Ooops, who will we curse now?

[Laaloo]

Can't we just enjoy the fact that they all represent our team? I mean, y do even compare them?

[Bumper]

And of course throughtout all this you ignore the small fact, that Sehwag averages a paltry 27 in the 2nd innings throuhout his career as opposed to his first innings score of 70. But i guess the bashing only applies to seniors Our middle order might not be too hot, but so is Sehwag using the same logic. In fact in the lats 2 yrs Dravid and Sahcin have contributed t more wins than Sehwag. In fact Sehwag's big scores were in drawn or losing scores. Sachin's average is over 50 this year but that doesnt stop the bashing.

MTC, feel free to read the entire thread. You sound like someone who read a couple of posts, drew his conclusions & then jumped on it, with a retort. The essence of the debate is Sehwag's influence on our team's success & how our MO is dependent on him to succeed. To support it, the gory details of the score cards, spanning an entire decade, have been laid out against India's toughest opponent in Test cricket. The score cards show that out of 18 times when both openers failed to manage a decent score, our MO has succeeded only ONCE (and that too came on the back of VVS's 281). In other words, the famed MO succeeds only when our openers provide a good to great start. So why exactly is Sehwag's relative failures, in the 2nd innings, forcing the MO also to choke ? Perhaps there is a causal relationship between the two ? If you agree there is, you are only reinforcing my point. There ends the debate. If you dont agree, then kindly prove it with numbers.

[Dhondy]

Can't we just enjoy the fact that they all represent our team? I mean' date=' y do even compare them?[/quote'] Why compare Pele and Garincha? McEnroe & Connors? Evert & Navratilova? Ovett & Coe?

[Bumper]

Can't we just enjoy the fact that they all represent our team? I mean' date=' y do even compare them?[/quote'] Come on dude, this is what a Cricket MB is all about.After a long time, we have some meaningful cricket discussion. This aint some bashing marathon like many of you believe. Its a healthy discussion, one that will draw good posters to come and share their knowledge.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Laaloo]

Come on dude' date=' this is what a Cricket MB is all about.After a long time, we have some meaningful cricket discussion. This aint some bashing marathon like many of you believe. Its a healthy discussion, one that will draw good posters to come and share their knowledge.[/quote'] fine dude. Carry on.

[Dhondy]

the problem is only recently they started recording the Overs at each wkt that fell (earlier it was just the score) .... will provide stats later for that period onwards ...

Thanks Boss. I'd probably analyse 10 over slices, rather than 15, as most scalps with the new ball go in the first ten.

[The Outsider]

Lets make sure we agree on this important point. My objections to using 98 as the baseline is simple. The Aussie batting lineup of this decade hardly resembles the one back then. In the 2000s, we had Ponting, Waughs, Martyn, Lehmann, Gilly etc manning the middle order. Even if we were to include the innings from 98, its 3-3 (thats 50% of the time Aussie MO succeeds when openers fail, compared to a 95% failure rate of the Indian MO over a sample size thats THREE times bigger. The 98 baseline, does not strengthen your claim). Also, your points about including Gilly or Langer in the batting lineup is irrelevant to this debate. It doesnt matter how good Gilly was, as he was part of the great Aussie batting lineup (we've already agreed that the resp lineups are great). The point we are trying to prove is that Aussie MO is as dependent as the Indian MO on the openers. And adding an opener like Langer, can only strengthen your case, as he is an awesome opener (who would always provide the MO that extra comfort zone). So you are saying "Openers succeed => Team failed" is relevant to this study ? How do we use this to prove that the MO is heavily dependent on the openers ? The debate isnt about how good the Aussie MO is. If thats the debate this data point may be relevant. We already agree that the Aussie batting line up is great. That is why it is being compared to the Indian batting lineup. The debate is about how dependent is the great Aussie batting lineup on its openers. Again irrelevant. This is all absorbed in opener's success & failure. The bowling attack does not make openers & MO fail at a diff rate. If you agree that the MO is great, they should be able to overcome a good bowling attack over a period of time. Also, the Aussie bowling lineup has always been great, but still our MO has come good in many occassions. Besides, given the spin dependent bowling attack of ours, this should only add to your case. Given that our spinners are likely to bowl at the MO more often than not and the Aussies are spin challenged, our attack should challenge the Aussie MO more than its top order & hence their MO is more suspectible to failure than their top order. First tell me how it is relevant to the study in question. If you convince me, we can use that data point as well. But 1 success out of 18 attempts when both openers failed (and that lone success coming on the back of VVS' 281) tells me all I need to know from this study. If thats not a glaring enough stat, I dont know what else is.

