Manjrekar knows diddly squat
raghu.sa...@gmail.com
He says Sehwag is still not in the same class as a Dravid or
Tendulkar. Tendulkar I can probably accept but Dravid I disagree..
Sehwag is definitely in a class of his own! I don't think Dravid could
have ever played an inning like that!. Dravid may be more of a
complete (copy book style) batsman but when it comes to aggressive
scoring and single handedly changing the course of a game I think
Sehwag is clearly in a different league than him. Even yesterday on a
near perfect batting conditions Dravid was slooow and boring quite
content to take the match to a draw. Don't get me wrong, I do think a
Dravid is needed in the Indian test team, but of lat it is quite
painful to see him struggle to keep the score moving..
Raghu
driz
Dude ... the test match is more likely to have a result when there is
some assistance to bowlers from the wicket. Otherwise, it iwll be a
boring run feast where good bowlers like Steyn and Kumble are made to
look like school cricketers. If you do a check you'll see all of
Sehwag's last 9 biggg innings happened on conducive(*) conditions. May
be 155 Chennai was an exception.
conducive(*) = weak opponent bowlers, flat wicket with no assistance
to bowlers, not batting under pressure (i.e., not following on or not
trying to save a test).
In fact, most of the 300+ scores were scored by batsmen on such
conducive conditions. Lara 375, 400, Hayden 380, Jayasuriya 340, Gooch
333, ..
I would rate Laxman's 280 or some of Martyn's innings in Sri Lanka or
Steve Waugh's big hundreds in the Caribbean in the 90s higher than
these.
But hats off to Sehwag: even if 30% of the Test batting tracks are
batsmen friendly, we don't see such rapid, big, and totally dominating
hundreds on the 30% of the tracks.
jzfredricks
> to bowlers, not batting under pressure (i.e., not following on or not
> trying to save a test).
weak opponents? SA have the current ranked #2 and #5 bowlers in the
world
not batting under pressure? When you are chasing 540 there is
pressure, trust me.
driz
Oh please...
For your benefit:
conducive(*) = weak opponent bowlers OR flat wicket with no assistance
to bowlers OR not batting under pressure (i.e., not following on or
not trying to save a test).
Chasing 540, and you get in at 80/3 .. yes there will be pressure. Not
when opening, especially, when you have belted 151 in the previous
match.
Jayen
> On Mar 28, 11:07 am, raghu.saklesh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > He says Sehwag is still not in the same class as a Dravid or
> > Tendulkar. Tendulkar I can probably accept but Dravid I disagree..
> > Sehwag is definitely in a class of his own! I don't think Dravid could
> > have ever played an inning like that!.
Yes, the last two lines are true. Extending the point, Dravid has also
never played an innings similar to what Harbhajan or Dhoni has played
on occasion. You are invited to explain why any of this invalidates
Manjrekar's statement. Hint: In test matches, to the best of my
knowledge, Hutton has not played an innings similar to what Sehwag
played.
> > Dravid may be more of a
> > complete (copy book style) batsman but when it comes to aggressive
> > scoring and single handedly changing the course of a game I think
> > Sehwag is clearly in a different league than him. Even yesterday on a
> > near perfect batting conditions Dravid was slooow and boring quite
> > content to take the match to a draw. Don't get me wrong, I do think a
> > Dravid is needed in the Indian test team, but of lat it is quite
> > painful to see him struggle to keep the score moving..
>
> > Raghu
>
> Dude ... the test match is more likely to have a result when there is
> some assistance to bowlers from the wicket. Otherwise, it iwll be a
> boring run feast where good bowlers like Steyn and Kumble are made to
> look like school cricketers. If you do a check you'll see all of
> Sehwag's last 9 biggg innings happened on conducive(*) conditions. May
> be 155 Chennai was an exception.
>
> conducive(*) = weak opponent bowlers, flat wicket with no assistance
> to bowlers, not batting under pressure (i.e., not following on or not
> trying to save a test).
What about Adelaide, 2008 or Bangalore, 2005? And there's no maybe out
the Chennai innings.
This argument is usually trotted out against Dravid in RSC, with
people twisting themselves in knots to prove that Headingley 2002 was
a road, so it's a change to see it used against Sehwag. However, it's
about as valid.
>
> In fact, most of the 300+ scores were scored by batsmen on such
> conducive conditions. Lara 375, 400, Hayden 380, Jayasuriya 340, Gooch
> 333, ..
Well, yes. If you are contending that no 300s have been scored in
pitches such as Hamilton 2002, there's no argument, just curiosity as
to why you feel that this needs stating.
> I would rate Laxman's 280 or some of Martyn's innings in Sri Lanka or
> Steve Waugh's big hundreds in the Caribbean in the 90s higher than
> these.
>
LOL! Search for some combination of "Laxman", "281" and "dead pitch"
in RSC archives and you'll get some interesting results.
> But hats off to Sehwag: even if 30% of the Test batting tracks are
> batsmen friendly, we don't see such rapid, big, and totally dominating
> hundreds on the 30% of the tracks.
It's a little more than that. The current Aussie team was the first to
consistently prove that a result was possible even on such a pitch due
to a combination of quick scoring and the ICC's minimum-overs-in-a-day
rule. Sehwag's just helped in adding a notch to the barrel/bedpost of
that theory.
Regards,
Jayen
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Mar 29, 2:52 am, driz <driz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 28, 11:07 am, raghu.saklesh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > He says Sehwag is still not in the same class as a Dravid or
>> > Tendulkar. Tendulkar I can probably accept but Dravid I disagree..
>> > Sehwag is definitely in a class of his own! I don't think Dravid could
>> > have ever played an inning like that!.
>
>Yes, the last two lines are true. Extending the point, Dravid has also
>never played an innings similar to what Harbhajan or Dhoni has played
>on occasion. You are invited to explain why any of this invalidates
>Manjrekar's statement. Hint: In test matches, to the best of my
>knowledge, Hutton has not played an innings similar to what Sehwag
>played.
There's a more serious point about Sehwag being in a class of his own.
Does it make much sense to compare him with conventional batsmen like
Tendulkar and Dravid?
Harvey was trying to make a point about Pietersen's inconsistency
yesterday (although not very successfully in my opinion), but it's far
more true of Sehwag. Averages tell you absolutely nothing about
Sehwag, because he so rarely plays an average innings. For him it's
zilch or zillions, and the arithmetical mean is simply a number in the
middle. Other batsmen score 55, 83 and 104 as well as 11 and 186, but
Sehwag seemingly has no interest in such half measures. You don't pick
Sehwag because you are relying on him: you pick him because if he does
anything useful, it will be massively useful. It might be a good idea
from the team's point of view if he played a grind-it-out sort of
innings, and he has done so once or twice, but being irritated if he
doesn't entirely misses the point. It's not what he's for. You might
just as well criticise a Ferrari Testarossa because it's useless for
taking your wife, four children and the dog on a camping holiday.
I've been trying to think of anyone else whose pattern of play even
resembles Sehwag's. Gilchrist, maybe, but he batted at number seven
and it's fairly normal to have someone at seven who goes out and hits
a lot - even if most of them aren't as good at it as Gilchrist has
been. Kapil Dev, for instance. But top order batsmen, let alone
opening batsmen, who play like Sehwag have been very uncommon.
There's Chris Gayle, perhaps, but of late he has been playing a fair
few defensive innings. The captaincy is clearly getting to him: he
knows that he can't ask his men to go out there and save the match for
West Indies if he's going to play like Champagne Charlie and be out in
five minutes. They may have set out together, but Gayle no longer
walks the same road as Sehwag.
Srikkanth comes to mind, but he was only a quick scorer: people
sitting in the stands didn't have to keep an eye out in case they got
a ball in their drink.
The only real precursor I can think of is Colin Milburn. Nowhere near
as successful in his sadly-curtailed career, but if he hadn't had lost
the eye, England would have spent the whole of the 1970s debating
whether we could afford to have someone as inconsistent as Milburn at
the top of the order. I'd like to think that at least Greig and
Brearley would have recognised the immense value he could bring.
Cheers,
Mike
--
raghu.sa...@gmail.com
> On Mar 28, 11:07 am, raghu.saklesh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > He says Sehwag is still not in the same class as a Dravid or
> > Tendulkar. Tendulkar I can probably accept but Dravid I disagree..
> > Sehwag is definitely in a class of his own! I don't think Dravid could
> > have ever played an inning like that!. Dravid may be more of a
> > complete (copy book style) batsman but when it comes to aggressive
> > scoring and single handedly changing the course of a game I think
> > Sehwag is clearly in a different league than him. Even yesterday on a
> > near perfect batting conditions Dravid was slooow and boring quite
> > content to take the match to a draw. Don't get me wrong, I do think a
> > Dravid is needed in the Indian test team, but of lat it is quite
> > painful to see him struggle to keep the score moving..
>
> > Raghu
>
> Dude ... the test match is more likely to have a result when there is
> some assistance to bowlers from the wicket. Otherwise, it iwll be a
> boring run feast where good bowlers like Steyn and Kumble are made to
> look like school cricketers. If you do a check you'll see all of
> Sehwag's last 9 biggg innings happened on conducive(*) conditions. May
> be 155 Chennai was an exception.
>
> conducive(*) = weak opponent bowlers, flat wicket with no assistance
> to bowlers, not batting under pressure (i.e., not following on or not
> trying to save a test).
>
Flat wicket I grant you that, weak opponent, you got to be kidding
here..
> In fact, most of the 300+ scores were scored by batsmen on such
> conducive conditions. Lara 375, 400, Hayden 380, Jayasuriya 340, Gooch
> 333, ..
Of course if a batsman is able to score 300+ runs the wicket has to
help the batsmen! Remember last time Sehwag scored a triple century
they did win by a huge margin!
> I would rate Laxman's 280 or some of Martyn's innings in Sri Lanka or
> Steve Waugh's big hundreds in the Caribbean in the 90s higher than
> these.
Yeah maybe..
>
> But hats off to Sehwag: even if 30% of the Test batting tracks are
> batsmen friendly, we don't see such rapid, big, and totally dominating
> hundreds on the 30% of the tracks.
Raghu
raghu.sa...@gmail.com
> On Mar 29, 2:52 am, driz <driz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 28, 11:07 am, raghu.saklesh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > He says Sehwag is still not in the same class as a Dravid or
> > > Tendulkar. Tendulkar I can probably accept but Dravid I disagree..
> > > Sehwag is definitely in a class of his own! I don't think Dravid could
> > > have ever played an inning like that!.
>
> Yes, the last two lines are true. Extending the point, Dravid has also
> never played an innings similar to what Harbhajan or Dhoni has played
> on occasion. You are invited to explain why any of this invalidates
> Manjrekar's statement. Hint: In test matches, to the best of my
> knowledge, Hutton has not played an innings similar to what Sehwag
> played.
>
Manjrekar said that Sehwag is not in the same class as Dravid. Maybe
he is waiting till Sehwag gets to 10000 runs to change his mind. Mine
however is already made. Maybe Sehwag may never reach the 10000
milestone, but that will not make him any lesser in my book. I enjoy
watching cricket when my team wins. Now Dravid the wall is an
essential ingredient in the team to hold the innings together and I do
not discount his contributions to the team especially in test cricket.
However his overtly defensive approach wins the game on very few
occasions on its own merit. Usually there is someone else who plays
the aggressor role to lead the team to victory. I also don't like to
watch cricket just to see technically perfect strokes made with no
sense of urgency to win. Dravid has a utility for the team but I
would not hold him as the epitome for others to meet! Imagine if all
the batsmen we had on the team were Dravid clones!
> > > Raghu
<SNIP><SNIP>
>
> Regards,
> Jayen
Raghu
Geico Caveman
> On Mar 28, 4:24 pm, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > conducive(*) = weak opponent bowlers, flat wicket with no assistance
>> > to bowlers, not batting under pressure (i.e., not following on or not
>> > trying to save a test).
>>
>> weak opponents? SA have the current ranked #2 and #5 bowlers in the
>> world not batting under pressure? When you are chasing 540 there is
>> pressure, trust me.
>
> Oh please...
> For your benefit:
> conducive(*) = weak opponent bowlers OR flat wicket with no assistance
> to bowlers OR not batting under pressure (i.e., not following on or
> not trying to save a test).
