Ooops, who will we curse now?

[Bumper]

When Sehwag was out of the side we won series against England and Pakistan. With Sehwag in' date=' we lost to Australia drew to South Africa and are 1-1 against Sri Lanka. But why should we let facts get into the way of senior bashing season. [/quote'] So now we are equating a second string English team (against whom, Jaffer & KKD got 50+ partnerships on a routine basis) & a washed up Pakistani team to Australia, SA & Lanka, just to protect a couple of superstars of yesteryears ? Aus, SA & Lanka at home are probably the three TOUGHEST opponents in Test cricket today.

Tendulkar/Dravid partnership was the last 50+ partnership of the test against the old ball. But that fact also blows holes into the senior bashing extravaganza going on. We shouldn't let that come into the picture either.

Correction, Dilshan & Samaraweera's partnership was the last (70+). I dont know why/how this is relevant to our middle order's prolonged 2nd innings slump, spanning two years ?

We managed to win this test by pretty much the same margin the Aussies won at Galle of whom we are singing praises of. But that fact also drills holes into the bashing of the "seniors".

The biggest difference is that the Aussies bounced back from behind, inspite of their supposed weakness against spin on a turning track. If India goes to SA, faces a first innings deficit of 161 & Dravid, SRT, Laxman et al knock tons respectively in the 2nd innings & win the Test by 150 runs, then such an effort would be comparable to what the Aussies managed. For those who would like to see, its more than obvious that our middle order is more hype and less substance. Cant count on them in crunch moments, to bail us out come big Test matches.

[Chandan]

Rubbish. The reason some of us make the statement 'Take out Sehwag here, and watch how things change' is simply because Sehwag adds a dynamic to the side and does things that almost NO OTHER BATSMAN CAN. The man belts gigantic scores with a frightening consistency. Only Lara and Bradman match him in that regard, in appetites for runs and the ability and stamina to pull off such innings. The man can deliver on all pitches and situations, with a panache and capacity for making the opponents' plans redudant that can nullify whomever he's up against. Field placements be damned, bowling plans be damned, if Sehwag wants to pile his way to a big score against your leg side field, wide outside off or phaast boiling attack, he will. Of other batsmen in the last few decades who could do that and keep making runs with great consistency, only Lara, Tendulkar and Gavaskar really stand out. There are a handful of batsmen through history who can be bracketed with Sehwag for the runs they scored, the way they scored them, and their reliability and ability to deliver against the best. Saying 'if it werent for Sehwag that day, it would have probably been someone' is nonsense, because such batsmen can stand up when nobody else will and do so quite often. If Sehwag had failed, the rest would have likely followed. If Sehwag performed, many of the others would have still struggled or perhaps one or two may have grafted their way to a useful contribution as Gambhir did. But nobody could have stepped up to deliver in the manner he did.

I agree that Sehwag is mighty mighty player who should be in the team always. But I just do not agree with Bumper's statement "Remove Sehwag and we are toast". Were we toast at Nottinhgam last year where Sehwag didn't feature in the 11? Were we toast at Perth were Sehwag couldn't hit a 50 this year? Were we toast at Kanpur vs SA few months back when Sehwag flopped in both innings? No. in fact we won all the three matches even without much or sometimes no contribution from Sehwag. We can't be labelled as one man army just because of one or two matches!

[The Outsider]

So now we are equating a second string English team (against whom, Jaffer & KKD got 50+ partnerships on a routine basis) & a washed up Pakistani team to Australia, SA & Lanka, just to protect a couple of superstars of yesteryears ? Aus, SA & Lanka at home are probably the three TOUGHEST opponents in Test cricket today.

Yes, Aus, SA, and SL are the toughest sides at home and there is no doubt Sehwag is crucial for the test side but to put up a simplistic statement that we are toast without Sehwag is not true. We have won a number of crucial tests over the past few years everywhere without a major contribution from Sehwag.

Correction, Dilshan & Samaraweera's partnership was the last (70+). I dont know why/how this is relevant to our middle order's prolonged 2nd innings slump, spanning two years ?