Bumper, we can't seem to agree on a lot of things on the ground rules for this discussion : 1. You want to exclude the '98 series and include the one played one year later for what reason I don't know. 2. You want to include contributions from Gilchrist despite the fact that it makes it a 4 batsmen vs. 5 batsmen comparison. 3. You want to include performances where we are essentially comparing the bowling quality of Agarkar and McGrath. 4. You want to imply that the only pressure the middle order faces comes from early dismissal of openers completely ignoring the dynamics of test cricket in the subcontinent and a spin heavy attack. 5. You insist on throwing red herrings like Adelaide '03 where we were 80-4 as a middle order success inspired by Sehwag's almighty 40 runs. Ignore Mumbai '04 where the middle order came back from the dead, laud Perth's 40 run opening stand as a mighty success which inspired Tendulkar/Dravid on two greater heights. Given so many things in the ground rules that we disagree on instead of laboring on in circles let me get back to my earlier question. Just answer this - if our middle order's success is so dependent on Sehwag that we have you and Dhondy calling them "toast" and "passengers" in the absence of Sehwag's success why did it take 4.5 years and 10 test wins before Sehwag got to play the main role in a win? In the mean time despite Sehwag's ordinary performances we notched up wins all around the world winning at least a test in most series we played.

[The Outsider]

The first half of your argument assumes that batsmen down the order have less opportunity to score big runs, average more and contribute a larger share of team runs than those up the order. Fallacious. You have assumed that because of the practice of most teams playing their best batsmen at numbers one through four rather than down below. But not always. Inzamam-ul-Haq batted at number five throught his career, and scored more prolifically than any set of Pakistani openers you'd care to name. Steve Waugh batted at five, and out batted his twin up the order and most of the Aussie openers like Michael Slater, Mark Taylor and Justin Langer. No doubt, both batsmen batted more with the tail than the openers did, but still found ways to score runs. Clearly, this doesn't negate Sehwag's dominance over the middle order tyros.

We are not even making an apple to apple comparison here. Firstly, middle order batting requires a different mindset than opening but even if we ignore that at least we should pick batsmen of similar capability, should we not? I mean, comparing Inzamam to the average Pakistani opener! Let's compare Steve Waugh to someone like Hayden. Let's compare Inzamam to someone like Anwar and you'll see a clearer picture. Moreover, you have chosen as your examples two of the best players while batting with the tail one of whom batted in a tail much much stronger than we have to offer.

On to the second part. Your reasoning is that Dravid at number 3 and Tendulkar at number 4 had to bat more often with the tail, and therefore had some of their longer innings curtailed. There is tautology there. The reason Tendulkar and Dravid bat more often with the tail is because they score more slowly than Sehwag. Sehwag's hundreds, double and triple hundreds are scored at the rate of noughts, and he's gone by the time the tail arrives, having done his job. In fact, sometimes he does it so well, the tail doesn't get a chance to have a look in.

Yeah, the above is true and a good batting line up requires all kinds of batsmen to bat as a team. Sure Sehwag can score faster, but can he build partnerships like Dravid. Barring the odd innings has he been able to succeed in truly demanding conditions like Kingston, South Africa, NZ. His second innings performances are even worse than the others. A lot of things need to come together to form a successful all condition batting line up and Sehwag provides one vital ingredient for it.

IMO, this prehensile preoccupation masks the fact that as an opener, Sehwag has far more chance of being dismissed with the new ball than his colleagues down the order. That more than neutralises any advantage he might have gained in playing with upper order batsmen. You don't have to take my word for it. Boss can statistically prove that more wickets fall in the first fifteen overs of an innings than any other similar period during the innings.

Maybe outside India. There are many many instances of teams getting good starts in India reaching 150/1 and then bundling up when the old ball starts to grip on slow tracks. So, yes overall you would find a lot of wickets falling in the first 15 overs but I doubt that will be the case in India. And can we only focus on quality openers like Hayden etc. when doing this. Openers from Pakistan would fold up to Ranji sides. Let me repeat the question I've asked you and Bumper before and have not got an answer. If all your analysis is so true, why don't results reflect it.:

Just answer this - if our middle order's success is so dependent on Sehwag that we have you and Dhondy calling them "toast" and "passengers" in the absence of Sehwag's success why did it take 4.5 years and 10 test wins before Sehwag got to play the main role in a win? In the mean time despite Sehwag's ordinary performances we notched up wins all around the world winning at least a test in most series we played.

[Dhondy]

What happened to your oft repeated aphorism, "Bowlers win matches?"

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

What happened to your oft repeated aphorism' date=' "Bowlers win matches?"[/quote'] Without batsmen scoring runs? So, are you saying that for 4.5 years and 10 matches that we won in the mean time we won all those despite Sehwag or the "passengers" not scoring runs? I can look into the matches later today and while it will stand true that bowlers took 20 wickets, it will also show that in each and every one of those wins the passengers contributed more than the driver.