Then name some tall scores that were scored in conditions that were not
conducive by that definition, especially at such a rate. Andy Flower might
be one player to start looking at, but I am not sure (especially the rate).
>
> Chasing 540, and you get in at 80/3 .. yes there will be pressure. Not
> when opening, especially, when you have belted 151 in the previous
> match.
Which has nothing to do with the match conditions. Getting 151 in the
previous match may put you in a better frame of mind, but it has nothing to
with your criteria for conducive conditions.
A score like 540 always generates pressure, no matter what surface. One
mistake and you are suddenly under the gun. Especially if you are facing
bowlers as highly ranked as Steyn, and the rest of the SA gang.
If you wish to diss Sehwag's innings for some weird reason, find another
argument. Your claim of conducive conditions ain't cutting it.
Jayen
> On Mar 28, 5:59 pm, Jayen <rsc_pos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 2:52 am, driz <driz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 28, 11:07 am, raghu.saklesh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > He says Sehwag is still not in the same class as a Dravid or
> > > > Tendulkar. Tendulkar I can probably accept but Dravid I disagree..
> > > > Sehwag is definitely in a class of his own! I don't think Dravid could
> > > > have ever played an inning like that!.
>
> > Yes, the last two lines are true. Extending the point, Dravid has also
> > never played an innings similar to what Harbhajan or Dhoni has played
> > on occasion. You are invited to explain why any of this invalidates
> > Manjrekar's statement. Hint: In test matches, to the best of my
> > knowledge, Hutton has not played an innings similar to what Sehwag
> > played.
>
> Not surprised that you are jumping to defend Dravid. :)
Hardly defending Dravid as much as questioning what appears to be
utter rubbish.
> Manjrekar said that Sehwag is not in the same class as Dravid. Maybe
> he is waiting till Sehwag gets to 10000 runs to change his mind. Mine
> however is already made. Maybe Sehwag may never reach the 10000
> milestone, but that will not make him any lesser in my book.
On what basis? Why is Sehwag "no lesser" than Dravid/Tendulkar
(assuming both are in the same class which they are not) and somehow
greater than Laxman? Or is Laxman, who also "may never reach the 10000
milestone", no "lesser in (your) book"?
> I enjoy
> watching cricket when my team wins.
As opposed to everyone else who enjoys watching cricket when their
team loses, presumably.
> Now Dravid the wall is an
> essential ingredient in the team to hold the innings together and I do
> not discount his contributions to the team especially in test cricket.
How nice!
> However his overtly defensive approach wins the game on very few
> occasions on its own merit.
Please list the players in the current team who have won matches "on
their own merit" when the rest of the team stood in a circle and
jacked off.
> Usually there is someone else who plays
> the aggressor role to lead the team to victory.
This tripe is usually spouted only about ODIs. I thought I'd never
hear it about tests, even in RSC. One lives and learns.
> I also don't like to
> watch cricket just to see technically perfect strokes made with no
> sense of urgency to win.
Neither does anybody else. Since it doesn't happen, you too needn't
see it if you just keep away from the hallucinogens.
Time to put up. Please quote five instances from the last eight years
when India failed to win because of a lack of urgency from any
batsman.
> Dravid has a utility for the team but I
> would not hold him as the epitome for others to meet!
If you wanted to, you can't find another batsman in India today who
can do what he can.
> Imagine if all
> the batsmen we had on the team were Dravid clones!
>
You need to stick to following Hongkong sixes (or marbles). That's the
only form of the game where all the batsmen in the team are even close
to being "clones" of each other.
Regards,
Jayen
driz
another
> argument. Your claim of conducive conditions ain't cutting it.
Brothers... I am not dissing Sehwag's innings. I was watching his
batting from 130-200 and it was breathtaking and Dravid's snail-pace
was in fact annoying.
But the op sounded as if it was playing down Dravid's importance. I
was just writing that a big innings on a flat track is more useful for
individual records than for the team's cause (cause = winning or
saving a test). Since the game is about win/lose, a dravid-like
innings is more important in a game than Sehwag-like game.
Can someone list-out some of Sehwag's innings where he turned the
course of the game with his batting?
Roshan
What do you think about Dravid's laborious 111 of 291 balls
with a strike rate of 38.14 on this flat chennai pitch
after coming in at Indian score of 213/1 ?
Jayen
> Jayen wrote:
<snip>
>
> What do you think about Dravid's laborious 111 of 291 balls
> with a strike rate of 38.14 on this flat chennai pitch
> after coming in at Indian score of 213/1 ?- Hide quoted text -
>
This needs a bit of context.
Dravid vs RSA in 2006: 32, 1, 11, 5, 29, 47.
Dravid vs Eng in 2007: 2, 9, 37, 11*, 55, 12
Dravid vs Pak in 2007: 38, 34, 50, 8*, 19, 42.
This is a performance which normally leads to a batsman being dropped.
He tried the usual things to save his place. He focussed on batting by
giving up the distraction of captaincy. He got himself dropped from
the ODI side :-). He tried to regain form against lesser opponents -
he played Bangladesh and two Ranji matches. In these he scored (from
memory) 3 centuries and a 50, which indicated that going back to FC
cricket wasn't the solution.
At the beginning of the Australian tour, Dravid was the worst of the
four MO bats and when it came to finding a place for Yuvraj, he was
moved up the order to open. He found that he was not getting anywhere
by attempting to play with his usual fluency, and he was scratching,
so he stuck around at the wicket, concentrated on not losing his
wicket and attempted to find form. This led to innings like 5(66) and
16 (114) at Melbourne. Because Yuvraj sucked and Sehwag was recalled,
he moved back to the MO and played that 93 in Perth. It's true that
the pitch and bowlers are different in Chennai, but he is not looking
as bad as he was at Melbourne and he's scoring a few runs which he
didn't manage to do against RSA, England and Pakistan.
Seen by itself, the Chennai innings isn't great, but a once-very-good
batsman is slowing finding his way back in test cricket. The only
reasons why he has been given so much leeway are the hope that he can
regain some part of his earlier fluency and the absolute lack of
anything approaching an alternative (Yuvraj was horrendous in
Australia).
Let's see what happens further down the line.
Regards,
Jayen
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>It's a little more than that. The current Aussie team was the first to
>consistently prove that a result was possible even on such a pitch due
>to a combination of quick scoring and the ICC's minimum-overs-in-a-day
>rule. Sehwag's just helped in adding a notch to the barrel/bedpost of
>that theory.
How?
If someone scores a triple hundred, it is a virtual certainty that one
of two situations has occurred. One is that one side massively
outclasses the other to the extent that they shouldn't really be
playing against each other; the other is that the pitch is a road and
it will need either contrivance or stunning incompetence from one side
to engineer a result from it. Both of Bradman's triples resulted in
draws.
The rule of thumb is that a match involving a triple hundred is not a
worthwhile game of cricket. It's fun for fans of the triple centurion
who get to see much more of their hero than usual (unless it's Hanif
Mohammad and sleeping for long periods is not your idea of fun), and
it provides entertainment for those who enjoy digging up statistics
and records, but anyone who wants to watch an interesting contest
between two teams will have to go elsewhere.
Barring an amazing collapse tomorrow, there seems little reason to
suppose that this match isn't going to follow the rule.
Cheers,
Mike
--
raghu.sa...@gmail.com
> On Mar 29, 11:14 am, raghu.saklesh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 28, 5:59 pm, Jayen <rsc_pos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 29, 2:52 am, driz <driz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 28, 11:07 am, raghu.saklesh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > He says Sehwag is still not in the same class as a Dravid or
> > > > > Tendulkar. Tendulkar I can probably accept but Dravid I disagree..
> > > > > Sehwag is definitely in a class of his own! I don't think Dravid could
> > > > > have ever played an inning like that!.
>
> > > Yes, the last two lines are true. Extending the point, Dravid has also
> > > never played an innings similar to what Harbhajan or Dhoni has played
> > > on occasion. You are invited to explain why any of this invalidates
> > > Manjrekar's statement. Hint: In test matches, to the best of my
> > > knowledge, Hutton has not played an innings similar to what Sehwag
> > > played.
>
> > Not surprised that you are jumping to defend Dravid. :)
>
> Hardly defending Dravid as much as questioning what appears to be
> utter rubbish.
>
> > Manjrekar said that Sehwag is not in the same class as Dravid. Maybe
> > he is waiting till Sehwag gets to 10000 runs to change his mind. Mine
> > however is already made. Maybe Sehwag may never reach the 10000
> > milestone, but that will not make him any lesser in my book.
>
> On what basis? Why is Sehwag "no lesser" than Dravid/Tendulkar
> (assuming both are in the same class which they are not) and somehow
> greater than Laxman? Or is Laxman, who also "may never reach the 10000
> milestone", no "lesser in (your) book"?
>
Why is Laxman coming into the picture all of a sudden? We are talking
about Sehwag and Dravid. Like I have said before which you are
conveniently ignoring is that a game/match is played to win! Dravid
and Sehwag have similar test averages. Maybe Dravid is a couple of
points more. But that is not important. What matters is the scoring/
strike rate and the ability to make huge scores since this is what
will help a team win! Not by grafting and batting with the weight of
the whole world on your shoulder!
> > I enjoy
> > watching cricket when my team wins.
>
> As opposed to everyone else who enjoys watching cricket when their
> team loses, presumably.
>
Grasping at straws!
> > Now Dravid the wall is an
> > essential ingredient in the team to hold the innings together and I do
> > not discount his contributions to the team especially in test cricket.
>
> How nice!
>
> > However his overtly defensive approach wins the game on very few
> > occasions on its own merit.
>
> Please list the players in the current team who have won matches "on
> their own merit" when the rest of the team stood in a circle and
> jacked off.
>
I would if I thought it would make a difference. But the tone of your
of asking gives me the impression that it is not going to make any
difference. So why bother?
> > Usually there is someone else who plays
> > the aggressor role to lead the team to victory.
>
> This tripe is usually spouted only about ODIs. I thought I'd never
> hear it about tests, even in RSC. One lives and learns.
>
Well it is quite obvious you have a lot of learning to do!
> > I also don't like to
> > watch cricket just to see technically perfect strokes made with no
> > sense of urgency to win.
>
> Neither does anybody else. Since it doesn't happen, you too needn't
> see it if you just keep away from the hallucinogens.
>
> Time to put up. Please quote five instances from the last eight years
> when India failed to win because of a lack of urgency from any
> batsman.
>
Nah it is not worth taking so much trouble. So live in your world and
I will in mine.
> > Dravid has a utility for the team but I
> > would not hold him as the epitome for others to meet!
>
> If you wanted to, you can't find another batsman in India today who
> can do what he can.
>
Yeah maybe but if I had all the batsmen in Dravid's mold in my team I
know where my team would stand!
> > Imagine if all
> > the batsmen we had on the team were Dravid clones!
>
> You need to stick to following Hongkong sixes (or marbles). That's the
> only form of the game where all the batsmen in the team are even close
> to being "clones" of each other.
>
There you go showing that as the Wall's fan you are just as thick
headed as a wall.
> Regards,
> Jayen
Raghu
Raghu
Jayen
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:59:20 -0700 (PDT), Jayen <rsc_pos...@yahoo.com>
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >It's a little more than that. The current Aussie team was the first to
> >consistently prove that a result was possible even on such a pitch due
> >to a combination of quick scoring and the ICC's minimum-overs-in-a-day
> >rule. Sehwag's just helped in adding a notch to the barrel/bedpost of
> >that theory.
>
> How?
>
> If someone scores a triple hundred, it is a virtual certainty that one
> of two situations has occurred. One is that one side massively
> outclasses the other to the extent that they shouldn't really be
> playing against each other; the other is that the pitch is a road and
> it will need either contrivance or stunning incompetence from one side
> to engineer a result from it.
How about the combination of the pressure of facing a large first
innings total and enough time to have 20 wickets fall? Multan 2004 is
an example. Due to Sehwag's 309(375 balls), India scored 675 in 162
overs and had 285 overs left in the match. Pakistan managed 407 in
their first innings against a fairly ordinary bowling attack.
If the scoring rate had been less, or if the number of overs had been
lesser, it's possible that the win wouldn't have occurred.
<snip>
>
> The rule of thumb is that a match involving a triple hundred is not a
> worthwhile game of cricket. It's fun for fans of the triple centurion
> who get to see much more of their hero than usual (unless it's Hanif
> Mohammad and sleeping for long periods is not your idea of fun), and
> it provides entertainment for those who enjoy digging up statistics
> and records, but anyone who wants to watch an interesting contest
> between two teams will have to go elsewhere.
