Why are India ignoring Sehwag for test matches ?

[Burgey]

In the Ronaldos?

 

[Top_Cat]

Actually no but I gotta admit, getting hit in the Ronaldo's does sound funny.

 

[Jono]

LOL @ in the Ronaldos

 

[Richard]

I cant argue with you Richard, on this or any other matter for that but let mw leave you with a thought or two.

• India's opening partnerships for the first two tests were 4, 26, 8 and 3. A grand total of 41 in 4 innings at 10.25 per innings. In the last two they were 57, 45, 34 and 2. I am sure Anil Kumble will know which one he prefers. We also know there was only one difference between the first two and the next two.
  
• India played three other openers in the series. They scored 4, 5, 16, 15, 3, 53, 0, 38, 16, 11, 9 and 0. A grand total of 170 runs in 12 innings at 14.1 each. Virendra Sehwag played four innings and scored 286 runs at 71 each. We know which one team India will take.
  
• India lost the first two tests 2-0 and were 1-0 up for the second half of the tour. WE know which one India prefers. Virendra Sehwag played in the latter.

It doesn't matter, thank God, to Indian selectors that Sehwag plays in an unconventional manner and you can be sure they are not going to drop him in a hurry.

As I say - that Sehwag's introduction in the end proved greatly beneficial in many ways is beyond dispute. No-one is disputing this. Merely that the end is not always justification for the means. You can make a wrong decision that ends-up being beneficial.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

As I say - that Sehwag's introduction in the end proved greatly beneficial in many ways is beyond dispute. No-one is disputing this. Merely that the end is not always justification for the means. You can make a wrong decision that ends-up being beneficial.

If it was beneficial then it's self-evidently not a wrong decision.

Going on his prior form it was ill-advised, perhaps, but just because it conflicted with your opinion doesn't mean it was wrong (per se) at any stage.

 

[Richard]

If it was beneficial then it's self-evidently not a wrong decision.

The end does not always justify the means. Whether a decision is right or wrong is based on how wisely the evidence was considered before the decision was made. Not what happened afterwards.

Just as making the right decision doesn't always mean said decision pays-off, making the wrong decision doesn't always mean it goes belly-up. There was no good reason to recall Sehwag, yet the selectors did, and it paid-off. India should be greatful the wrong decision was made, sure, but that doesn't change the fact it was a bad call.

Going on his prior form it was ill-advised, perhaps, but just because it conflicted with your opinion doesn't mean it was wrong (per se) at any stage.

It's not just my opinion it conflicted with. There were many learned judges of the game on here who said the same thing. In any case, I was far from ranged against the decision to pick him; like quite a few, I said I reckoned I might pick him in the squad. But I did not particularly expect him to be successful, and but for let-offs, he wouldn't have been.

 

[AKkAz]

I have to agree with the Indian selectors on this issue..Sure Sehwag has proven his place in his team after match-saving and match winning performances in Adelaide and Perth respectively, however at the beginning of the series he showed poor form in all forms of the game, by getting out in the same or similar methods on repeated occassions(ie the wild cut shot outside off !:P) .. IT would not have been appropriate for him to be in the starting line up at the beginning of the series..

Here is the major problem in Indian Cricket currently Senior players in India have taken their place for granted, causing them to lose the inspiration and desire to score runs for their country. These players have played much better cricket after being dropped as they start working hard again to find a way back. This trend has been clear with Ganguly( who may I say is appearing with the same lack of motivation seen a few years ago) , Dravid and now Sehwag. This is further reflected in Gilchrist's recent retirement where he said that he had lost the desperation to do well... A clear difference between Australian cricket and Indian cricket. In the Australian side, players bow out for the betterment of their team when they feel they are not playing with the same amount of positive mind set and will. The Australian senior players are able to maintain this motivation and thus are able to perform more consistently. India needs to keep applying pressure on its senior players to maintain their spot as well as to possess a determined and positive attitude!

 

[LongHopCassidy]

The end does not always justify the means. Whether a decision is right or wrong is based on how wisely the evidence was considered before the decision was made. Not what happened afterwards.