Against a newer ball and thanks to Karthik's dropped catch. It is relevant because the pitch had crumbled and those 30s and 40s by Tendulkar and Dravid were crucial against an older ball to give us a winning score. As for all this 1st innings/2nd innings slicing and dicing, I don't see it as relevant - tests are played over the course of two innings and first innings are in fact more important than the second. And you are speaking as if we have ready made replacements who can bat in both innings. One we tried doesn't seem to be capable of playing in any innings. I don't know how far back you want to go but almost all our wins have come thanks to the very same middle order - Kanpur, Perth, Delhi, Nottingham, Johannesburg, Kingston, Mohali, Ahmedabad, Delhi - all have had major contributions not from Sehwag but the middle order. The results would have been different if we were "toast" without Sehwag.

[bunny]

Some times it has got to do with technique. Only GG and SRT were picking Mendis. VVS, RD and SG had no clue as to what Mendis was doing. SG was also to some extent not picking Murali's doosra which RD and VVS had no problems with. Sehwag has a different technique against spin where he doesn't come across and adjusts late against Mendis. It's not a technique that's recommended but it works against spinners who don't spin much. SG, VVS and RD have to either start picking Mendis from the hand or not come across and start adjusting late. It's easier said than done. It's a shame that SRT has underperformed even though he is in good form and not having too much trouble against the spinners. Hopefully, he will come good in the next test.

[Bumper]

Yes, Aus, SA, and SL are the toughest sides at home and there is no doubt Sehwag is crucial for the test side but to put up a simplistic statement that we are toast without Sehwag is not true. We have won a number of crucial tests over the past few years everywhere without a major contribution from Sehwag.

I have already gone thru this exercise of highlighting Veeru's role in our success (vs Australia) in another thread, starting from 1999 series all the way to the latest one, analysing score card by score card. Am sure you have seen it. Let me know if you would like me to dig that up.

Against a newer ball and thanks to Karthik's dropped catch. It is relevant because the pitch had crumbled and those 30s and 40s by Tendulkar and Dravid were crucial against an older ball to give us a winning score. As for all this 1st innings/2nd innings slicing and dicing, I don't see it as relevant - tests are played over the course of two innings and first innings are in fact more important than the second. And you are speaking as if we have ready made replacements who can bat in both innings. One we tried doesn't seem to be capable of playing in any innings.

2nd inns is most relevant when you play big opponents. Batting once & batting BIG, scoring 600+ & wearing the opponents down, might work with lesser opponents such as England, Pakistan or NZ. It wont work with bigger opponents, atleast not very frequently. Against big opponents, what you do in the 2nd innings, makes or breaks the game, more often than not. I am not calling for replacements. Infact, I want to give Dravid time, atleast till the end of the BG trophy. The point am making is simple. Our middle order is not worth the hype. Atleast not on its current form. And they almost never show up in the 3rd & 4th inns of a test match.

[The Outsider]

I have already gone thru this exercise of highlighting Veeru's role in our success (vs Australia) in another thread, starting from 1999 series all the way to the latest one, analysing score card by score card. Am sure you have seen it. Let me know if you would like me to dig that up.

And I showed in that very thread Laxman, Dravid, and Tendulkar have played influential roles in as many match changing performances if not more than Sehwag.

2nd inns is most relevant when you play big opponents. Batting once & batting BIG, scoring 600+ & wearing the opponents down, might work with lesser opponents such as England, Pakistan or NZ. It wont work with bigger opponents, atleast not very frequently. Against big opponents, what you do in the 2nd innings, makes or breaks the game, more often than not.

We have not won by batting once and big for a long long time now. I think the last test we won like that was Rawalpindi '04. Between then and now we have won 10 test matches and none of them by batting big and once mantra. Out of these 10 wins, Sehwag was the leading contributor only at Galle. The last time Sehwag top scored in an Indian win was way back in Multan '04. Surely, if your theory of India being a one man line up was correct we would not have registered all those wins without a major contribution from Sehwag.

I am not calling for replacements. Infact, I want to give Dravid time, atleast till the end of the BG trophy. The point am making is simple. Our middle order is not worth the hype. Atleast not on its current form. And they almost never show up in the 3rd & 4th inns of a test match.

It's pretty funny that you are bringing down the middle order for their 3rd/4th innings performances while bigging up Sehwag as being influential to the extent that we are toast when he does not perform, regardless of what the results say. Sehwag's average in the 2nd innings is what, 25 or 30? Yet you call him a big match player, most influential against big teams etc. when he does not even fulfill your own criteria of having a good 2nd innings record against big teams.

[Bumper]

And I showed in that very thread Laxman, Dravid, and Tendulkar have played influential roles in as many match changing performances if not more than Sehwag.