The tripe century is not so much the deal as the large score at a
sufficient rate.
Regards,
Jayen
<snip>
Jayen
> On Mar 29, 12:10 am, Jayen <rsc_pos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 11:14 am, raghu.saklesh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 28, 5:59 pm, Jayen <rsc_pos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 2:52 am, driz <driz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 28, 11:07 am, raghu.saklesh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > > > He says Sehwag is still not in the same class as a Dravid or
> > > > > > Tendulkar. Tendulkar I can probably accept but Dravid I disagree..
> > > > > > Sehwag is definitely in a class of his own! I don't think Dravid could
> > > > > > have ever played an inning like that!.
>
> > > > Yes, the last two lines are true. Extending the point, Dravid has also
> > > > never played an innings similar to what Harbhajan or Dhoni has played
> > > > on occasion. You are invited to explain why any of this invalidates
> > > > Manjrekar's statement. Hint: In test matches, to the best of my
> > > > knowledge, Hutton has not played an innings similar to what Sehwag
> > > > played.
>
> > > Not surprised that you are jumping to defend Dravid. :)
>
> > Hardly defending Dravid as much as questioning what appears to be
> > utter rubbish.
>
> Thats just your opinion and I'm plonking it where it should belong.
>
Not surprising. Pity, that was one chance at redemption.
> > > Manjrekar said that Sehwag is not in the same class as Dravid. Maybe
> > > he is waiting till Sehwag gets to 10000 runs to change his mind. Mine
> > > however is already made. Maybe Sehwag may never reach the 10000
> > > milestone, but that will not make him any lesser in my book.
>
> > On what basis? Why is Sehwag "no lesser" than Dravid/Tendulkar
> > (assuming both are in the same class which they are not) and somehow
> > greater than Laxman? Or is Laxman, who also "may never reach the 10000
> > milestone", no "lesser in (your) book"?
>
> Why is Laxman coming into the picture all of a sudden? We are talking
> about Sehwag and Dravid.
Since you started by claiming by attempting to place batsmen in
different classes, you were invited to explain the basis and how
another batsman ranked using the same criterion. Since that seems to
be beyond you, forget it.
> Like I have said before which you are
> conveniently ignoring is that a game/match is played to win! Dravid
> and Sehwag have similar test averages. Maybe Dravid is a couple of
> points more. But that is not important. What matters is the scoring/
> strike rate and the ability to make huge scores since this is what
> will help a team win!
In the 10 matches in which Sehwag scored 150+, India won one, lost two
and the rest were drawn. In 9 matches in which Dravid scored 150+,
India won 5 and 4 were drawn. Explain.
> Not by grafting and batting with the weight of
> the whole world on your shoulder!
>
> > > I enjoy
> > > watching cricket when my team wins.
>
> > As opposed to everyone else who enjoys watching cricket when their
> > team loses, presumably.
>
> Grasping at straws!
Or hitting the nail on the head. Cliches-r-us!
>
> > > Now Dravid the wall is an
> > > essential ingredient in the team to hold the innings together and I do
> > > not discount his contributions to the team especially in test cricket.
>
> > How nice!
>
> > > However his overtly defensive approach wins the game on very few
> > > occasions on its own merit.
>
> > Please list the players in the current team who have won matches "on
> > their own merit" when the rest of the team stood in a circle and
> > jacked off.
>
> I would if I thought it would make a difference. But the tone of your
> of asking gives me the impression that it is not going to make any
> difference. So why bother?
>
There, there! Ickle baby needs a lollipop to stop sulking, does it?
> > > Usually there is someone else who plays
> > > the aggressor role to lead the team to victory.
>
> > This tripe is usually spouted only about ODIs. I thought I'd never
> > hear it about tests, even in RSC. One lives and learns.
>
> Well it is quite obvious you have a lot of learning to do!
>
Quite so. Particularly about the depths that so-called human
intelligence can plunge.
> > > I also don't like to
> > > watch cricket just to see technically perfect strokes made with no
> > > sense of urgency to win.
>
> > Neither does anybody else. Since it doesn't happen, you too needn't
> > see it if you just keep away from the hallucinogens.
>
> > Time to put up. Please quote five instances from the last eight years
> > when India failed to win because of a lack of urgency from any
> > batsman.
>
> Nah it is not worth taking so much trouble. So live in your world and
> I will in mine.
>
If at any time you care to join ours, all you need to do is up your
IQ by a few hundred points.
> > > Dravid has a utility for the team but I
> > > would not hold him as the epitome for others to meet!
>
> > If you wanted to, you can't find another batsman in India today who
> > can do what he can.
>
> Yeah maybe but if I had all the batsmen in Dravid's mold in my team I
> know where my team would stand!
Exactly where it would stand with all batsmen being in Ganguly's mold
or Laxman's mold or Sehwag's mold. One of each, however, is an
entirely different matter.
> > > Imagine if all
> > > the batsmen we had on the team were Dravid clones!
>
> > You need to stick to following Hongkong sixes (or marbles). That's the
> > only form of the game where all the batsmen in the team are even close
> > to being "clones" of each other.
>
> There you go showing that as the Wall's fan you are just as thick
> headed as a wall.
>
How long did it take you to think that up?
Anyway, noted the complete absence of anything to back up what was a
fairly ridiculous claim.
Regards,
Jayen
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
Brilliantly appropriate typo, that.
>is not so much the deal as the large score at a
>sufficient rate.
Sehwag's innings at Multan, following which Pakistan were routed by a
fifth-day collapse, is a fair example of what you mean, but your
original post tried to suggest that this innings was similar. This
innings has done nothing to advance your case and everything to
disprove it.
Going by the way the rest of the Indian batsmen folded, you could
argue that it was the most spectacular match-saving innings in
history, but unless the Saffies are horribly embarrassing and get
themselves out shortly after lunch that is all it will be.
300+ for one batsman is almost always going to be far too much for a
match's health as a meaningful contest.
Double hundreds regularly win matches. Triple hundreds almost never
do.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Roshan
Yuvraj was never a threat to Dravid in the test team.
Ganguly, Kaif, Laxman, Yuvraj and many others were moved up and
down the order in the Indian team in the past. Thats no excuse
for Dravid to score so slowly on a very good batting pitch in
Chennai especially since he came in with the Indian score
at 213/1.
Mohammad Asif on Dravid:
Several opposition bowlers pointed out to how tough it was to bowl to
Sehwag compared to the others. The common refrain was: Sehwag rattled
your plans, the rest at least scored more predictably. Mohammad Asif
even went to the extent of saying it was comparatively easy to bowl to
Dravid because he rarely tried anything different.
Jayen
>
Three months ago, Yuvraj scored a good century in the last test
against Pakistan and displaced Dravid from the MO. So, what are you on
about?
Regards,
Jayen
Roshan
Yuvraj was not a threat to Dravid's selection in the team. Dravid
was asked to open to accomodate Yuvraj in the late middle order.
Not sure why you are upset about my comment though.
Jayen
> Jayen wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 2:55 am, Roshan <Roshan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Jayen wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> Yuvraj was never a threat to Dravid in the test team.
>
> > Three months ago, Yuvraj scored a good century in the last test
> > against Pakistan and displaced Dravid from the MO. So, what are you on
> > about?
>
> > Regards,
> > Jayen
>
> Yuvraj was not a threat to Dravid's selection in the team. Dravid
> was asked to open to accomodate Yuvraj in the late middle order.
>
It's because Dinesh Karthik was worse and Sehwag had been dropped that
Dravid found a spot in the top order. If Sehwag had been batting the
way he is now, Dravid might have been dropped for the Adelaide test.
> Not sure why you are upset about my comment though.
Not upset, so much as wondering what you are on about.
Regards,
Jayen
Jayen
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 08:46:49 -0700 (PDT), Jayen <rsc_pos...@yahoo.com>
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
> >On Mar 29, 6:40 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> The rule of thumb is that a match involving a triple hundred is not a
> >> worthwhile game of cricket. It's fun for fans of the triple centurion
> >> who get to see much more of their hero than usual (unless it's Hanif
> >> Mohammad and sleeping for long periods is not your idea of fun), and
> >> it provides entertainment for those who enjoy digging up statistics
> >> and records, but anyone who wants to watch an interesting contest
> >> between two teams will have to go elsewhere.
>
> >The tripe century
>
> Brilliantly appropriate typo, that.
>
> >is not so much the deal as the large score at a
> >sufficient rate.
>
> Sehwag's innings at Multan, following which Pakistan were routed by a
> fifth-day collapse, is a fair example of what you mean, but your
> original post tried to suggest that this innings was similar. This
> innings has done nothing to advance your case and everything to
> disprove it.
>
After RSA scored 540 in the first innings, Sehwag ensured that India
ended day 3 at 72 runs behind with 9 wickets in hand. What would
otherwise have been a dull draw looked like having a chance, just a
chance, that a biff-bang-pow on the fourth day followed by a crumbling
of the pitch on Day5 would lead to a result.
As the famous American philosopher GW Bush keeps informing us, 300 (or
whatever the American death toll in Iraq is) is just a number. I
understand your point that when a batsman scores a tripe century (on
purpose this time), it usually means that the pitch is too good for a
result. However, we all know that batsmen get out even on the best of
pitches after some time, especially if there's a bit of pressure. The
tripe just seems to contribute a bit to that pressure.
Regards,
Jayen
Roshan
> On Mar 30, 4:43 am, Roshan <Roshan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Jayen wrote:
>>> On Mar 30, 2:55 am, Roshan <Roshan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Jayen wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> Yuvraj was never a threat to Dravid in the test team.
>>> Three months ago, Yuvraj scored a good century in the last test
>>> against Pakistan and displaced Dravid from the MO. So, what are you on
>>> about?
>>> Regards,
>>> Jayen
>> Yuvraj was not a threat to Dravid's selection in the team. Dravid
>> was asked to open to accomodate Yuvraj in the late middle order.
>>
>
> It's because Dinesh Karthik was worse and Sehwag had been dropped that
> Dravid found a spot in the top order. If Sehwag had been batting the
> way he is now, Dravid might have been dropped for the Adelaide test.
Dravid and Sehwag both played in Adelaide test vs Australia.
Dinesh Karthick has been a failure and out of form for a while.
Dravid would have never been dropped from Australia series tests
regardless of his batting form especially when Kumble is the captain.
>> Not sure why you are upset about my comment though.
>
> Not upset, so much as wondering what you are on about.
>
> Regards,
> Jayen
Thats a question for you.
Jayen
> Jayen wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 4:43 am, Roshan <Roshan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Jayen wrote:
> >>> On Mar 30, 2:55 am, Roshan <Roshan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> Jayen wrote:
> >>> <snip>
> >>>> Yuvraj was never a threat to Dravid in the test team.
> >>> Three months ago, Yuvraj scored a good century in the last test
> >>> against Pakistan and displaced Dravid from the MO. So, what are you on
> >>> about?
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Jayen
> >> Yuvraj was not a threat to Dravid's selection in the team. Dravid
> >> was asked to open to accomodate Yuvraj in the late middle order.
>
> > It's because Dinesh Karthik was worse and Sehwag had been dropped that
> > Dravid found a spot in the top order. If Sehwag had been batting the
> > way he is now, Dravid might have been dropped for the Adelaide test.
>
> Dravid and Sehwag both played in Adelaide test vs Australia.
>
> Dinesh Karthick has been a failure and out of form for a while.
>
> Dravid would have never been dropped from Australia series tests
> regardless of his batting form especially when Kumble is the captain.
>
And to think that I gave you a serious detailed answer.
Go away and play with Sampath.
Regards,
Jayen
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Mar 29, 9:48 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Sehwag's innings at Multan, following which Pakistan were routed by a
>> fifth-day collapse, is a fair example of what you mean, but your
>> original post tried to suggest that this innings was similar. This
>> innings has done nothing to advance your case and everything to
>> disprove it.
>>
>
>After RSA scored 540 in the first innings, Sehwag ensured that India
>ended day 3 at 72 runs behind with 9 wickets in hand. What would
>otherwise have been a dull draw looked like having a chance, just a
>chance, that a biff-bang-pow on the fourth day followed by a crumbling
>of the pitch on Day5 would lead to a result.