[The Outsider]

Here you go Doc ... this should blow a big hole in Proff's theory :-D This table represents the grouping of all Wkts that fell since 1994 in 10 over blocks upto 100 overs ... Prior to 1994 they didnt record the over when a wkt fell.

[B]Overs    Wkts[/B]

10	1698
20	1466
30	1379
40	1429
50	1324
60	1296
70	1209
80	1050
90	1141
100	872

I didn't have to look at those numbers to predict the outcome as I stated above as well. If we can run similar numbers for good openers in India where wickets usually fall with the old ball, I can also predict we'll see far fewer in the first 10 overs.

[Bumper]

Bumper, we can't seem to agree on a lot of things on the ground rules for this discussion : 1. You want to exclude the '98 series and include the one played one year later for what reason I don't know.

Even after including 98, I have shown that it does not strengthen your case significantly. Pls check my post again

2. You want to include contributions from Gilchrist despite the fact that it makes it a 4 batsmen vs. 5 batsmen comparison.

But how are you gonna exclude Gilly from the batting lineup ? You have to discount only those innings where Gilly has come in at no. 7 & was solely responsible for reconstructing the innings. Thats too painful to do, if you want to do it, go ahead. (I wont count the inns where he has come in before no. 7!, as that would count as a performance of a MO batsman).

3. You want to include performances where we are essentially comparing the bowling quality of Agarkar and McGrath.

All this is already absorbed into our fundamental premises. India's toughest opponent has been Australia. Australia's toughest opponent has been India. If McGrath & Gillespie are a thorn in India's flesh, it was Bhajji & Kumble who were a thorn in the Aussie's flesh. So it all evens out. Why would you compare McGrath with Agarkar, why not McGrath with a Kumble ?

4. You want to imply that the only pressure the middle order faces comes from early dismissal of openers completely ignoring the dynamics of test cricket in the subcontinent and a spin heavy attack.

This is entirely your conclusion. All i state is that there is a STRONG correlation between the performance of our MO with the performance of our openers, MUCH stronger than any correlation for any other batting line ups.

5. You insist on throwing red herrings like Adelaide '03 where we were 80-4 as a middle order success inspired by Sehwag's almighty 40 runs. Ignore Mumbai '04 where the middle order came back from the dead, laud Perth's 40 run opening stand as a mighty success which inspired Tendulkar/Dravid on two greater heights.

One or two exceptions dont prove a rule. These exceptions even out. An example: inspite of our upper MO failure (100 odd for 4), VVS & Dravid forged a mamoth partnership to take us to 687, which counts as a success of the MO, isnt it ?

Given so many things in the ground rules that we disagree on instead of laboring on in circles let me get back to my earlier question. Just answer this - if our middle order's success is so dependent on Sehwag that we have you and Dhondy calling them "toast" and "passengers" in the absence of Sehwag's success why did it take 4.5 years and 10 test wins before Sehwag got to play the main role in a win? In the mean time despite Sehwag's ordinary performances we notched up wins all around the world winning at least a test in most series we played.

The main role as you describe is a SINGLE HANDED match winning performance by a player. Most great players have one or two such performances in their entire career. Am not sure, that proves or disproves anything. Veeru has been one of the most prolific performers in the last 5 years & our MO has ridden on his success, more often than not.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[King]

How's Sehwag scored 10% higher than Rahul? If out of 10' date='000 team runs scored in 30 innings, Rahul scores a 1000 runs, and Sehwag scores 1100, that's 10% higher. Similarly 16.55/15= 110, which means that Sehwag has been contributing 10% higher than Rahul, although the absolute difference is only 1.55%.[/quote'] However you look at it Dhondy it is not 10% but it stays at 1%. 1000 runs out of 10,000 is 10% and 1,100 out of 10,000 is 11% :winky:

[Dhondy]

Here you go Doc ... this should blow a big hole in Proff's theory :-D This table represents the grouping of all Wkts that fell since 1994 in 10 over blocks upto 100 overs ... Prior to 1994 they didnt record the over when a wkt fell.

[B]Overs    Wkts[/B]

10	1698
20	1466
30	1379
40	1429
50	1324
60	1296
70	1209
80	1050
90	1141
100	872

Holy shyte!:omg: In how many more ways must we prove Shwetabh wrong before he gives up? Boss, betcha there's one thing even you can't do. Teach Ravi to divide.:--D

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[atul]

In bollywood term Shewag is Sanjay Bhansali , Sachin in Yash chopra and Rahul is Karan zohar. Every one has hit movies but sanjy gives great hit and gr8 miss type movies Chopra/Johar gives hit and average movies. But when you see Sanjay’s artistic hit movie every one want to do at least one movie with him. Right now after year gap sehwag is in purple patch and no 1 enemy for the opposition , Sachin had this position for at least 10 years , Rahul had 3,4 years, Sehwag one, two year.