UV did pretty well against him in India too.
Fair enough, but you just cannot make those big scores consistently over a series with the oppositions lead spinner "dominating" or "owning" you in India.
I feel my point remains, though, considering the success he's had against Gambhir I wouldn't be surprised about him doing well against any lefties, let alone Raina. Hussey is the only one I can remember having significant success over him, but Hussey caned all our bowlers last year.
Well seeing as the press were mentioning it and the commentators i'd rather go by their word seeing as they were there watching him.
Yuvraj has made 108 runs against him so far at a pretty good strike rate and has never got out to Swann .
The same press and commentators would have been first to criticise and question if like Sehwag he had played unfit and then been unable to throw or bat at 100% though.
In, what, 3 matches? Hardly significant success. I'm not denying he's had the better of Swann, but with Hussey its been a prolonged battle over about 10 Tests where he's consistently lost out. Admittedly there's been less opportunity for Yuvraj to face Swann, but its not been much of a battle yet.
You were claiming that Swann's success against Gambhir in this series was only because of his injury problems and concussion etc. so I merely brought up the fact that he has some prior success, much in the same way you brought up Yuvraj's prior success. I did correct the "owned" thing, anyway, saying he didn't dominate Gambhir but did have the better of him.
You were using 2/3 tests against Gambhir too and saying he was "owned"?
That's rubbish. Average against a bowler isn't the same as average against a side. Him getting out Gambhir in those 3 innings means he was better than the other English bowlers against Gambhir. Imagine a batsman made 4 scores of 100 against a 4 man attack taking 25 off each bowler every match - a bradmanesque performance. Now imagine one of the bowlers got the batsman out 3 times out of the 4. Then his individual bowling average against that batsman would be 33.33 supposedly 'owning him'.
Okay, consider that Gambhir is an opener and Swann was playing as the second spinner in a 5 man attack. It wouldn't, and didn't, play out as you have described. Once he got him out in his first over, and the other time after a period of sustained good, tight bowling against him. I'm not remotely talking about the team, here, I'm solely talking about how Swann bowled to him - Gambhir played very well in that series, which makes how Swann bowled to him all the more impressive.
The number of times a bowler gets a batsman out is only a reflection of how much better he is at getting the guy out than his fellow bowlers.
Now how about you stop considering hypotheses and actually watch Swann bowling to Gambhir throughout that series and this one. He has had the better of him.
I did. He didn't really. The best I can say is that he bowled well to him.
Clearly you have taken this from what I have said, but that was never my intention. What it is is a good indication of how he had bowled to him - much like a career average. There are innumerable possible outcomes you could analyse that supposedly weaken the appeal of using those averages, but discounting a bowler's average to a single batsman is no different to discounting his overall average. I never said either one of these was the only measure of a batsman/bowler, but is a good indication nevertheless. Bringing up countless situations in which the average has slightly less meaning is a pointless exercise.
I argued as to why it is not a good indication. I didn't provide the odd example where it wouldn't work - I showed how even in a best case scenario this method would end up showing the batsman as losing to some bowler or the other in the opposition attack.