South Africa could still collapse, or if they get bored of batting and
make a token declaration, India could collapse. It is, after all, a
funny old game, as we well know.
By the end of day three, though, the pitch had shown no signs of doing
anything at all. I thought about the situation quite hard, and the
only ways I could see a result coming about involved something bizarre
happening.
>As the famous American philosopher GW Bush keeps informing us, 300 (or
>whatever the American death toll in Iraq is) is just a number. I
>understand your point that when a batsman scores a tripe century (on
>purpose this time), it usually means that the pitch is too good for a
>result. However, we all know that batsmen get out even on the best of
>pitches after some time, especially if there's a bit of pressure. The
>tripe just seems to contribute a bit to that pressure.
Very few matches are so devoid of incident that there isn't the odd
flicker of a chance of a result. Sides can indeed panic at the sight
of a batsman running up 300. But there is usually not enough time left
for a bit of panic to change the game significantly.
I'm not trying to knock batsmen who make triple hundreds. It is a
pretty amazing achievement even if it's on a road against poor
bowling, and Sehwag wasn't facing poor bowling - although you could
attempt the land speed record on the pitch.
Part of the problem is that rationality goes out of the window every
time someone gets to 270. No-one thinks about what would make tactical
sense: it's automatically seen as a launching pad for an individual to
attempt the world record. It may make strategic sense, however;
opponents tend to be very wary of people who are known to be able to
score 300, which may make things easier for the team down the line,
and a captain may also understand that depriving someone of probably
his only chance to go for the record could seriously disaffect the
player, which would not be good for the team later on.
300 may be just a number, but it is reached so rarely that the chance
of doing so diverts people's attention from the game towards what is
most likely to end up as a statistical curiosity.
Cheers,
Mike
--
StraightDrive
"Jayen" <rsc_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39bc1c7c-a257-43a1...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>Regards,
>>>>Jayen
Why not Jayen ?
Do you have a preference of SUCKING ONLY WHITE RACIST DICKS of
Andrew Dunford, Mike Holmans, Rodney Ulyate, Alvey and Paul Robson ?
If you dont respond to the alleged FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATH Rodney
Ulyate, they wont send you to guantanamo bay. Rest easy Jayen.
You must be the idiot that works for cricinfo that praised Andrew Dunford
for
his nicknaming Habibul Bashar as Habitual Basher.
Your poor logic skills were exposed many times in the past on rsc.
Recent one from my memory. Enjoy.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/de75089a5823b4da
StraightDrive
"Jayen" <rsc_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39bc1c7c-a257-43a1...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>Regards,
>>Jayen
Jayen dude,
I understand why you equated Roshan to Sampath. It means
you lost the argument.
Great excuse for you and your Gods Andrew Dunford, Mike Holmans
and Rodney Ulyate to feel better.
LOL
Govandi
> >> The rule of thumb is that a match involving a triple hundred is not a
> >> worthwhile game of cricket.
>
> 300+ for one batsman is almost always going to be far too much for a
> match's health as a meaningful contest.
>
> Double hundreds regularly win matches. Triple hundreds almost never
> do.
>
36% triple centuries have won matches.
That's around the same proportion that 100s (100-199) have won
matches.
If 36% is your definition of "never", you might as well can say
that "The rule of thumb is that a match involving a hundred
is not a worthwhile game of cricket."
Govandi
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
> --
driz
> > with a strike rate of 38.14 on this flat chennai pitch
> > after coming in at Indian score of 213/1 ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> This needs a bit of context.
>
> Dravid vs RSA in 2006: 32, 1, 11, 5, 29, 47.
> Dravid vs Eng in 2007: 2, 9, 37, 11*, 55, 12
> Dravid vs Pak in 2007: 38, 34, 50, 8*, 19, 42.
>
> This is a performance which normally leads to a batsman being
dropped.
Jayen .. this reply is sort of tangential to the current topic, but to
put things more in context, the "32, 1, 11, 5, 29, 47" happened in Dec
2006. Prior to that series, in 2006, Dravid had scored 1046 runs
@74.71 in 10 tests. These 10 tests included 4 away tests in WI, 3 away
tests in Pak, and 3 home games vs England. You'll be a moron if you
dropped him for this series failure. Also, at the end of this SA
series, he still had a batting avg of 57+
Eng, Pak series were bad ones for him. But if players like Tendulkar
can be given long runs of failures (IIRC, 2006, when he had 10 TESTS
with only 2 50s, and another 6/7 test sequence that ended with the
laborious 241 in Sydney), and if players like Sehwag could be
persisted despite consecutive failures (interesting stat: there are 5
occurrences when Sehwag had 5 consecutive tests (which is almost 10
innings because he opened) of lull in between big hundreds!) then I
don't understand why you should be this hard on Dravid. Dravid is
going through a rough patch now.. and it doesn't look all that
appealing to see him struggling for runs.
But Dravid still averages the highest among the current Indian team
FYI.
Jayen
> > > What do you think about Dravid's laborious 111 of 291 balls
> > > with a strike rate of 38.14 on this flat chennai pitch
> > > after coming in at Indian score of 213/1 ?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > This needs a bit of context.
> >
> > Dravid vs RSA in 2006: 32, 1, 11, 5, 29, 47.
> > Dravid vs Eng in 2007: 2, 9, 37, 11*, 55, 12
> > Dravid vs Pak in 2007: 38, 34, 50, 8*, 19, 42.
> >
> > This is a performance which normally leads to a batsman being
> dropped.
>
> Jayen .. this reply is sort of tangential to the current topic, but to
> put things more in context, the "32, 1, 11, 5, 29, 47" happened in Dec
> 2006. Prior to that series, in 2006, Dravid had scored 1046 runs
> @74.71 in 10 tests. These 10 tests included 4 away tests in WI, 3 away
> tests in Pak, and 3 home games vs England. You'll be a moron if you
> dropped him for this series failure. Also, at the end of this SA
> series, he still had a batting avg of 57+
>
Driz, I most certainly did not say that he should have been dropped
for the RSA series failure. I listed three series for a total of 9
tests over one year in which he never got going at all. At the end of
it (after three series), there certainly were concerns about his
performance.
> Eng, Pak series were bad ones for him. But if players like Tendulkar
> can be given long runs of failures (IIRC, 2006, when he had 10 TESTS
> with only 2 50s, and another 6/7 test sequence that ended with the
> laborious 241 in Sydney),
That's exactly what's being done. Dravid is being given some time (and
options) to regain form and fluency in tests.
> and if players like Sehwag could be
> persisted despite consecutive failures (interesting stat: there are 5
> occurrences when Sehwag had 5 consecutive tests (which is almost 10
> innings because he opened) of lull in between big hundreds!) then I
> don't understand why you should be this hard on Dravid.
You need to take this up in an another thread where an erudite
gentleman of these parts is making the case that Sehwag, KP etc. need
to be given a longer rope because of their style of playing.
I'm not being hard and the captain and selectors also seem to be quite
supportive.
> Dravid is
> going through a rough patch now.. and it doesn't look all that
> appealing to see him struggling for runs.
>
Er... that's sort of my point. He's struggling but battling very, very
hard. Given that all other matters seem to have been addressed (going
back to FC, playing a weaker team like the Bangles, giving up
captaincy, avoiding ODOs, not going near T-20s), give him a little
time and see if he snaps out of it. The 93 at Perth and this innings
are encouraging.
> But Dravid still averages the highest among the current Indian team
> FYI.
Completely immaterial. No one selects based on career average.
Regards,
Jayen
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Mar 30, 11:43 am, driz <driz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>That's exactly what's being done. Dravid is being given some time (and
>options) to regain form and fluency in tests.
>
...
>
>> Dravid is
>> going through a rough patch now.. and it doesn't look all that
>> appealing to see him struggling for runs.
>>
>
>Er... that's sort of my point. He's struggling but battling very, very
>hard. Given that all other matters seem to have been addressed (going
>back to FC, playing a weaker team like the Bangles, giving up
>captaincy, avoiding ODOs, not going near T-20s), give him a little
>time and see if he snaps out of it. The 93 at Perth and this innings
>are encouraging.
I musr say that I've been bemused by this thread, predicated on
Dravid's scoring rate while Sehwag was batting.
When you have a batsman who is going wild at one end, it is usual, not
to mention sensible, for the other guy to stay calm and just keep his
end intact. With no wickets falling at the other end, the guy who's
doing a passable impression of an artillery battery can carry on
blasting away without fear of triggering an embarrassing collapse.
Dravid himself said that the hard thing while Sehwag was going strong
was restraining himself from playing expansive shots, because he knew
that his primary job was to remain at the crease. And seeing the way
the rest folded once Sehwag was out, it's entirely possible that if
Dravid had joined in with Sehwag's hitting spree, he and everyone else
would have got out before Sehwag reached 250, and India would have
ended up conceding an uncomfortable deficit of 130.
As it was, India were still behind when Sehwag was out and two more
wickets fell before Dravid nursed them through to a lead.
Dravid may or may not be out of touch, but I don't see how you can
come to an authoritative conclusion on that given that he fulfilled
his tactical role for the innings to the letter.
>> But Dravid still averages the highest among the current Indian team
>> FYI.
>
>Completely immaterial. No one selects based on career average.
No one sensible and, one hopes, no-one on a national selectors'
committee, but there are legions of rsc posters who understand so
little about cricket that they would.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Andrew B.
> On Mar 29, 6:48 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >> The rule of thumb is that a match involving a triple hundred is not a
> > >> worthwhile game of cricket.
>
> > 300+ for one batsman is almost always going to be far too much for a
> > match's health as a meaningful contest.
>
> > Double hundreds regularly win matches. Triple hundreds almost never
> > do.
>
> 36% triple centuries have won matches.
i.e. 8 out of 22.
But of those 8, 6 (Hayden, Jayawardene, Sobers, Hutton, Inzamam,
Edrich) were in big innings victories: certainly not "meaningful
contests", and an innings of (say) 150 in each case would surely still
have led to a win.
(The other two, FWIW, are Gooch's 333 and Sehwag's 309).
> That's around the same proportion that 100s (100-199) have won
> matches.
Again FWIW, the proportion for 200s is 50%.
Mike Holmans
<bul...@gmail.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On 30 Mar, 07:23, Govandi <govand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 29, 6:48 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > >> The rule of thumb is that a match involving a triple hundred is not a
>> > >> worthwhile game of cricket.
>>
>> > 300+ for one batsman is almost always going to be far too much for a
>> > match's health as a meaningful contest.
>>
>> > Double hundreds regularly win matches. Triple hundreds almost never
>> > do.
>>
>> 36% triple centuries have won matches.
>
>i.e. 8 out of 22.
>But of those 8, 6 (Hayden, Jayawardene, Sobers, Hutton, Inzamam,
>Edrich) were in big innings victories: certainly not "meaningful
>contests", and an innings of (say) 150 in each case would surely still
>have led to a win.
You could probably argue fairly easily that the sides would even have
won if the triple centurion had got a duck instead. The losing sides
in each case had popgun attacks and mostly feeble batting line-ups.
(If they weren't so equipped at the start of the match, in-game
injuries ensured it: at The Oval in 1938, Australia lost two bowlers
and Bradman to injury.)
Cheers,
Mike
--
raghu.sa...@gmail.com
Looks like you need to work on your reading comprehension as well.
Let me go over this once again for your benefit:
Manjrekar (not I) said that Sehwag was not in a class of Dravid and
Tendulkar yet! Tendulkar I can accept Dravid I seriously doubt. I have
all along in this thread been saying that Sehwag is as good and
important to the team as Dravid and he cannot be categorized as some
one lesser.
> > Like I have said before which you are
> > conveniently ignoring is that a game/match is played to win! Dravid
> > and Sehwag have similar test averages. Maybe Dravid is a couple of
> > points more. But that is not important. What matters is the scoring/
> > strike rate and the ability to make huge scores since this is what
> > will help a team win!
>
> In the 10 matches in which Sehwag scored 150+, India won one, lost two
> and the rest were drawn. In 9 matches in which Dravid scored 150+,
> India won 5 and 4 were drawn. Explain.
>
Doesn't matter. India has a better winning percentage with Sehwag in
the top order (batting between 0-5) than Dravid. With Sehwag in the
top order India has won 18 out of 50 matches he has played. With
Dravid in the top position India has won 35/115 matches. Although they
are like fire and water in their styles, both are needed and imo
equally important in the team!