Just as making the right decision doesn't always mean said decision pays-off, making the wrong decision doesn't always mean it goes belly-up. There was no good reason to recall Sehwag, yet the selectors did, and it paid-off. India should be greatful the wrong decision was made, sure, but that doesn't change the fact it was a bad call.

It's not just my opinion it conflicted with. There were many learned judges of the game on here who said the same thing. In any case, I was far from ranged against the decision to pick him; like quite a few, I said I reckoned I might pick him in the squad. But I did not particularly expect him to be successful, and but for let-offs, he wouldn't have been.

The end does, tragically, justify the mean when there is a direct causal link between the mean and the end - in this case picking Sehwag directly resulted in relative success.

I do take particular umbrage to this:

Whether a decision is right or wrong is based on how wisely the evidence was considered before the decision was made. Not what happened afterwards.

The whole idea of considering evidence in this case is to predict the outcome. The fact that considering it correctly does not produce a spot-on result is proof that it does not equate to being 'right', as you claim. The law of averages and Sehwag's own durable temperament have begged to differ.

Those who analyse trends correctly were correct in their analysis of the trends. It doesn't mean they were correct in predicting the outcome, which is WHY they analyse the trends.

By your reasoning, one should have put a hundred on Australia at the Cardiff betting tent in 2005. By your reasoning, Ramprakash's selection at Test level was a success. They may have been smart decisions, but they weren't right. I don't want to sound patronising, but there is a semantic difference between smart and right.

What you're refusing to come to terms with (not just here, in most of your theories) is that luck and pure fortuity can be a factor in proving or disproving a prediction. One can fine-tune their prognosis till it's virtually infallible. But there's still scope to be wrong, thanks to gravity, wind and crap footwork.

Regarding the learned judges, would you regard them as right if they contradicted you?

 

[RhyZa]

Or, of course, all the evidence was considered, and the right decision was made.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Or, of course, all the evidence was considered, and the right decision was made.

Get out of the perfect world.

In this case, the only evidence supporting Viru was his record against Australia. Everything else - his run of form, his plummeting average - suggested otherwise.

The argument here is whether quality of predictions or quality of outcome constitute being right.

 

[Matt79]

The end does, tragically, justify the mean when there is a direct causal link between the mean and the end - in this case picking Sehwag directly resulted in relative success.

I do take particular umbrage to this:

The whole idea of considering evidence in this case is to predict the outcome. The fact that considering it correctly does not produce a spot-on result is proof that it does not equate to being 'right', as you claim. The law of averages and Sehwag's own durable temperament have begged to differ.

Those who analyse trends correctly were correct in their analysis of the trends. It doesn't mean they were correct in predicting the outcome, which is WHY they analyse the trends.

By your reasoning, one should have put a hundred on Australia at the Cardiff betting tent in 2005. By your reasoning, Ramprakash's selection at Test level was a success. They may have been smart decisions, but they weren't right. I don't want to sound patronising, but there is a semantic difference between smart and right.

What you're refusing to come to terms with (not just here, in most of your theories) is that luck and pure fortuity can be a factor in proving or disproving a prediction. One can fine-tune their prognosis till it's virtually infallible. But there's still scope to be wrong, thanks to gravity, wind and crap footwork.

Regarding the learned judges, would you regard them as right if they contradicted you?

Well done on getting all that out without any swearing. I've been trying to find a way to say all that for a long time! Its all about accepting that just because something could or even should have happened, what's usually more important is what did happen.

 

[Richard]

The end does, tragically, justify the mean when there is a direct causal link between the mean and the end - in this case picking Sehwag directly resulted in relative success.

I do take particular umbrage to this:

The whole idea of considering evidence in this case is to predict the outcome. The fact that considering it correctly does not produce a spot-on result is proof that it does not equate to being 'right', as you claim. The law of averages and Sehwag's own durable temperament have begged to differ.

Those who analyse trends correctly were correct in their analysis of the trends. It doesn't mean they were correct in predicting the outcome, which is WHY they analyse the trends.

By your reasoning, one should have put a hundred on Australia at the Cardiff betting tent in 2005. By your reasoning, Ramprakash's selection at Test level was a success. They may have been smart decisions, but they weren't right. I don't want to sound patronising, but there is a semantic difference between smart and right.

