident that The Don would have been one of them.

 

[Richard]

I wouldn't say I'm being harsh, I would say I'm being realistic. First off, his definition of a chance is vague and inconsistent. He has no idea of Sehwag's LBW appeal, which though generally would have been given out, wasn't a plumb "OMG What a shocking decision".

How is an edge which goes wide of slip, and the fielder dives but is unable to get a finger to it not a chance, but an edge which goes slightly over his head, and the fielder manages to get a finger to it a chance?

The philosophy is flawed.

No, I am not vague or inconsistent on the matter - just because you have failed to grasp it doesn't mean I've failed to explain it.
Every report I read of the Sehwag lbw said it should have been given out. That is more than enough for me.
I have stated quite clearly, many times, that a fielder getting a finger on the ball is not a chance - no-one can catch the ball with a single finger.
It has to hit the hands, for starters, and even then it's not totally clear-cut.

 

[Pratters]

No, I am not vague or inconsistent on the matter - just because you have failed to grasp it doesn't mean I've failed to explain it.
Every report I read of the Sehwag lbw said it should have been given out. That is more than enough for me.
I have stated quite clearly, many times, that a fielder getting a finger on the ball is not a chance - no-one can catch the ball with a single finger.
It has to hit the hands, for starters, and even then it's not totally clear-cut.

Okay this is officially the silliest reason I have heard for Sehwag scoring runs. The UMPIRES ARE BIASED AGAINST HIM!!!!!!!!!

Averages do get inflated or deflated. Even if we cut Sehwag's average a bit, he would qualify to play for many international teams.

He offers chances and makes runs. Classical spinners like Warne and Bedi offer a chance to batsmen to hit them for runs by flighting the ball. When they take wickets, we applaud.

I am a cricket purist much more than many other people but find nothing wrong with Sehwag's technique or his stroke play. He is confident enough to play the shots he does. And he makes runs more often than not. Why would he be despised?

 

[Richard]

There's nothing wrong with his technique but there is something wrong with his strokeplay - he hits the ball in the air to fielders.
Unless you're abnormally lucky, that gets you out a lot.
And I've never said anyone is biased against Sehwag, I've just said he gets more dropped catches and Umpiring reprieves than is natural.
The situation is totally incomparable to bowlers offering runs as carrots to taking wickets. Going for runs is a totally inevitable part of bowling. The whole point of bowling is to take as many wickets for as few runs as possible. The point of batting is to score as many runs as possible, without getting out. Someone who does something which should result in their dismissal is not avoiding getting out.

 

[Pratters]

There's nothing wrong with his technique but there is something wrong with his strokeplay - he hits the ball in the air to fielders.
Unless you're abnormally lucky, that gets you out a lot.
And I've never said anyone is biased against Sehwag, I've just said he gets more dropped catches and Umpiring reprieves than is natural.
The situation is totally incomparable to bowlers offering runs as carrots to taking wickets. Going for runs is a totally inevitable part of bowling. The whole point of bowling is to take as many wickets for as few runs as possible. The point of batting is to score as many runs as possible, without getting out. Someone who does something which should result in their dismissal is not avoiding getting out.

If Sehwag hits balls in the air and manages runs, what is wrong with that? His times and places the balls between fielders and doesnt get out as much. I dont say it. The averages do.

The logic of him being dropped and getting favourable decisions more than other players is totally absurd. What one person feels risky may mean safe in another person's book. It is the amount of calculated risk one is willing to take.

Sehwag is confident of his stroke play (which u think is where the fault lies). So he can play the shots which bewilder you thinking he MUST get out to this. But actually they are not as risky in Sehwag's books. Else he would not have managed the success he has at the international stage.