<SNIPPED the drivel>
Raghu
Jayen
> On Mar 29, 9:43 am, Jayen <rsc_pos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > > Manjrekar said that Sehwag is not in the same class as Dravid. Maybe
> > > > > he is waiting till Sehwag gets to 10000 runs to change his mind. Mine
> > > > > however is already made. Maybe Sehwag may never reach the 10000
> > > > > milestone, but that will not make him any lesser in my book.
>
> > > > On what basis? Why is Sehwag "no lesser" than Dravid/Tendulkar
> > > > (assuming both are in the same class which they are not) and somehow
> > > > greater than Laxman? Or is Laxman, who also "may never reach the 10000
> > > > milestone", no "lesser in (your) book"?
>
> > > Why is Laxman coming into the picture all of a sudden? We are talking
> > > about Sehwag and Dravid.
>
> > Since you started by claiming by attempting to place batsmen in
> > different classes, you were invited to explain the basis and how
> > another batsman ranked using the same criterion. Since that seems to
> > be beyond you, forget it.
>
> Looks like you need to work on your reading comprehension as well.
> Let me go over this once again for your benefit:
> Manjrekar (not I) said that Sehwag was not in a class of Dravid and
> Tendulkar yet! Tendulkar I can accept Dravid I seriously doubt. I have
> all along in this thread been saying that Sehwag is as good and
> important to the team as Dravid and he cannot be categorized as some
> one lesser.
Slowly, this time.
Manjrekar said that Sehwag was not in the class of Dravid. You
disagreed. Therefore, YOU think that Sehwag is in the same class as
Dravid.
On what basis do YOU say that Sehwag is in the same class as Dravid?
Using the same basis, would YOU say that Laxman is in the same class
as Sehwag and Dravid? If so, why? If not, why not?
>
> > > Like I have said before which you are
> > > conveniently ignoring is that a game/match is played to win! Dravid
> > > and Sehwag have similar test averages. Maybe Dravid is a couple of
> > > points more. But that is not important. What matters is the scoring/
> > > strike rate and the ability to make huge scores since this is what
> > > will help a team win!
>
> > In the 10 matches in which Sehwag scored 150+, India won one, lost two
> > and the rest were drawn. In 9 matches in which Dravid scored 150+,
> > India won 5 and 4 were drawn. Explain.
>
> Doesn't matter. India has a better winning percentage with Sehwag in
> the top order (batting between 0-5) than Dravid. With Sehwag in the
> top order India has won 18 out of 50 matches he has played. With
> Dravid in the top position India has won 35/115 matches.
So that's the criterion all of a sudden, is it? OK, Tendulkar's
winning percentage with the same criterion is 45 out of 147, which is
more or less the same as Dravid's and is lesser than Sehwag's. Looking
forward to your inference from this stat-bit with the certainty that
you would be consistent and not move the goalposts.
> Although they
> are like fire and water in their styles, both are needed and imo
> equally important in the team!
Is Laxman equally important? Is he the earth, air or ether to the fire
and water of Sehwag and Dravid?
Regards,
Jayen
SultanOfSwing
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:59:20 -0700 (PDT), Jayen <rsc_pos...@yahoo.com>
>
> >> On Mar 28, 11:07 am, raghu.saklesh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > He says Sehwag is still not in the same class as a Dravid or
> >> > Tendulkar. Tendulkar I can probably accept but Dravid I disagree..
> >> > Sehwag is definitely in a class of his own! I don't think Dravid could
> >> > have ever played an inning like that!.
>
> >Yes, the last two lines are true. Extending the point, Dravid has also
> >never played an innings similar to what Harbhajan or Dhoni has played
> >on occasion. You are invited to explain why any of this invalidates
> >Manjrekar's statement. Hint: In test matches, to the best of my
> >knowledge, Hutton has not played an innings similar to what Sehwag
> >played.
>
> Does it make much sense to compare him with conventional batsmen like
> Tendulkar and Dravid?
>
> Harvey was trying to make a point about Pietersen's inconsistency
> yesterday (although not very successfully in my opinion), but it's far
> more true of Sehwag. Averages tell you absolutely nothing about
> Sehwag, because he so rarely plays an average innings. For him it's
> zilch or zillions, and the arithmetical mean is simply a number in the
> middle. Other batsmen score 55, 83 and 104 as well as 11 and 186, but
> Sehwag seemingly has no interest in such half measures. You don't pick
> Sehwag because you are relying on him: you pick him because if he does
> anything useful, it will be massively useful. It might be a good idea
> from the team's point of view if he played a grind-it-out sort of
> innings, and he has done so once or twice, but being irritated if he
> doesn't entirely misses the point. It's not what he's for. You might
> just as well criticise a Ferrari Testarossa because it's useless for
> taking your wife, four children and the dog on a camping holiday.
>
> I've been trying to think of anyone else whose pattern of play even
> resembles Sehwag's. Gilchrist, maybe, but he batted at number seven
> and it's fairly normal to have someone at seven who goes out and hits
> a lot - even if most of them aren't as good at it as Gilchrist has
> been. Kapil Dev, for instance. But top order batsmen, let alone
> opening batsmen, who play like Sehwag have been very uncommon.
>
> There's Chris Gayle, perhaps, but of late he has been playing a fair
> few defensive innings. The captaincy is clearly getting to him: he
> knows that he can't ask his men to go out there and save the match for
> West Indies if he's going to play like Champagne Charlie and be out in
> five minutes. They may have set out together, but Gayle no longer
> walks the same road as Sehwag.
>
> Srikkanth comes to mind, but he was only a quick scorer: people
> sitting in the stands didn't have to keep an eye out in case they got
> a ball in their drink.
>
> The only real precursor I can think of is Colin Milburn. Nowhere near
> as successful in his sadly-curtailed career, but if he hadn't had lost
> the eye, England would have spent the whole of the 1970s debating
> whether we could afford to have someone as inconsistent as Milburn at
> the top of the order. I'd like to think that at least Greig and
> Brearley would have recognised the immense value he could bring.
All the candidates that you've described make for interesting
reading,
yet there's one opening batsman whom you haven't mentioned, and
that is, Victor Trumper. Of late, I've read a few of your posts,
wherein
you mentioned that there were people in the 1930's and 40's who
felt that Trumper was a better batsman than Bradman. Whatever
I've read about Trumper, he had an unconventional approach as
an opening batsman. That's also very much true of Sehwag.
It would be very interesting to compare Sehwag with Trumper.
Here's an excerpt from an MCG article on Trumper.
"As an opening batsman Trumper's approach was unique.
He would attack from the very first ball without indulging
in the conventional practice of assessing the pace and
bounce of the wicket. Sometimes he paid the penalty for
his daring, but in full flight he was a supreme entertainer,
combining incomparable grace, dash and style in his
execution of a variety of strokes not seen before or since.
Apart from the God-given attributes of genius, Trumper's
power came from a pair of remarkably strong wrists for a
man built more like a sprinter than a blacksmith, and a
generously high grip on the bat which gave real meaning
to the cliche "taking the long handle to the bowling"."
http://www.mcg.org.au/default.asp?pg=toursdisplay&articleid=104
Govandi
> On 30 Mar, 07:23, Govandi <govand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 29, 6:48 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > >> The rule of thumb is that a match involving a triple hundred is not a
> > > >> worthwhile game of cricket.
>
> > > 300+ for one batsman is almost always going to be far too much for a
> > > match's health as a meaningful contest.
>
> > > Double hundreds regularly win matches. Triple hundreds almost never
> > > do.
>
> > 36% triple centuries have won matches.
>
> i.e. 8 out of 22.
> But of those 8, 6 (Hayden, Jayawardene, Sobers, Hutton, Inzamam,
> Edrich) were in big innings victories: certainly not "meaningful
> contests",
You can't just look at the victory margin and call it a
meaningless contest.
Jayawardene's match was quite a meaningful contest.
He came in with 2 quick wickets when the ball was doing
something and together with Sanga gave a stirring display
of batting. Given the quality of the rest of the SL batsmen,
we'll never know what might have happened if either fell
cheaply. I saw this match almost completely and it made
for some engrossing viewing. SA also offered some staunch
resistance to make the contest interesting.
Besides, how do you discount matches where the
opposition had to fight hard to save the test?
For example Keith Fletcher's 129 to save
the test in which Rowe scored 302. What about
Hanif Mohammed's 337? Would you call these tests
worthless?
> and an innings of (say) 150 in each case would surely still
> have led to a win.
One could as well pull out matches where if a 300 was
reduced to 150 it would have led to a loss.
> (The other two, FWIW, are Gooch's 333 and Sehwag's 309).
>
> > That's around the same proportion that 100s (100-199) have won
> > matches.
>
> Again FWIW, the proportion for 200s is 50%.
Yes. We are talking in the 36% - 50% range. You can hardly
be making thumb rules in that regime. I was responding
to the claim that 300s "never" win matches, which is
obviously rubbish.
If you want a *real* thumb rule here is one: scoring 540 and
above in the first innings almost assures that you don't
lose the test.
Govandi
Uday Rajan
>
> You could probably argue fairly easily that the sides would even have
> won if the triple centurion had got a duck instead. The losing sides
> in each case had popgun attacks and mostly feeble batting line-ups.
> (If they weren't so equipped at the start of the match, in-game
> injuries ensured it: at The Oval in 1938, Australia lost two bowlers
> and Bradman to injury.)
I think the final margin of victory in that 1938 Oval Test is
misleading. Bradman twisted an ankle while bowling late in the England
innings, and I do recall reading someplace that Hammond waited to
declare until he was sure that Bradman would not be able to bat. Thus,
you could argue that if England had made only 600 instead of 900,
Bradman would not have bowled at all, and may not have been out
injured, in which case the match could have taken another direction
altogether.
BTW, as nearly as I can tell, Australia lost only Bradman and
Fingleton to in-game injuries. They went into the Oval Test with only
three regular bowlers (Waite, O'Reilly, and Fleetwood-Smith), all of
whom bowled a lot of overs. That seems like a big strategic mistake on
a batting pitch (to play only three bowlers), so perhaps a few of the
bowlers were unavailable for that Test due to pre-match injuries.
Mike Holmans
<uday...@yahoo.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Mar 30, 10:44 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> You could probably argue fairly easily that the sides would even have
>> won if the triple centurion had got a duck instead. The losing sides
>> in each case had popgun attacks and mostly feeble batting line-ups.
>> (If they weren't so equipped at the start of the match, in-game
>> injuries ensured it: at The Oval in 1938, Australia lost two bowlers
>> and Bradman to injury.)
>
>I think the final margin of victory in that 1938 Oval Test is
>misleading. Bradman twisted an ankle while bowling late in the England
>innings, and I do recall reading someplace that Hammond waited to
>declare until he was sure that Bradman would not be able to bat. Thus,
>you could argue that if England had made only 600 instead of 900,
>Bradman would not have bowled at all, and may not have been out
>injured, in which case the match could have taken another direction
>altogether.
Wisden's version is that Hammond would probably not have declared at
all but for the news about Bradman's injury. It was a timeless Test,
and could have gone on for several weeks if Bradman were able to bat,
but once he was confirmed as hors de combat, Hammond could be
reasonably confident that 900 would be enough to at least ensure a
first innings lead.
I withdraw everything I said about triple hundreds being largely
pointless in the case of timeless Tests. In those, the object is to
amass as many runs as possible, since you don't have to worry about
whether there will be enough time to bowl the opposition out. So going
for a triple, quadruple, even a sextuple - if Bradman had been fit to
bat in the next innings, he could probably have achieved it - makes
perfect tactical as well as statistical sense.
>
>BTW, as nearly as I can tell, Australia lost only Bradman and
>Fingleton to in-game injuries. They went into the Oval Test with only
>three regular bowlers (Waite, O'Reilly, and Fleetwood-Smith), all of
>whom bowled a lot of overs. That seems like a big strategic mistake on
>a batting pitch (to play only three bowlers), so perhaps a few of the
>bowlers were unavailable for that Test due to pre-match injuries.
MacCormick was allegedly ill. (Wisden seems a little dubious about the
veracity of the Australians' statement.) I was under the impression
that Waite's fuel tank ran dry halfway through the second day and that
though he stayed on the field because he wasn't injured, he hadn't the
energy to deliver overs of his usual fast-medium.