What you're refusing to come to terms with (not just here, in most of your theories) is that luck and pure fortuity can be a factor in proving or disproving a prediction. One can fine-tune their prognosis till it's virtually infallible. But there's still scope to be wrong, thanks to gravity, wind and crap footwork.

No, Ramprakash's selection at Test level wasn't a success (at least, early on, but that's a different story). That doesn't mean to pick him was the wrong decision, does it?

Luck, fortuity can indeed be a huge factor in the accuracy of a prediction. Whether a prediction was a good prediction is completely different to whether it's an accurate one, which you basically touch on when you say "there is a semantic difference between smart and right". I feel you've got your terminology slightly off. What you term "smart" I term "good"; what you term "right" I term "accurate". One can be accurate through various combinations of "good"ness of one's prediction, and luck.

Anyone who predicted Bangladesh to beat Australia at Cardiff in 2005 was an idiot, regardless of the fact they actually guessed (if anyone actually did) correctly. There was no evidence to suggest such an outcome was even realistically possible, never mind probable. Are you honestly telling me that someone who predicted Australia to win that match was making a "bad" prediction?

The Sehwag case - and the other case very similar which I discussed with one Robert Cribb a while back, regarding Ireland vs Pakistan - is not actually a clear-cut one. There was some amount of good reason to predict Ireland might beat Pakistan; there was some amount of good reason to predict Sehwag might be successful in Australia. They were still less likely than more, but neither would have been outlandish. Predicting Bangladesh would win in 2005 was, and any such prediction would have been a stupid one, regardless of what ended-up happening.

Regarding the learned judges, would you regard them as right if they contradicted you?

Of course not, but I'd still regard them as learned. I don't agree with everything SJS (for instance) says, but I still regard him as learned. Same thing with David Lewis.

 

[Richard]

Well done on getting all that out without any swearing.

Whelan's not one for excess profanity.

I've been trying to find a way to say all that for a long time! Its all about accepting that just because something could or even should have happened, what's usually more important is what did happen.

They're all important. Without all of them, cricket would be of no interest.

 

[Manee]

Although I was never in support of dropping Sehwag. I was never in favour of reselecting him on the back of poor domestic performances. The fact that a selectorial decision works does not necessarily make it right (to those who felt that those who agreed with Sehwag's non selection were 'wrong) since all decisions are based on a chance and noone could have predicted that Sehwag would have regained his form, as he stated that he only did that against Canberra.

Furthermore, half a series of good performances does not mean a player is 'back' so to speak. His innings were all streaky. He played and missed than more than the rest of his team and edged a fair few too.

 

[Pratters]

SJS, these are my thoughts on the Sehwag issue which I posted back then in the India-Australia thread:

If I was Chopra, I would be pissed. This guy has been making runs after runs after runs and yet, he can't get into the Indian test team. Sehwag hasn't done any thing of note recently to deserve a place in the test side right now. He doesn't fill me with confidence. Given that he is Sehwag and he might deliver some of his old magic, it is okay if the selectors feel that they should select him. However, they should have then gone for a reserve opener in the form of Chopra (or Uthappa). They should have been brave enough and dropped one of Karthik and Dhoni from the team or taken a fast bowler less. If Sehwag doesn't work, we would have the real possibility of Karthik opening again and that doesn't fill me with any confidence. Just don't open with Dravid - I am hearing every one talk of the real possibility of Dravid opening from honestbharani to Chetan Sharma.

I wasn't averse to Sehwag being selected in the squad but they should have gone for another opener in the squad. I stand by that and I don't think that you can say that I was wrong given that point of view.

 

[Jono]

^ and that's new? He always plays that way, that's Sehwag.

And I think it may have been Chappell that said something along the lines of, the fairest selection isn't always the right one. You choose the team which is most likely to win, not which is the fairest.

 

[Richard]

That's true. But in Sehwag's case there was more to suggest that his selection would do damage than good to (and others' would have been more likely to do more good to) the chances of winning.

The best\fairest selection case isn't really relevant here IMO.

 

[jeevan]

And those who were not quite 'on the ball'

Guilty as charged. And, am I glad that I was wrong about Sehwag and right about Pathan rather than vice versa. [ And if I am to be wrong once more - I hope it is about Ganguly being a better ODI selection for the CB series rather than someone younger. ]