Why do certain teams play well against particular opponents?

[graphic23]

If we replace Laxman with Yuvraj in the '03 series we might have lost at Brisbane and certainly lost at Adelaide. So the scoreline would have been either 0-2 or 0-3. If we replace Laxman with Yuvraj in the '04 we would have lost at Bombay giving a scoreline of 0-3. If we replace Laxman with Yuvraj in '08 we would have lost Perth giving a scoreline of 0-3. All the above are worse scroelines than yours in the Sehwag/Jaffer scenario. If we replace Dravid with Yuvraj in '03 we would have lost 0-2. In '04 it still would have been 1-2. In '08 we would have lost 0-3. Overall, a pretty similar scenario to your Sehwag/Jaffer one. If we replace Tendulkar with Yuvraj in '03 it still would have been 1-1. If we replace Tendulkar with Yuvraj in '04 it would have been 0-3.(despite not playing half the series). If we replace Tendulkar with Yuvraj in '08 we would have been whitewashed 0-4. Again, as good if not better than Sehwag/Jaffer.

:D I can't wait to see him play in the IPL now.

[Bumper]

If we replace Laxman with Yuvraj in the '03 series we might have lost at Brisbane and certainly lost at Adelaide. So the scoreline would have been either 0-2 or 0-3. If we replace Laxman with Yuvraj in the '04 we would have lost at Bombay giving a scoreline of 0-3. If we replace Laxman with Yuvraj in '08 we would have lost Perth giving a scoreline of 0-3. All the above are worse scroelines than yours in the Sehwag/Jaffer scenario. If we replace Dravid with Yuvraj in '03 we would have lost 0-2. In '04 it still would have been 1-2. In '08 we would have lost 0-3. Overall, a pretty similar scenario to your Sehwag/Jaffer one. If we replace Tendulkar with Yuvraj in '03 it still would have been 1-1. If we replace Tendulkar with Yuvraj in '04 it would have been 0-3.(despite not playing half the series). If we replace Tendulkar with Yuvraj in '08 we would have been whitewashed 0-4. Again, as good if not better than Sehwag/Jaffer.

Dravid & Tendulkar have played crucial roles in our wins. But the no. of tests Veeru has had a serious impact on, is greater than either of them. Tendulkar was a non force for three tests in 2003 & was injured half the series in 2004. Dravid & Laxman were no shows for most of 2004. Dravid, except for one test in 2008 was ordinary. I already conceded in post #39, that Laxman is the closest interms of overall impact on the rivalry. However i rate Veeru much higher because he did it as an opener & without him, the same middle order could not build tall scores. To analyse Veeru's efforts as an opener, lets do this. Check our score cards each time Veeru has crossed 40 & do the same when Veeru hasnt scored atleast 40. The difference is pronounced. In 2003, in the lone innings he failed (scored 11), we were bowled out for 286 (thats our lowest score in that tour in a completed innings) In 2004, at Bangalore (twin failures from Veeru), two sub 250 totals. At Nagpur, sub 200s. At Mumbai, 100 & 200. In 2007/08, he didnt have a sub par series with the bat in the two tests he played. Overall, when Veeru crossed 40, India managed to score well past 300 comfortably 90% of the time, When he failed, inspite of our famed middle order we couldnt do much. Why ?

[Tapioca]

In 2004, at Bangalore (twin failures from Veeru), two sub 250 totals. At Nagpur, sub 200s. At Mumbai, 100 & 200.

If you twist this a little bit, you can see that when the pitch is bouncy as in Nagpur or Bangalore, or too spin friendly as in Mumbai, Sehwag goes missing.

[Bumper]

Tapioca, i dont deny that Veeru struggles on tricky pitches. Thats not the point of this debate. My point is that Veeru has had the most impact on the Ind-Aus rivalry during the time he has played them.

[The Outsider]

Tendulkar was a non force for three tests in 2003 & was injured half the series in 2004. Dravid & Laxman were no shows for most of 2004. Dravid, except for one test in 2008 was ordinary.