Picking three bowlers was a gamble. Bradman had lost the three
previous tosses and thought it had to be his turn. He packed the side
with batsmen so that he could bat first and make Himalayas of runs,
and then set Chuck and the Tiger to work on what would no doubt by
then be a wearing pitch. As with rules of thumb about the pointfulness
of triple hundreds, selection policies for timeless Tests also tend to
deviate from the norm in time-limited matches.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Mike Holmans
<asla...@yahoo.co.in> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Mar 29, 7:26 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> The only real precursor I can think of is Colin Milburn. Nowhere near
>> as successful in his sadly-curtailed career, but if he hadn't had lost
>> the eye, England would have spent the whole of the 1970s debating
>> whether we could afford to have someone as inconsistent as Milburn at
>> the top of the order. I'd like to think that at least Greig and
>> Brearley would have recognised the immense value he could bring.
>
> All the candidates that you've described make for interesting
>reading,
> yet there's one opening batsman whom you haven't mentioned, and
> that is, Victor Trumper. Of late, I've read a few of your posts,
>wherein
> you mentioned that there were people in the 1930's and 40's who
> felt that Trumper was a better batsman than Bradman. Whatever
> I've read about Trumper, he had an unconventional approach as
> an opening batsman. That's also very much true of Sehwag.
> It would be very interesting to compare Sehwag with Trumper.
Brilliant point. The comparison would indeed be interesting, although
it will show up as many differences as similarities.
> Here's an excerpt from an MCG article on Trumper.
> "As an opening batsman Trumper's approach was unique.
> He would attack from the very first ball without indulging
> in the conventional practice of assessing the pace and
> bounce of the wicket. Sometimes he paid the penalty for
> his daring, but in full flight he was a supreme entertainer,
> combining incomparable grace, dash and style in his
> execution of a variety of strokes not seen before or since.
That "incomparable grace" phrase was certainly one reason I didn't
spot the Trumper comparison. The dash and variety of strokes are
things which Sehwag also exhibits, but he is not a particularly
elegant stylist (I'm not suggesting he's a slogger, but he's not
exactly poetry in motion).
The other reason why he didn't come to mind is that he was not greedy
for runs. Like Hobbs, he tended to give his wicket away soon after
reaching his hundred unless the team was in serious difficulties. But
once Sehwag gets going, he isn't going to stop voluntarily. (The
Aussie old-timers pooh-poohed pro-Bradman arguments which referred to
triple hundreds by saying that Trumper could have scored triple
hundreds if he'd wanted to, but that he preferred to make a game of
it.)
Another difference is that Trumper was a master technician. There were
those who placed his bad-wicket play above Hobbs's. Your quote above
is therefore not absolutely accurate: Trumper wasn't dim enough to
launch his artillery without a firm enough footing, so he didn't
*always* attack from ball one.
Were we discussing philosophy, you could be making the case that
Sehwag is a neo-Trumperist, a school which has fused Trumperist
principles with the insights of the Jayasuriyans to produce a modern
opening paradigm.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Uday Rajan
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:30:30 -0700 (PDT), SultanOfSwing
> > .... Whatever
> > I've read about Trumper, he had an unconventional approach as
> > an opening batsman. That's also very much true of Sehwag.
> > It would be very interesting to compare Sehwag with Trumper.
>
> Another difference is that Trumper was a master technician. There were
> those who placed his bad-wicket play above Hobbs's. Your quote above
> is therefore not absolutely accurate: Trumper wasn't dim enough to
> launch his artillery without a firm enough footing, so he didn't
> *always* attack from ball one.
Yes, I agree that Trumper is reputed to have been a superb player all
around: a very good technique, a good batsman on bad wickets, and a
fluent and artistic strokeplayer as well. I think the unorthodoxy in
Trumper's game was more related to his desire to score quickly,
unusual for an opening batsman in that era, and the resultant
creativity he must have displayed in his strokeplay.
I'm reminded of the 1902 Old Trafford Test. Australia won the toss and
batted, but the wicket was wet. MacLaren, the English captain, figured
that the pitch would become an ugly devil after it had dried out a
little. The plan was thus to keep the Australians quiet until the
pitch had turned into a regular sticky, and then bowl them out.
Perhaps the Australians had made a similar determination, and decided
they should get as many runs as they could before the pitch turned
sour. Trumper responded with a century before lunch (the first ever on
the first day of a Test). MacLaren was later chided for having failed
to keep Trumper quiet, and pointed out that Trumper had hit a couple
of balls into the practice ground, and he could hardly be expected to
post his fielders there.
MacLaren, by all reports a very proud man, is also reputed to have
once said that, compared to Trumper, he was like a hansom-cab horse to
a Derby winner.
> Were we discussing philosophy, you could be making the case that
> Sehwag is a neo-Trumperist, a school which has fused Trumperist
> principles with the insights of the Jayasuriyans to produce a modern
> opening paradigm.
I agree Sehwag is not quite a Trumper in his style. The soul of his
game is perhaps closer to a Jessop, though of course he is a rather
advanced version of Jessop.
All this talk of Trumper, by the way, reminds me of Indian opener
Mushtaq Ali, who has sometimes been likened to Trumper in his approach
to batting. Perhaps Mushtaq was somewhere between Trumper and Sehwag.
Also a very good and fluent strokeplayer, he would look to score from
the word go. On the 1936 tour of England, his opening partner Vijay
Merchant, as classical an opener as they come, would shake his head in
despair while watching Mushtaq's antics from the other end. Apparently
from the opening overs, Mushtaq would look to come down the wicket to
hit the opening bowlers. On being scolded by Merchant for his
rashness, Mushtaq replied that as long as he swung the bat hard, he
would either middle it and get four in front of the wicket, or edge it
and have it fly over the slips' heads for four.
Andrew Dunford
<snip>
> You need to stick to following Hongkong sixes (or marbles). That's the
> only form of the game where all the batsmen in the team are even close
> to being "clones" of each other.
Suggest you also watch the Australian beach cricket tournament, if you
haven't already seen it.
Andrew
outsourci...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 28, 11:07 am, raghu.saklesh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > He says Sehwag is still not in the same class as a Dravid or
> > Tendulkar. Tendulkar I can probably accept but Dravid I disagree..
> > Sehwag is definitely in a class of his own! I don't think Dravid could
> > complete (copy book style) batsman but when it comes to aggressive
> > scoring and single handedly changing the course of a game I think
> > Sehwag is clearly in a different league than him. Even yesterday on a
> > near perfect batting conditions Dravid was slooow and boring quite
> > content to take the match to a draw. Don't get me wrong, I do think a
> > Dravid is needed in the Indian test team, but of lat it is quite
> > painful to see him struggle to keep the score moving..
>
> > Raghu
>
> Dude ... the test match is more likely to have a result when there is
> some assistance to bowlers from the wicket. Otherwise, it iwll be a
> boring run feast where good bowlers like Steyn and Kumble are made to
> look like school cricketers. If you do a check you'll see all of
> Sehwag's last 9 biggg innings happened on conducive(*) conditions. May
> be 155 Chennai was an exception.
>
> conducive(*) = weak opponent bowlers, flat wicket with no assistance
> to bowlers, not batting under pressure (i.e., not following on or not
> trying to save a test).
>
> In fact, most of the 300+ scores were scored by batsmen on such
> conducive conditions. Lara 375, 400, Hayden 380, Jayasuriya 340, Gooch
> 333, ..
> I would rate Laxman's 280 or some of Martyn's innings in Sri Lanka or
> Steve Waugh's big hundreds in the Caribbean in the 90s higher than
> these.
>
> But hats off to Sehwag: even if 30% of the Test batting tracks are
> batsmen friendly, we don't see such rapid, big, and totally dominating
> hundreds on the 30% of the tracks.
That's right. The fact that Sehwag super dominates on good pitches
(much more than almost any other batsman) does not take away the
greatness of the innings. And also, he has proven (not just in Chennai
in 2004) but also this year in Adelaide that he is a class player even
when the conditions are not that easy to bat on. He dominated in
Chennai when the other Indian batsmen couldn't even score a few runs
and in Adelaide he almost singlehandedly saved India batting on a
fifth day pitch against the best team in the world. Sehwag is a great
player and as raghu rightly said "in a class of his own".
outsourci...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 28, 4:24 pm, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > conducive(*) = weak opponent bowlers, flat wicket with no assistance
> > > to bowlers, not batting under pressure (i.e., not following on or not
> > > trying to save a test).
>
> > world not batting under pressure? When you are chasing 540 there is
> > pressure, trust me.
>
> Oh please...
> For your benefit:
> conducive(*) = weak opponent bowlers OR flat wicket with no assistance
> to bowlers OR not batting under pressure (i.e., not following on or
> not trying to save a test).
>
> when opening, especially, when you have belted 151 in the previous
> match.
So, if Sehwag actually helps remove the pressure you don't give him
the credit but if he somehow fails you criticise him. This is
unbelievable and the reason why I wrote a post some time back saying
why "India doesn't deserve Sehwag".
But coming back to your points. There is pressure when the team has
put up 540. The fact that Sehwag got a big hundred in Australia gives
him confidence but that doesn't mean there isn't pressure on him while
batting. And incredibly the reason for that pressure is because even
when he plays the innings of a lifetime we still get some people who
try and downplay it by saying that "oh the pitch was flat" and some
saying "the attack wasn't that good"
Well, Mr. if thats the case what does it tell you about Jaffer. 73 in
166 balls with a strike rate of 43.97. And he actually fared okay.
Tendulkar. A zero. But that's okay. You can't blame him. After all he
came in to bat when there was no pressure (courtesy Sehwag) and the
bowlers and fielders looked tired (courtesy Sehwag) and therefore
Tendulkar just relaxed and took it easy. Ganguly. 24 off 29 balls.
Strike rate 82.75. But only made 24 runs. So, batting wasn't all that
easy. Laxman 39 off 64 balls. Strike rate 60.93. How come laxman the
fluid batsman that he is also couldn't score 70 or 80 runs if not a
hundred. Dhoni 16 off 33 balls, strike rate 48.48. And all these poor
scores of our middle order batsman (barring Dravid) INSPITE OF THE
FACT THAT THEY CAME IN TO BAT WHEN THERE WAS NO PRESSURE ON THEM.
Courtesy Sehwag.
All you people who criticise Sehwag should realize one simple fact.
Maybe its not the pitch that's so easy to bat on or the attack which
is so easy to face. Its the fact that SEHWAG MAKES IT LOOK EASY. Which
actually adds to his greatness.
Mike Holmans
<uday...@yahoo.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>I agree Sehwag is not quite a Trumper in his style. The soul of his
>game is perhaps closer to a Jessop, though of course he is a rather
>advanced version of Jessop.
In an early draft of my post upthread, I went down the Jessop line but
found it was raising a whole load of side-issues I didn't then want to
get into. But he does seem the closest parallel in many ways.
What do you mean by "more advanced", though?
Cheers,
Mike
--
Uday Rajan
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:44:23 -0700 (PDT), Uday Rajan
>
> >I agree Sehwag is not quite a Trumper in his style. The soul of his
> >game is perhaps closer to a Jessop, though of course he is a rather
> >advanced version of Jessop.
>
> In an early draft of my post upthread, I went down the Jessop line but
> found it was raising a whole load of side-issues I didn't then want to
> get into. But he does seem the closest parallel in many ways.
>
> What do you mean by "more advanced", though?
In a couple of different dimensions, perhaps. For one, although Jessop
is reputed to have been a strokeplayer with a complete set of strokes,
he is often described as a very hard hitter of the ball. Sehwag is a
shade closer to strokeplayer than hitter. For example, he doesn't hit
the ball as hard as, say, Yuvraj does; when Yuvraj is batting well,
the ball simply zings off his bat. Does that make Sehwag more
advanced? I argue yes, perhaps it tires him out less (compared to
Jessop), so that he has often been able to maintain his concentration
over a longer period of time.
Which leads us to the second: Sehwag has been conspicuously more
successful than Jessop, even adjusting for era. I know Jessop has a
highest first-class score of 286, but neither his first-class nor Test
average are awe-inspiring. Sehwag has now become one of only three
double triple-centurions in Tests, and has yet a third Test score
above 250. So perhaps Sehwag is more advanced in that he can
concentrate for longer periods. His statistics are truly astonishing,
for a top order batsman; he has close to 5,000 Test runs, at an
average over 50, and a strike rate over 75. The only other player in
that ballpark is Adam Gilchrist, who IMO has been one of a kind, but
who sometimes did benefit from being able to open his shoulders freely
without worrying about either his side's position (since he had great
bowlers to back him up) or his own place in the team.