Really ? But thats not how I recall that thread ending. Anyways here it is to jog your memory.

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 ?

And this was your conclusive response.

Some impressive work there with the numbers' date=' Bumper but I don't think it's a point I was contesting to begin with. In fact, have written so previously in my thread also - about the importance of openers in general. Every team aspires for a good opening pair and having one increases the performance of the team. So I suspect the argument that you are making here, given that you have also included matches where Sehwag did not figure as an opener but we got good starts, is that opening partnerships are the single biggest factor behind success from a batting point of view and Sehwag has given them more often than the other lot we have tried. I would agree to that to an extent but when it comes down to just pure impact in a particular match Sehwag's performances are easily matched or bettered by Laxman, Dravid, and Tendulkar.[/quote']

We have not won by batting once and big for a long long time now. I think the last test we won like that was Rawalpindi '04. Between then and now we have won 10 test matches and none of them by batting big and once mantra. Out of these 10 wins, Sehwag was the leading contributor only at Galle. The last time Sehwag top scored in an Indian win was way back in Multan '04. Surely, if your theory of India being a one man line up was correct we would not have registered all those wins without a major contribution from Sehwag.

By batting once & big, I meant putting up a mamoth test score (600+) in the first inns & taking a signifcant lead in the 1st inns. Nottingham win would be an example, Kanpur wouldnt.

It's pretty funny that you are bringing down the middle order for their 3rd/4th innings performances while bigging up Sehwag as being influential to the extent that we are toast when he does not perform, regardless of what the results say. Sehwag's average in the 2nd innings is what, 25 or 30? Yet you call him a big match player, most influential against big teams etc. when he does not even fulfill your own criteria of having a good 2nd innings record against big teams.

May be Sehwag's relative no show has more to do with the MO's now show, eh ? :cantstop: I dont have the slightest doubt in my mind that had we gotten off to a 10/1 or 10/2 start at Galle in the 2nd innings, we'd have been buried for 120 & the Lankans would have won in a canter. Perhaps saying Sehwag is our batting lineup is an exaggeration, I'll concede that, but you cant deny that this batting lineup is heavily dependent on Veeru's success.

[The Outsider]

Really ? But thats not how I recall that thread ending. Anyways here it is to jog your memory.

Because once shown more instances of the others influencing matches, you started talking about how a good start is important in cricket. Don't think anyone will disagree with that.

By batting once & big, I meant putting up a mamoth test score (600+) in the first inns & taking a signifcant lead in the 1st inns. Nottingham win would be an example, Kanpur wouldnt.

We hardly made 600+ at Nottingham - more like 400 odd. As I said the last time we won after making even 500+ was way back at Rawalpindi '04. Almost all our wins have come with 300-400 runs first innings scores, some even with 200 odd.

Perhaps saying Sehwag is our batting lineup is an exaggeration, I'll concede that, but you cant deny that this batting lineup is heavily dependent on Veeru's success.

No doubt Sehwag is a vital part of the line up, specially since his comeback when he has been in blistering form but we can, have, and will continue to win matches despite his failures. Obviously his success will lead us to winning more but that's true of everyone in the line up.

[Bumper]

Because once shown more instances of the others influencing matches' date=' you started talking about how a good start is important in cricket. Don't think anyone will disagree with that.[/quote'] My point is based on the simple premise that start is the key to *our* middle order's fortunes, not any middle order. You give our guys a good start, they can play to their potential. You put them under pressure (with early wickets), they fail 95% of the time. Before you dismiss this as a common sensical theory, please check how many other great batting lineups are *this* dependent on their openers. In the specific debate in the other thread, I claimed Veeru as the biggest factor for our success against Australia. To prove that I quoted score cards, which imply that our middle order fails 95% of the time when Veeru(& other openers before Veeru) failed & succeed close to 95% of the time, when Veeru succeeds. Essentially Veeru's success directly influences our middle order's success, making him the single biggest influence on our fortunes.

[yoda]

My point is based on the simple premise that start is the key to *our* middle order's fortunes, not any middle order. You give our guys a good start, they can play to their potential. You put them under pressure (with early wickets), they fail 95% of the time. Before you dismiss this as a common sensical theory, please check how many other great batting lineups are *this* dependent on their openers. In the specific debate in the other thread, I claimed Veeru as the biggest factor for our success against Australia. To prove that I quoted score cards, which imply that our middle order fails 95% of the time when Veeru(& other openers before Veeru) failed & succeed close to 95% of the time, when Veeru succeeds. Essentially Veeru's success directly influences our middle order's success, making him the single biggest influence on our fortunes.