I just deployed a simple exercise like yours of replacing Sehwag with a dud(Jaffer), in my case the dud happens to be Yuvraj from the middle order and showed the impact of Tendulkar, Dravid, and Laxman on the scorelines was as much if not more. If you want to ascertain the effect of a variable you need to hold others constant. The 2004 series you are talking about, Sehwag was also a no show for 3 out of 4 tests.

To analyse Veeru's efforts as an opener, lets do this. Check our score cards each time Veeru has crossed 40 & do the same when Veeru hasnt scored atleast 40. The difference is pronounced. In 2003, in the lone innings he failed (scored 11), we were bowled out for 286 (thats our lowest score in that tour in a completed innings) In 2004, at Bangalore (twin failures from Veeru), two sub 250 totals. At Nagpur, sub 200s. At Mumbai, 100 & 200. In 2007/08, he didnt have a sub par series with the bat in the two tests he played.

Come one, that's a pretty specious argument, Bumper and I suspect you also know it. An opener is likely to fall early on a pitch with something in it and if there is something in the pitch the middle order will also not score as heavily. The Nagpur and to some extent Bangalore tracks were quick wickets and it was not a huge surprise to see the Indian team get wrapped up. And on the Bombay track, I bet no team would have scored 300 runs!

[Bumper]

I just deployed a simple exercise like yours of replacing Sehwag with a dud(Jaffer), in my case the dud happens to be Yuvraj from the middle order and showed the impact of Tendulkar, Dravid, and Laxman on the scorelines was as much if not more. If you want to ascertain the effect of a variable you need to hold others constant. The 2004 series you are talking about, Sehwag was also a no show for 3 out of 4 tests.

I'll admit that replacing X for Y is flawed logic. But if you go series by series, the no. of times Sehwag has played a series impacting role is only matchable by Laxman (he too falls slightly short). But Veeru did it as an opener & only on the back of his performances, has our middle order come together. We dont have to go back to the 90s to prove this. In the very recent series, Veeru's absence proved crucial in the two tests we lost.

Come one, that's a pretty specious argument, Bumper and I suspect you also know it. An opener is likely to fall early on a pitch with something in it and if there is something in the pitch the middle order will also not score as heavily. The Nagpur and to some extent Bangalore tracks were quick wickets and it was not a huge surprise to see the Indian team get wrapped up. And on the Bombay track, I bet no team would have scored 300 runs!

Its not a specious argument by any means. Here is why. If Veeru failing is an indication of a tricky pitch, him succeeding is indication of a great scoring opportunity for the middle order ? Fair dinkum ? If thats the case, why was Veeru the lone contributor in Melbourne'03 (195 out of 376), Chennai'04 (155 out of 350), Adelaide'08 (159 out of 270) ? Did the wicket become vicious for the middle order all of a sudden ? Look at the percentage of runs he has scored out of the team's total in each of these innings. In reality neither your theory nor my rebuttal are the right reasons to explain why our middle order is dependent on Veeru so much. (Wickets like Mumbai arent the norm, they are more of an exception, so i wouldnt go by such examples). IMO, the real reason lies in the fact that when Sehwag is successful, he kills several birds in one stone: 1) He blunts the new ball 2) He scores quickly, which means runs on the board & less pressure on the incoming batsman. 3) He ensures that our team (our psyche, our position etc) is on top When he fails: 1) Dravid, SRT get exposed to the new ball 2) Hardly anything on the board, so the innings will have to be constructed 3) Pressure of playing away, facing bowlers when they are fresh, attacking fields etc take care of finishing us off. So its not hard to see why our middle order depend so much on a solid opener.

[Tapioca]

Tapioca' date=' i dont deny that Veeru struggles on tricky pitches. Thats not the point of this debate. My point is that Veeru has had the most impact on the Ind-Aus rivalry during the time he has played them.[/quote'] Sorry, please ignore my comment. That was just a wise-crack, not intended to be a contribution to the debate...

[The Outsider]

I'll admit that replacing X for Y is flawed logic. But if you go series by series, the no. of times Sehwag has played a series impacting role is only matchable by Laxman (he too falls slightly short). But Veeru did it as an opener & only on the back of his performances, has our middle order come together.