Roshan
You are a certified Dravid fanatic.
> Go away and play with Sampath.
>
> Regards,
> Jayen
No clue who is Sampath. I don't play with guys like you do.
Jayen
Might have known. Space below to put any coherent argument you've made
in this entire thread.
<end space>
Regards,
Jayen
Jayen
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:52:32 -0700 (PDT), Jayen <rsc_pos...@yahoo.com>
<snip>
> >Er... that's sort of my point. He's struggling but battling very, very
> >hard. Given that all other matters seem to have been addressed (going
> >back to FC, playing a weaker team like the Bangles, giving up
> >captaincy, avoiding ODOs, not going near T-20s), give him a little
> >time and see if he snaps out of it. The 93 at Perth and this innings
> >are encouraging.
>
> I musr say that I've been bemused by this thread, predicated on
> Dravid's scoring rate while Sehwag was batting.
>
> When you have a batsman who is going wild at one end, it is usual, not
> to mention sensible, for the other guy to stay calm and just keep his
> end intact. With no wickets falling at the other end, the guy who's
> doing a passable impression of an artillery battery can carry on
> blasting away without fear of triggering an embarrassing collapse.
That's quite true, but even with those criteria and given how Sehwag
was playing, Dravid's scoring rate was slightly on the slower side. He
would never have played like Sehwag (that's not his job), but in his
hey-days he would have probably made 20 runs more in the same number
of balls.
Not that it did or would have made a damn of a difference. At the end
of the innings, I was happy that we'd crossed 600, awed at Sehwag's
innings, thankful that Dravid and Jaffer stuck around and supported
him and irritated at the lower order collapse without which we could
easily scored another 50-100 runs, but hadn't even considered Dravid's
scoring rate as a major deal. It's to broaden my intellectual horizon
on these lines that I visit RSC.
<snip>
> As it was, India were still behind when Sehwag was out and two more
> wickets fell before Dravid nursed them through to a lead.
>
> Dravid may or may not be out of touch, but I don't see how you can
> come to an authoritative conclusion on that given that he fulfilled
> his tactical role for the innings to the letter.
>
I was in the stadium in Bangalore on day one of the final test against
Pakistan. It was another flat pitch and Dravid was playing like he has
since about 2001. He started out with three or four excellent shots
through cover, until disaster struck. Against the run of play, a ball
bounced a little more expected and he touched a snick through to slip.
This ended three consecutive major series (not counting one against
Bangladesh) in which he hadn't a significant score about 50 and in
which he averaged less than 30. Throughout all of this, he had
typically tried to bat like he was in form, but it wasn't coming off.
In the next few innings, he slowed down heavily, but the 93 in Perth
must have given a lot of satisfaction. In this innings too, he started
very cautiously, but seemed to get some confidence along the way and
scored more freely.
The early caution in this innings was in line with the risk-avoidance
that we'd seen in recent times and the later fluency seemed to
indicate that he was regaining his confidence. Along the way, of
course, he played an excellent foil to a Sehwag going absolutely
berserk.
Regards,
Jayen
Roshan
All my arguments were coherent. Dravid was not on the verge
of being dropped from the test team before SA series started
last week.
His ultra-defensive innings at Chennai last week was needless
when India was cruising along at 213/1 on that lifeless pitch.
If I am not mistaken Dravid scored very well and was in good
form in the domestics right before the SA series started.
Jayen
Didn't say he was. Particularly not after the Perth innings.
>
> His ultra-defensive innings at Chennai last week was needless
> when India was cruising along at 213/1 on that lifeless pitch.
OK, roughly what scoring pattern would you have expected to see? Take
it session by session (so and so much by tea on D3, EOD on D3 etc.) .
Or otherwise, by score milestone (50, 100, etc.). Or else only the
final result (so-and-so strike rate). This would be the bare
acceptable minimum that you'd expect to see.
>
> If I am not mistaken Dravid scored very well and was in good
> form in the domestics right before the SA series started.
He played Deodhars before the SA. He played Ranjis in October. He
played Bangladesh (not domestics, but not among the top test playing
nations in the world) in May 2007. He scored a century in practically
each match. Which leads up to "So?".
Regards,
Jayen
Mike Holmans
<uday...@yahoo.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Mar 31, 7:52 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 18:44:23 -0700 (PDT), Uday Rajan
>> <udayra...@yahoo.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>>
>> >I agree Sehwag is not quite a Trumper in his style. The soul of his
>> >game is perhaps closer to a Jessop, though of course he is a rather
>> >advanced version of Jessop.
>>
>> In an early draft of my post upthread, I went down the Jessop line but
>> found it was raising a whole load of side-issues I didn't then want to
>> get into. But he does seem the closest parallel in many ways.
>>
>> What do you mean by "more advanced", though?
>
>In a couple of different dimensions, perhaps. For one, although Jessop
>is reputed to have been a strokeplayer with a complete set of strokes,
>he is often described as a very hard hitter of the ball. Sehwag is a
>shade closer to strokeplayer than hitter.
That seems fair enough.
Sehwag at least has a recognisably conventional technique, whereas
Jessop was known as the Croucher because of his unusual stance.
>Which leads us to the second: Sehwag has been conspicuously more
>successful than Jessop, even adjusting for era. I know Jessop has a
>highest first-class score of 286, but neither his first-class nor Test
>average are awe-inspiring. Sehwag has now become one of only three
>double triple-centurions in Tests, and has yet a third Test score
>above 250. So perhaps Sehwag is more advanced in that he can
>concentrate for longer periods. His statistics are truly astonishing,
>for a top order batsman; he has close to 5,000 Test runs, at an
>average over 50, and a strike rate over 75. The only other player in
>that ballpark is Adam Gilchrist, who IMO has been one of a kind, but
>who sometimes did benefit from being able to open his shoulders freely
>without worrying about either his side's position (since he had great
>bowlers to back him up) or his own place in the team.
This is where those side issues come into play. Overall, you're quite
right, but it's probably worth entering a couple of notes on the
difficulties of strict comparisons.
The point about concentration is extremely well made, but it needs to
be said that playing the lengthy innings which demonstrate it would
rarely have been tactically sensible in Jessop's cricket. Sehwag has
made his huge scores opening in five-day Tests whereas all of Jessop's
first-class career, including the Tests, were three-day games where he
batted around 5-7. Jessop's opportunities to play innings of five, six
and seven hours were considerably more limited than Sehwag's have
been.
Jessop's Test record looks pretty anaemic in figures terms, but he was
not favoured by the selectors and never became an established Test
player. He only went to Australia once, was ill throughout the trip
and resolved never to tour again. The selectors obviously had their
reasons for not picking him but those reasons were never understood by
the Australians, who considered that leaving Jessop out of the side
was a gift to them. I therefore take the view that Jessop's Test
record provides too little evidence to come to a firm conclusion about
his quality as a player at that level. I'm not trying to argue that he
was unfairly deprived of the title Colossus Of Test Cricket, simply
that there is room for speculation about what he might have done in a
slightly different universe.
Cheers,
Mike
--
Uday Rajan
>
> The point about concentration is extremely well made, but it needs to
> be said that playing the lengthy innings which demonstrate it would
> rarely have been tactically sensible in Jessop's cricket. Sehwag has
> made his huge scores opening in five-day Tests whereas all of Jessop's
> first-class career, including the Tests, were three-day games where he
> batted around 5-7. Jessop's opportunities to play innings of five, six
> and seven hours were considerably more limited than Sehwag's have
> been.
To be fair, Sehwag started out as a middle order batsman, drawing
attention on the national scene after scores in successive matches of
165 (at no. 5), 187 (at no. 7) and 274 (at no. 6). He had a century on
debut batting at no. 6 as well. He was pushed up the order to open at
some stage because the middle order was too crowded, and has generally
been successful in that position.
Not to take away from the point about Jessop not having much of a
chance to get big scores; I think that is fair enough. Perhaps part of
it is also that his technique wasn't felt to be good enough to justify
playing him higher up the order.
> Jessop's Test record looks pretty anaemic in figures terms, but he was
> not favoured by the selectors and never became an established Test
> player. He only went to Australia once, was ill throughout the trip
> and resolved never to tour again. The selectors obviously had their
> reasons for not picking him but those reasons were never understood by
> the Australians, who considered that leaving Jessop out of the side
> was a gift to them. I therefore take the view that Jessop's Test
> record provides too little evidence to come to a firm conclusion about
> his quality as a player at that level. I'm not trying to argue that he
> was unfairly deprived of the title Colossus Of Test Cricket, simply
> that there is room for speculation about what he might have done in a
> slightly different universe.
Yes, perhaps he was ahead of his time as well. Cardus, in an essay on
Emmott Robinson, wrote of Robinson's shock at a young Yorkshire opener
who had the temerity to hit a four before lunch in a Roses match. We
know Cardus made up many, perhaps even most, of his anecdotes, but
that pretty much sums up the spirit of the times. Jessop would have
been seen as a player no one could understand, and may have been
treated less seriously for it.
Mike Holmans
<uday...@yahoo.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Apr 1, 10:42 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> The point about concentration is extremely well made, but it needs to
>> be said that playing the lengthy innings which demonstrate it would
>> rarely have been tactically sensible in Jessop's cricket.
>
>Not to take away from the point about Jessop not having much of a
>chance to get big scores; I think that is fair enough. Perhaps part of
>it is also that his technique wasn't felt to be good enough to justify
>playing him higher up the order.
Possibly, although the fact that he opened the bowling for Glos and
was originally selected for England as a bowler who could bat a bit
may also have had something to do with it. I'm sure there are
instances of front-line pace bowlers who regularly opened the batting,
but they aren't exactly queueing up in my memory this morning.
Cheers,
Mike
--
SultanOfSwing
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 18:43:32 -0700 (PDT), Uday Rajan
Manoj Prabhakar opened the batting and bowling for India in a
number of Test matches. I can't recall any other cricketer having
done it at the international level.
prabh...@hotmail.com
Ravi Ratnayeke
AiCeeYell
news:53bba208-3f53-46ba...@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 29, 4:55 am, driz <driz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Yes, Sehwag is a truly great player on flat tracks. I doubt if even Bradman
was
better on flat tracks.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
There have been a few. I'm sure Irfan has done that as well.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
pks-gm
Vinoo Mankad opened, but bowled mostly spin opened once in a Ranji
trophy I remember, great bowler with Subash Gupte
Roshan
Well you posted these Dravid's past scores that
preceded Australia test series.
Dravid vs RSA in 2006: 32, 1, 11, 5, 29, 47.
Dravid vs Eng in 2007: 2, 9, 37, 11*, 55, 12
Dravid vs Pak in 2007: 38, 34, 50, 8*, 19, 42.
Have you asked yourself that question, "So" ?
Jayen
> Jayen wrote:
> > On Apr 1, 9:58 am, Roshan <Roshan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> His ultra-defensive innings at Chennai last week was needless
> >> when India was cruising along at 213/1 on that lifeless pitch.
>
> > OK, roughly what scoring pattern would you have expected to see? Take
> > it session by session (so and so much by tea on D3, EOD on D3 etc.) .
> > Or otherwise, by score milestone (50, 100, etc.). Or else only the
> > final result (so-and-so strike rate). This would be the bare
> > acceptable minimum that you'd expect to see.
>
Any chance of a reply to this?
> >> If I am not mistaken Dravid scored very well and was in good
> >> form in the domestics right before the SA series started.
>
> > He played Deodhars before the SA. He played Ranjis in October. He
> > played Bangladesh (not domestics, but not among the top test playing
> > nations in the world) in May 2007. He scored a century in practically
> > each match. Which leads up to "So?".
>
> Well you posted these Dravid's past scores that
> preceded Australia test series.
>
> Dravid vs RSA in 2006: 32, 1, 11, 5, 29, 47.
> Dravid vs Eng in 2007: 2, 9, 37, 11*, 55, 12
> Dravid vs Pak in 2007: 38, 34, 50, 8*, 19, 42.
>
> Have you asked yourself that question, "So" ?
Yes, and answered it immediately afterwards in that post.