What success against Australia are we talking about here during Sehwag's career?

[The Outsider]

My point is based on the simple premise that start is the key to *our* middle order's fortunes, not any middle order. You give our guys a good start, they can play to their potential. You put them under pressure (with early wickets), they fail 95% of the time. Before you dismiss this as a common sensical theory, please check how many other great batting lineups are *this* dependent on their openers. In the specific debate in the other thread, I claimed Veeru as the biggest factor for our success against Australia. To prove that I quoted score cards, which imply that our middle order fails 95% of the time when Veeru(& other openers before Veeru) failed & succeed close to 95% of the time, when Veeru succeeds. Essentially Veeru's success directly influences our middle order's success, making him the single biggest influence on our fortunes.

Ok, let's flip your analysis around for Australia : 1. Delhi - 1996 -> 1st innings openers give a half decent start, yet their side is bundled out for 182. 2nd innings -> One opener is half decent, yet team bundled out for 234 2. Chennai - 1998 -> Openers fail in both innings, team fails in both innings 3. Calcutta - 1998 -> Openers fail in first innings team fails One half decent score from opener in 2nd innings team still fails 4. Banglaore - 1998 -> Openers succeed in both innings, team succeeds. 5. Adelaide - 1999 -> Openers fail in first innings, team succeds. One opener succeeds in second innings, team still fails. 6. Melbourne - 1999 -> One opener succeeds in first innings, team succeeds. Half decent opener in second, half decent score. 7. Sydney - 2000 -> Openers fail, team succeeds. 8. Mumbai - 2001 -> Opener succeeds team succeeds. 9. Calcutta - 2001 -> 1st innings openers succeed, team succeeds. 2nd innings openers succeeds team still bombs. 10. Chennai - 2001 -> 1st innings opener succeeds team succeeds. 2nd innings openers decent, team still fails. 11. Brisbane - 2003 -> Opening succeeds, team still fails. 12. Adelaide - 2003 -> 1st innings opening succeeds, team succeeds. 2nd innings openers bomb, team bombs. 13. Melbourne - 2003 -> Opening succeeds both innings, team also succeeds. 14. Sydney - 2004 -> Opening succeeds in both innings, team also does decent. 15. Bangalore - 2004 -> Opening succeeds in first innings, team also succeeds. Opening fails in second innings, team also fails. 16. Chennai - 2004 -> Opening succeeds, yet team fails in first innings. Decent opening in second innings, decent score. 17. Nagpur - 2004 -> Decent opening in both innings, decent scores in both. 18. Mumbai - 2004 -> Opening succeeds, yet team bombs. 19. Melbourne - 2007 -> Opening succeeds in both innings, team succeeds. 20. Sydney - 2008 -> Opening fails in first innings, team does well (courtesy Bucknor) Opening succeeds in second innings, team does well 21. Perth - 2008 -> Opening fails both innings, team fails. 22. Adelaide - 2008 -> Opening succeeds, team succeeds. How is the above any different from the India results you have put down. If anything, Australian middle order has squandered a good opening stand on many more occasions than India while good scores after both openers failing are 3, same as India in a larger sample of matches. Bolded are instances of their batting doing well inspite of poor opening from either openers. 3 times out of 22 test matches. Pretty much the same as India. Check out the italics ones - instances where their middle order has folded up despite a good opening - much worse than India.

[The Outsider]

Also to add to the above, 2 out of the 3 occasions Australia did well despite a poor opening was on the '99-'00 tour when our bowling was utter tripe and there were no bowlers to continue the pressure and one occasion is the famous Sydney test where Bucknor was hell bent on letting Symonds score a triple hundred. Compare that to the bowling our middle order has had to face and the poor share of umpiring we have got playing against Australia and things could not be more clear that our middle order has anything but sucked compared to even the best team around.