But, they don't fall short. Let's see, Sehwag played a series impacting role in '03 at maybe Adelaide. In '04 at Chennai. In '05 at Adelaide and maybe Perth. Laxman in '03 at maybe Brisbane and certainly at Adelaide. Laxman in '04 at Bombay. Laxman in '08 at Perth. Dravid in '03 at Adelaide. None in '04. Dravid '08 at Perth. Tendulkar in '03 none. Tendulkar in '04 at Bombay. Tendulkar in '08 at Perth and Adelaide. By series impacting, I've thought on your lines that you take out their performance from matches and replace it by a dud and end up with a different scoreline. The numbers look similar for all of them. I would even argue that the Chennai '04 test would have been a draw because of a last day washout even if Sehwag would have been out for 14 instead of 140, but I'll give it to you for the moment.

If Veeru failing is an indication of a tricky pitch, him succeeding is indication of a great scoring opportunity for the middle order ? Fair dinkum ? If thats the case, why was Veeru the lone contributor in Melbourne'03 (195 out of 376), Chennai'04 (155 out of 350), Adelaide'08 (159 out of 270) ? Did the wicket become vicious for the middle order all of a sudden ? Look at the percentage of runs he has scored out of the team's total in each of these innings.

Not really. In these three series you can find all 3 flavors as examples : 1. Sehwag failing, middle order following suit : Melbourne 2nd innings, Bangalore, Nagpur. 2. Sehwag succeeding, middle order failing : Melbourne, Chennai, Adelaide '08. 3. Sehwag failing, middle order succeeding : Brisbane, Adelaide '03, Bombay, Perth.

1) He blunts the new ball 2) He scores quickly, which means runs on the board & less pressure on the incoming batsman. 3) He ensures that our team (our psyche, our position etc) is on top When he fails: 1) Dravid, SRT get exposed to the new ball 2) Hardly anything on the board, so the innings will have to be constructed 3) Pressure of playing away, facing bowlers when they are fresh, attacking fields etc take care of finishing us off.

I agree with all that and have never denied Sehwag's importance to the side. What you are pointing out above holds true for all openers and it's a given that any team would enjoy and generally do well after having a good opening partnership - a reason why good openers are considered so important and having one in Sehwag has helped us get much better results away from home. My objection has been to the "single biggest factor". Yes, having Sehwag as an opener has helped our results against Australia and also in general, but as our middle order has shown that even if Sehwag fails there is no guarantee that the rest will roll over, they might on occasions but are just as likely to succeed as well looking at the above examples of the three scenarios.

[Gambit]

Bit OT but I came across this anecdote on another forum:

I remember Mark Taylor (in 1998) turning to Warne to get a breakthrough, and Warne got one to turn big and it got hit for a six(by SRT). Then he pitched another one in the rough and it got hit against the spin for another six. At that point Mark Taylor asked 'So, what are we going to do now?' 'Warne: We're going to lose now, mate.'

[Ram]

At that point Mark Taylor asked 'So, what are we going to do now?' 'Warne: We're going to lose now, mate.'

:hysterical:

[Desi Cartman]

Bit OT but I came across this anecdote on another forum:

:cantstop::cantstop::cantstop::cantstop::cantstop:

[Bumper]

Not really. In these three series you can find all 3 flavors as examples : 1. Sehwag failing, middle order following suit : Melbourne 2nd innings, Bangalore, Nagpur. 2. Sehwag succeeding, middle order failing : Melbourne, Chennai, Adelaide '08. 3. Sehwag failing, middle order succeeding : Brisbane, Adelaide '03, Bombay, Perth.

Thats like saying, Test matches produce draws, results & ties, therefore a tie is as possible as a draw. You are gonna find alll possibilities ofcourse, but there is strong statistical evidence for the fact that our middle order does well when Veeru does well & the reverse when Veeru fails. Case in point, the no. of 300+ scores when Veeru crosses 40 & the no. of sub 300 scores, when Veeru fails to cross 40. (1) is merely a corollary of what am saying (When Veeru fails we are likely to fail) (2) is again a corollary of the exception "When Veeru fails, MO succeeds" And re: (3) I dont know how you call an opener scoring 45+ as failures (at Brisbane,Adelaide). Not a failure in my books.