Regards,
Jayen
Roshan
> On Apr 4, 3:16 am, Roshan <Roshan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Jayen wrote:
>>> On Apr 1, 9:58 am, Roshan <Roshan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>>>> His ultra-defensive innings at Chennai last week was needless
>>>> when India was cruising along at 213/1 on that lifeless pitch.
>>> OK, roughly what scoring pattern would you have expected to see? Take
>>> it session by session (so and so much by tea on D3, EOD on D3 etc.) .
>>> Or otherwise, by score milestone (50, 100, etc.). Or else only the
>>> final result (so-and-so strike rate). This would be the bare
>>> acceptable minimum that you'd expect to see.
>
> Any chance of a reply to this?
Dravids strike rate on that lifeless Chennai pitch
was abysmally low based on the fact India was cruising
along at 213/1 when he came in to bat.
111 of 291 balls at a strike rate of 38.14
>>>> If I am not mistaken Dravid scored very well and was in good
>>>> form in the domestics right before the SA series started.
>>> He played Deodhars before the SA. He played Ranjis in October. He
>>> played Bangladesh (not domestics, but not among the top test playing
>>> nations in the world) in May 2007. He scored a century in practically
>>> each match. Which leads up to "So?".
>> Well you posted these Dravid's past scores that
>> preceded Australia test series.
>>
>> Dravid vs RSA in 2006: 32, 1, 11, 5, 29, 47.
>> Dravid vs Eng in 2007: 2, 9, 37, 11*, 55, 12
>> Dravid vs Pak in 2007: 38, 34, 50, 8*, 19, 42.
>>
>> Have you asked yourself that question, "So" ?
>
> Yes, and answered it immediately afterwards in that post.
>
> Regards,
> Jayen
If you did then you shouldnt have replied to me with "So"
when I posted Dravid is in very good form leading up to
the SA test series.
Jayen
> Jayen wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 3:16 am, Roshan <Roshan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Jayen wrote:
> >>> On Apr 1, 9:58 am, Roshan <Roshan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>>> His ultra-defensive innings at Chennai last week was needless
> >>>> when India was cruising along at 213/1 on that lifeless pitch.
> >>> OK, roughly what scoring pattern would you have expected to see? Take
> >>> it session by session (so and so much by tea on D3, EOD on D3 etc.) .
> >>> Or otherwise, by score milestone (50, 100, etc.). Or else only the
> >>> final result (so-and-so strike rate). This would be the bare
> >>> acceptable minimum that you'd expect to see.
>
> > Any chance of a reply to this?
>
> Dravids strike rate on that lifeless Chennai pitch
> was abysmally low based on the fact India was cruising
> along at 213/1 when he came in to bat.
>
> 111 of 291 balls at a strike rate of 38.14
>
You've said that before. Now, read the question again and try to
answer it.
> >>>> If I am not mistaken Dravid scored very well and was in good
> >>>> form in the domestics right before the SA series started.
> >>> He played Deodhars before the SA. He played Ranjis in October. He
> >>> played Bangladesh (not domestics, but not among the top test playing
> >>> nations in the world) in May 2007. He scored a century in practically
> >>> each match. Which leads up to "So?".
> >> Well you posted these Dravid's past scores that
> >> preceded Australia test series.
>
> >> Dravid vs RSA in 2006: 32, 1, 11, 5, 29, 47.
> >> Dravid vs Eng in 2007: 2, 9, 37, 11*, 55, 12
> >> Dravid vs Pak in 2007: 38, 34, 50, 8*, 19, 42.
>
> >> Have you asked yourself that question, "So" ?
>
> > Yes, and answered it immediately afterwards in that post.
>
> > Regards,
> > Jayen
>
> If you did then you shouldnt have replied to me with "So"
> when I posted Dravid is in very good form leading up to
> the SA test series.
Go through the original post and see if you can figure out the
difference.
Regards,
Jayen
Roshan
Faulty arguments won't improve no matter how many times
I read them.
Uday Rajan
> number of Test matches. I can't recall any other cricketer having
> done it at the international level.
ISTR there are some 15 or so Indian players who have opened both the
batting and the bowling in at least one innings of the same Test. Some
of those are purely "accidental" (e.g., Vengsarkar bowled a few balls
in the second innings of the 1976 Jamaica "bloodbath" Test, when the
WI only had a handful of runs to win), and others a matter of
strategic team choice (e.g., Gavaskar has on an occasion or two sent
down a couple of overs with the new ball so that India could play
three spinners at home). Perhaps none were odder than Budhi Kunderan
in the 3rd Test in England in 1967, since he was the reserve wicket-
keeper for the tour, but was then asked to open the bowling in that
last Test, the only one in which all four of the spin quartet (Bedi,
Chandra, Pras, Venkat) played.
Prabhakar was a little unusual in that he fulfilled that role fairly
regularly at home for a spell. Many other Indian allrounders have done
it once or twice, including Rusi Surti, Eknath Solkar, Syed Abid Ali,
Roger Binny, and Mohinder Amarnath.
Anyway, that's just India. I think India has tended to do this more
than other sides. There used to be a complete list somehwere...Ah, OK,
found it on CI:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/content/records/282801.html
Jaisimha has done it a lot of times, more than I had remembered.
England and Australia have many representatives on the list as well,
but largely before 1960. And how did I forget Worrell?
Mike Holmans
tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>Jayen wrote:
>> On Apr 4, 3:16 am, Roshan <Roshan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Jayen wrote:
>>>> On Apr 1, 9:58 am, Roshan <Roshan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>>> His ultra-defensive innings at Chennai last week was needless
>>>>> when India was cruising along at 213/1 on that lifeless pitch.
>>>> OK, roughly what scoring pattern would you have expected to see? Take
>>>> it session by session (so and so much by tea on D3, EOD on D3 etc.) .
>>>> Or otherwise, by score milestone (50, 100, etc.). Or else only the
>>>> final result (so-and-so strike rate). This would be the bare
>>>> acceptable minimum that you'd expect to see.
>>
>> Any chance of a reply to this?
>
>
>
>Dravids strike rate on that lifeless Chennai pitch
>was abysmally low based on the fact India was cruising
>along at 213/1 when he came in to bat.
>
>111 of 291 balls at a strike rate of 38.14
Since you're so keen on strike rates, can you tell us how slowly he
batted after Sehwag was out?
I ask because Dravid himself said that the hardest thing for him
during Sehwag's innings was to hold himself in check and not join in
with the hitting. That implies that Dravid's tactics during Sehwag's
innings were planned in consultation with the captain, coach, senior
colleagues and so on.
I realise that it may be difficult for you to imagine that what the
Indian captain wants his players to do is not what you want them to
do, since you obviously have a much deeper understanding of things
than someone like Kumble, who has only taken 600 wickets in 126 Tests,
but it does happen. And what may surprise you even more is that the
players generally think it better to do what the captain says than
what you say.
Oh, and are you blaming Dravid for India's pathetic score today, or
might some of the others share a little of the responsibility?
Cheers,
Mike
--
Roshan
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:17:38 -0800, Roshan <Rosh...@yahoo.com>
> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>
>> Jayen wrote:
>>> On Apr 4, 3:16 am, Roshan <Roshan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Jayen wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 1, 9:58 am, Roshan <Roshan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>>> His ultra-defensive innings at Chennai last week was needless
>>>>>> when India was cruising along at 213/1 on that lifeless pitch.
>>>>> OK, roughly what scoring pattern would you have expected to see? Take
>>>>> it session by session (so and so much by tea on D3, EOD on D3 etc.) .
>>>>> Or otherwise, by score milestone (50, 100, etc.). Or else only the
>>>>> final result (so-and-so strike rate). This would be the bare
>>>>> acceptable minimum that you'd expect to see.
>>> Any chance of a reply to this?
>>
>>
>> Dravids strike rate on that lifeless Chennai pitch
>> was abysmally low based on the fact India was cruising
>> along at 213/1 when he came in to bat.
>>
>> 111 of 291 balls at a strike rate of 38.14
>
> Since you're so keen on strike rates, can you tell us how slowly he
> batted after Sehwag was out?
It is of no relevance since Dravid came in when India was
cruising along at 213/1 on a batsman's paradise.
Failure in the preceding Aus test series and out of form
batsman Jaffer on the verge of being dropped from the
test team scored a 70+ at Chennai I1 if I am not mistaken.
> I ask because Dravid himself said that the hardest thing for him
> during Sehwag's innings was to hold himself in check and not join in
> with the hitting.
I don't want Dravid to bat like Sehwag :))
> That implies that Dravid's tactics during Sehwag's
> innings were planned in consultation with the captain, coach, senior
> colleagues and so on.
How does Dravid holding himself in check from joining
Sehwag in hitting "implies" it was planned in consultation
with the captain, coach and senior colleagues ?
Its really a weird argument.
> I realise that it may be difficult for you to imagine that what the
> Indian captain wants his players to do is not what you want them to
> do, since you obviously have a much deeper understanding of things
> than someone like Kumble, who has only taken 600 wickets in 126 Tests,
> but it does happen.
What I realized is you have a personal hot line with Indian captain
Anil Kumble to discuss and exchange tactics.
> And what may surprise you even more is that the
> players generally think it better to do what the captain says than
> what you say.
I am not just surprised, I am shocked by your revelation :))
> Oh, and are you blaming Dravid for India's pathetic score today,
Your imagination perhaps ?
rodney...@gmail.com
[...]
> MacLaren was later chided for having failed to keep Trumper quiet,
> and pointed out that Trumper had hit a couple of balls into the
> practice ground, and he could hardly be expected to post his
> fielders there.
The Colossus of Rhodes, not the Noblest Roman, said that.
<snip>
Uday Rajan
That's a version I haven't heard yet. I've read the version that it
was an exchange on the field: MacLaren scolded Lockwood, Lockwood in
turn responded by saying that the fielders weren't in the proper
positions, and MacLaren snidely asked Lockwood if he wanted them on
the practice field. I've also read the version that it was an exchange
with a reporter off the field, the interpretation being either that
MacLaren was generously praising Trumper, or blaming his own bowlers.
But I haven't yet heard that Rhodes started it all.
Mike Holmans
<uday...@yahoo.com> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
Fingleton's biography of Trumper also credits it to Maclaren.
Cheers,
Mike
--
rodney...@gmail.com
> On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 16:10:45 -0700 (PDT), Uday Rajan
> >On Apr 6, 6:29 am,rodney.uly...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Mar 31, 3:44 am, Uday Rajan <udayra...@yahoo.com> related:
> >> [...]
> >> > MacLaren was later chided for having failed to keep Trumper quiet,
> >> > and pointed out that Trumper had hit a couple of balls into the
> >> > practice ground, and he could hardly be expected to post his
> >> > fielders there.
> >> The Colossus of Rhodes, not the Noblest Roman, said that.
> >That's a version I haven't heard yet. I've read the version that it
> >was an exchange on the field: MacLaren scolded Lockwood, Lockwood in
> >turn responded by saying that the fielders weren't in the proper
> >positions, and MacLaren snidely asked Lockwood if he wanted them on
> >the practice field. I've also read the version that it was an exchange
> >with a reporter off the field, the interpretation being either that
> >MacLaren was generously praising Trumper, or blaming his own bowlers.
> >But I haven't yet heard that Rhodes started it all.
> Fingleton's biography of Trumper also credits it to Maclaren.
As I shall not have my personal athenaeum at my disposal for the next
two months, proving my contention will be decidedly difficult. I did,
however, copy the relevant statement out of some or other tome a while
ago for an email. Devoid of the dialect-butchery for which I and
those I quote are notorious, this is what Rhodes said: "Now, I
couldn't place my long-off in the practice ground, could I?"
George Herbert told Plum something similar when asked where he would
like his field: "It doesn't much matter, sir, where we put 'em.
Victor will still do as he likes."
Finally, here is Rhodes to Cardus on Trumper during a conversation in
1950: "Aye, Victor Trumper. Aye, he were a good bat, were Victor. I
liked bowling at him, though. He was always giving you a chance.
But, aye, he were a good bat."
Mike Holmans
The possibility exists, of course, that both of them said it on
different occasions. It's the sort of remark one might repeat. It is
also possible that neither of them said it and the story is
apocryphal.
I think it can be generally agreed, though, that setting a field for
Trumper was impossible. All you could really do was move your men
about in various directions and hope that he forgot about one.
Cheers,
Mike
--