[Chorazin Reto]

For the record, since Jan 2006, in 2nd inns efforts: Sachin averages 21 in 22 games, with a grand total of ONE 50. Dravid averages 34 in 30 odd games, with zero 50s since SA' 2006 Laxman & Ganguly do marginally better averaging 37 & 38 respectively in the same period. In the SAME time period, look at what the Aussie middle order has done: Ponting averages 70, with THREE tons Hussey averages 78, with TWO tons Clarke averages 75, with one ton & four 50s See a pattern ? yes, they suck compared to Australia recently in the 2nd innings, but how does the middle orders stack up if u compare both innings(id imagine Dravid would still suck)

[The Outsider]

^Australian second innings generally comes along by the time the opposition has generally already been pummeled and the number of times Australia plays it's second innings under pressure is rare - it might increase now with McGrath and Warne gone but generally the first innings advantage Australia usually earn means the line up is hardly under pressure during the second innings. Moreover, Australian batsmen play 60% of their second innings at home where batting in the second innings is much easier than batting in the second innings in India, where the Indian middle order has to play half their matches.

[Chorazin Reto]

So Aus middle order is performing in both innings? If you look at overall(both innings performances) are they comparative to the Indian middle order over the last 2 years in Tests? Better? Worse? Ponting ave ~ 59.40 Clarke ave ~ 68.06 Hussey ave ~ 62.42 Symonds ave ~ 72.07 Tendulkar ave ~ 49.57 Ganguly ave ~ 46.11 Dravid ave ~ 32.91 Laxman ave ~ 46.76 5th August 2006 - 5th August 2008. filtered averages.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

Ok, let's flip your analysis around for Australia : 1. Delhi - 1996 -> 1st innings openers give a half decent start, yet their side is bundled out for 182. 2nd innings -> One opener is half decent, yet team bundled out for 234 2. Chennai - 1998 -> Openers fail in both innings, team fails in both innings 3. Calcutta - 1998 -> Openers fail in first innings team fails One half decent score from opener in 2nd innings team still fails 4. Banglaore - 1998 -> Openers succeed in both innings, team succeeds. 5. Adelaide - 1999 -> Openers fail in first innings, team succeds. One opener succeeds in second innings, team still fails. 6. Melbourne - 1999 -> One opener succeeds in first innings, team succeeds. Half decent opener in second, half decent score. 7. Sydney - 2000 -> Openers fail, team succeeds. 8. Mumbai - 2001 -> Opener succeeds team succeeds. 9. Calcutta - 2001 -> 1st innings openers succeed, team succeeds. 2nd innings openers succeeds team still bombs. 10. Chennai - 2001 -> 1st innings opener succeeds team succeeds. 2nd innings openers decent, team still fails. 11. Brisbane - 2003 -> Opening succeeds, team still fails. 12. Adelaide - 2003 -> 1st innings opening succeeds, team succeeds. 2nd innings openers bomb, team bombs. 13. Melbourne - 2003 -> Opening succeeds both innings, team also succeeds. 14. Sydney - 2004 -> Opening succeeds in both innings, team also does decent. 15. Bangalore - 2004 -> Opening succeeds in first innings, team also succeeds. Opening fails in second innings, team also fails. 16. Chennai - 2004 -> Opening succeeds, yet team fails in first innings. Decent opening in second innings, decent score. 17. Nagpur - 2004 -> Decent opening in both innings, decent scores in both. 18. Mumbai - 2004 -> Opening succeeds, yet team bombs. 19. Melbourne - 2007 -> Opening succeeds in both innings, team succeeds. 20. Sydney - 2008 -> Opening fails in first innings, team does well (courtesy Bucknor) Opening succeeds in second innings, team does well 21. Perth - 2008 -> Opening fails both innings, team fails. 22. Adelaide - 2008 -> Opening succeeds, team succeeds. How is the above any different from the India results you have put down. If anything, Australian middle order has squandered a good opening stand on many more occasions than India while good scores after both openers failing are 3, same as India in a larger sample of matches. Bolded are instances of their batting doing well inspite of poor opening from either openers. 3 times out of 22 test matches. Pretty much the same as India. Check out the italics ones - instances where their middle order has folded up despite a good opening - much worse than India.