I agree with all that and have never denied Sehwag's importance to the side. What you are pointing out above holds true for all openers and it's a given that any team would enjoy and generally do well after having a good opening partnership - a reason why good openers are considered so important and having one in Sehwag has helped us get much better results away from home. My objection has been to the "single biggest factor". Yes, having Sehwag as an opener has helped our results against Australia and also in general, but as our middle order has shown that even if Sehwag fails there is no guarantee that the rest will roll over, they might on occasions but are just as likely to succeed as well looking at the above examples of the three scenarios.

Thats what i want to know. Can you prove this statistically ? Your examples just point out a few instances, but do not show any % success or failures. Now that you've gotten me interested, when I i get a chance, I'll dig Varun's DB myself to find out more. Basically the query should return, the % of times, our team total >= 300, when Veeru succeeds vs % of 300s, when Veeru fails. That should throw more light on this subject.

[Chandan]

Laxman in '03 at maybe Brisbane and certainly at Adelaide. ... Tendulkar in '03 none.

So you all think that without Sachin's 241 not out and 60 not as well as without Laxman's 178 in Sydney 03-04, we could have saved that match and hence drawn the series? Remember, the series was still alive then!

[amits]

coming back to the original topic of the thread, its not just ind-aus. india always adjusts its level to match that of the opposition. when playing against australia, we manage to lift our game whereas when playing against bangladesh, we manage to decrease our level. and its not just the indian team, but players like sehwag & laxman do better against aus and struggle against the weaker teams

[Bumper]

I'll try & work on the queries later, when i find more time. For now, lets manually go thru the series by series score cards, shall we ? Is there merit to the thought that the middle order depends heavily on the success of the opener(s) when we play Australia ? I guess so! 1999: India and Australia played three tests (Adelaide, Melbourne & Sydney). Out of 6 innings, openers failed in 5 of them & each time we managed a poor score (sub 250 mostly). The lone innings an opener succeeded (VVS's 167) we managed a face saving performance with the bat - 260+. 2001: Tests played at Mumbai, Kolkatta & Chennai Openers failed at Mumbai, result: 176 & 219 Openers failed at Kolkatta, result: 171 in innings-1 & 657 (came on the back of VVS' 281 -- which is a freakish innings) Openers succeeded in Chennai 1st innings: (First wicket partnership of 123), result: 510 all out Openers failed in Chennai in 2nd innings, result: 125/8 (close victory) 2003/04: Enters Veeru. Tests played at Gabba, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney Veeru failed in only one innings. Melbourne 2nd innings & we registered our lowest total of the tour in that innings (285) In all other innings (five of them) we ended up with a big total 2004: 4 tests at Bangalore, Chennai, Nagpur, Mumbai Bangalore: Openers failed, sub par totals Chennai: Veeru scores 155, team total 376 Nagpur: Openers failed, poor 1st inn total. Veeru succeeded in the 2nd innings, yet poor 2nd inn total. Mumbai: Openers failed, poor totals (because of the conditions we can exclude this one from the list) 2007/08: 4 tests at Melbourne, Sydney, Perth, Adelaide Melbourne: Both openers failed, poor totals Sydney: 1st inn Dravid scores a 50+, team total: 532, 2nd innings openers failed, shot out for a low total Perth: Considering the conditions, decent start - 40+ partnership, resulting in 330 in inn 1. In inn 2, Veeru made a decent score (43), result: 294. The resp totals, considering the conditions were match winning. Adelaide: Opener succeeds, big total in inn 1 & match saved in 2nd inn. The common pattern, is that when both openers fail to make a decent score, we fail to put up a decent team total 95% of the time (unless a freakish innings a'la VVS's 281 bails us out). When atleast one of them succeed, we end up with a much better total, most of the time. Now pray tell, why the middle order isnt effective when the openers have a poor day ? Proof in the pudding ?

[graphic23]

I'll try & work on the queries later, when i find more time. For now, lets manually go thru the series by series score cards, shall we ? Is there merit to the thought that the middle order depends heavily on the success of the opener(s) when we play Australia ? I guess so! 1999: India and Australia played three tests (Adelaide, Melbourne & Sydney). Out of 6 innings, openers failed in 5 of them & each time we managed a poor score (sub 250 mostly). The lone innings an opener succeeded (VVS's 167) we managed a face saving performance with the bat - 260+. 2001: Tests played at Mumbai, Kolkatta & Chennai Openers failed at Mumbai, result: 176 & 219 Openers failed at Kolkatta, result: 171 in innings-1 & 657 (came on the back of VVS' 281 -- which is a freakish innings) Openers succeeded in Chennai 1st innings: (First wicket partnership of 123), result: 510 all out Openers failed in Chennai in 2nd innings, result: 125/8 (close victory) 2003/04: Enters Veeru. Tests played at Gabba, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney Veeru failed in only one innings. Melbourne 2nd innings & we registered our lowest total of the tour in that innings (285) In all other innings (five of them) we ended up with a big total 2004: 4 tests at Bangalore, Chennai, Nagpur, Mumbai Bangalore: Openers failed, sub par totals Chennai: Veeru scores 155, team total 376 Nagpur: Openers failed, poor 1st inn total. Veeru succeeded in the 2nd innings, yet poor 2nd inn total. Mumbai: Openers failed, poor totals (because of the conditions we can exclude this one from the list) 2007/08: 4 tests at Melbourne, Sydney, Perth, Adelaide Melbourne: Both openers failed, poor totals Sydney: 1st inn Dravid scores a 50+, team total: 532, 2nd innings openers failed, shot out for a low total Perth: Considering the conditions, decent start - 40+ partnership, resulting in 330 in inn 1. In inn 2, Veeru made a decent score (43), result: 294. The resp totals, considering the conditions were match winning. Adelaide: Opener succeeds, big total in inn 1 & match saved in 2nd inn. The common pattern, is that when both openers fail to make a decent score, we fail to put up a decent team total 95% of the time (unless a freakish innings a'la VVS's 281 bails us out). When atleast one of them succeed, we end up with a much better total, most of the time. Now pray tell, why the middle order isnt effective when the openers have a poor day ? Proof in the pudding ?

It would've been great had you told me how much Sachin scored in that 1999 tour everytime you said 'we failed miserably.' Adelaide '08, though Sehwag made 63 (or 61, I can't remember) in the first innings, we were at 160/4, hardly a good place to be on a pitch like Adelaide's. Thanks to Sachin and VVS' partnership for 126 for the 5th wicket and subsequently, and the Harbhajan-Kumble partnership, we did well to get to 537 or whatever we got in that innings. Adelaide '08 2nd innings, we survived thanks to Veeru - no questions there. Again, in Perth, though the opening partnership was 56, the scoreline read 59/2 2 overs after Sehwag got out, negating whatever effect that opening partnership did to our momentum in the game. Sachin's 71 and Dravid's 93 and their 100+ partnership saved us significantly in that first innings. Second innings, his 43 along with Pathan's 42 helped enormously by VVS' 79 saved that second innings score for us as well. So, you can't make the argument that he was why we won. He did have two excellent wickets of Gilchrist and Brett Lee in the second innings, which contributed a lot to the win. You cannot make a point about Sydney at all, to be honest. Dravid made exactly 50 in that first innings but Laxman made 104, and that partnership of 175 rescued us from the early wicket of Jaffer. Sachin's 154* and his batting through with the tail helped us put 532. Second innings, Dravid was there in a healthy partnership with Sourav Ganguly. But because Jaffer failed early, Laxman and Sachin also failed to make an impact, we couldn't draw that one. Both the dismissals of Dravid and Ganguly were questionable, and the former's dismissal was not out at all. Therefore, you cannot count Sydney as a defeat because the openers failed. Again, the only wrong thing I find with your analysis is though you're presenting us with statistics that prove that Sehwag has been essential to our test team, your argument that he is the single biggest reason for our success against Australia is what I'm having problems with. I think when you make that statement, whether you intend it or not, you're automatically dismissing the others' contributions (which are sometimes more significant) in the matches.

[Bumper]

Again, the only wrong thing I find with your analysis is though you're presenting us with statistics that prove that Sehwag has been essential to our test team, your argument that he is the single biggest reason for our success against Australia is what I'm having problems with. I think when you make that statement, whether you intend it or not, you're automatically dismissing the others' contributions (which are sometimes more significant) in the matches.

160/4, 200/3, Sachin making a ton, Laxman making a 50, are all details absorbed into this very basic question: Why is it that when two openers fail the team total hardly gets past 250, whereas when one of them succeed, we get past 300 with ease 90% of the time (with exactly the same middle order in both cases) ? Why ?

[graphic23]

160/4, 200/3, Sachin making a ton, Laxman making a 50, are all details absorbed into this very basic question: Why is it that when two openers fail the team total hardly gets past 250, whereas when one of them succeed, we get past 300 with ease 90% of the time (with exactly the same middle order in both cases) ? Why ?

Isn't that true about most teams, not just India? Australia openers failed in both innings at Perth, and in both innings (apart from that freak batting from Mitchell Johnson and Stuart Clark in the 2nd innings), their innings score was not very great. Thats why Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer were so important for Australia. Thats why Sunil Gavaskar was so critical to our team in the 70s and 80s. Now, thats why Veeru is so important. That is why most teams look for specialist openers for those 2 positions. I feel happy that Sehwag is right now the most dominating opener in Test cricket. Hayden is a close second but even he doesn't have the range of strokes that Sehwag invents I feel.

[Bumper]

Isn't that true about most teams' date= not just India? Australia openers failed in both innings at Perth, and in both innings (apart from that freak batting from Mitchell Johnson and Stuart Clark in the 2nd innings), their innings score was not very great. Thats why Matthew Hayden and Justin Langer were so important for Australia. Thats why Sunil Gavaskar was so critical to our team in the 70s and 80s. Now, thats why Veeru is so important. That is why most teams look for specialist openers for those 2 positions. I feel happy that Sehwag is right now the most dominating opener in Test cricket. Hayden is a close second but even he doesn't have the range of strokes that Sehwag invents I feel.

Ahaa! Now you are in the right direction. Do you now see how a claim that looked ridiculous on face value, all of a sudden starts to make sense ? Thats how ONE man makes a BIG difference. Taking no credit away from a stellar middle order comprising of Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar & Ganguly, when playing Australia, without a solid opener like Veeru, we'd struggle to compete more often than not. And that has been clearly brought out in numbers. It could be a coincidence if i showed you one or two instances where this has happened, but this has been happening since 1999, spanning five series and 18 tests. I rest my case.

[graphic23]

Ahaa! Now you are in the right direction. Do you now see how a claim that looked ridiculous on face value, all of a sudden starts to make sense ? Thats how ONE man makes a BIG difference. Taking no credit away from a stellar middle order comprising of Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar & Ganguly, when playing Australia, without a solid opener like Veeru, we'd struggle to compete more often than not. And that has been clearly brought out in numbers. It could be a coincidence if i showed you one or two instances where this has happened, but this has been happening since 1999, spanning five series and 18 tests. I rest my case.

Your argument then just comes back what I and (I think) Predator have been saying all along. We understand how important Sehwag is to the team, and in general how important openers are. But to claim that openers are the only reason we have more victories is something I'm disagreeing with. I never thought your statement was ridiculous by the way. I just thought that too much credit was being given to Sehwag (not that he doesn't deserve it - he's been awesome since his comeback at Perth), and not enough to our middle order. But you've also changed your opinion at bit from Sehwag's the primo reason India competed well to he's been a significant factor in helping us get momentum at the top, and our middle order has been doing well carry that momentum whenever he succeeds.