Thanks for the research. A few points I would like to make, before I state my observations. 1) We need to choose a time frame such that we are inspecting the performance of the same middle order. Till 1999, the Aussie middle order was frequented by a few no namers and was in flux (the likes of Blewett, Langer, Bevan, Healy etc contributing to an unsettled lineup). I would choose 1999 as the starting point of the formation of the great Aussie batting lineup, when Gilly, Langer became a permanent part of the squad, thus completing the lineup. 2) Just so we dont go off track, lets observe the score cards that strengthen your case (that Aussie batting lineup too is heavily dependent on its openers). The type of score cards that would strengthen this point are: Openers fail, team fails The score cards that would weaken this point: Openers fail, team succeeds. PS: I havent quoted "Openers succeed => Team succeeds", simply because we never know if the MO succeeded because of its own virtue or because of the openers. It cant be used to prove conclusively that the MO succeeded because of openers. Also I havent taken into account anamolies such as "Openers succeed => MO fails", since MO's success cannot be tied to openers using this data point. With these assumptions in mind, here are the observations: 1) From your score cards, out of 18 Tests, the Aussie openers have failed FOUR times & in these instances, the MO has succeeded THRICE. Thats 75% of the time, when the openers fail the MO succeeds. Infact because of the overwhelming success of their openers, your sample size happens to be too small, to draw a proper inference. 2) From my score cards, openers failed, in 18 out of 28 attempts. Out of these 18 failures, our middle order succeeded ONCE (that lone innings being the Kolkatta special - VVS's 281). Thats 95% failure rate when openers fail. In this instance, the sample size is sufficiently large enough to draw the right conclusion. So am not sure, the numbers are on your side. Over to you!

[cowboysfan]

we should curse the fates(especially Lachesis as she will determine the time this test match will last)if we lose the toss.

[The Outsider]

1) We need to choose a time frame such that we are inspecting the performance of the same middle order. Till 1999, the Aussie middle order was frequented by a few no namers and was in flux (the likes of Blewett, Langer, Bevan, Healy etc contributing to an unsettled lineup). I would choose 1999 as the starting point of the formation of the great Aussie batting lineup, when Gilly, Langer became a permanent part of the squad, thus completing the lineup.

Gilchrist? When has India had a wicketkeeper-batsman like him? In fact, if you want to do a fair comparison of the middle order, Gilchrist should be excluded. Langer? Langer as an opener helped Australia immensely. When did the Indian middle order have a luxury of two superb openers to provide starts to them. Australia always had the likes of Slater, Taylor, Hayden, Langer. Moreover from the '98 tour Laxman, Ganguly, Dravid, Tendulkar, Ponting are still around and others played a number of series afterwards as well. We can start from the '98 tour with three home and three away tours each and a lot of characters the same.

Also I havent taken into account anamolies such as "Openers succeed => MO fails", since MO's success cannot be tied to openers using this data point.

I don't know how you can ignore this case. This is the most damning scorecard for the fallibility of the middle order where despite a good start they fail. And the Australian middle order has fallen apart cheaply many times despite a good start. I don't know how this case can put the middle order into a positive or even neutral light. It's a huge negative in fact.

1) From your score cards, out of 18 Tests, the Aussie openers have failed FOUR times & in these instances, the MO has succeeded THRICE. Thats 75% of the time, when the openers fail the MO succeeds.

As I said two of those three occasions are when we had a really poor attack. If you are comparing the pressure maintained by the likes of Agarkar to McGrath and Gillespie after the initial breakthrough, I am at a loss of words. And we absolutely cannot ignore the openers succeed middle order fails case. It's a basic of cricket that a middle order wants the openers to give a good start and if they can't capitalize on it, it's a huge indictment. Moreover, that's the time when our spinners start getting good conditions like Aussie fast bowlers get with the new ball. It's an absolute must to consider scenario. Maybe, once we can agree on some of the above we can look at the scorecards in more detail.

[Dhondy]

Sehwag vs Fab 4 - proportion of Team Totals (since Sehwags Debut) ... as suggested by Doc ... (table is sorted by last column)

[B]Batsman                   Inngs      Runs   Teamtotal     %[/B]
V Sehwag            	100	5102	30826	16.55
R Dravid            	130	6135	40837	15.02
SR Tendulkar        	107	4938	34520	14.30
VVS Laxman          	113	4476	37642	11.89
SC Ganguly          	99	3838	32702	11.74

And there you go, guys. Debate settled, arguments ended, as ever by the cold finger of stats. Many thanks, Mein Boss! The runs above are adjusted for innings, so one can't attribute Sehwag's superiority to some of the massive efforts, such as at Lahore, where very few others got a bat. Look- 10% higher than Dravid, 15.7% higher than Tendulkar, 39% higher than Laxman, and 41% higher than Ganguly. Take a bow, Sehwag! And Boss, you are the man! :hail: