Tendulkar, Kapil, Gavaskar, Sehwag named in Greatest All Time Test XI

[53fd]

You cannot compare the batting strike rates of Sehwag with any of the other players I mentioned, because there was no such concept called strike rate till the 1970s, & that too was started for one day internationals in the 1970s.

 

[Bhairava]

Strike rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point is there IS a Strike Rate for bowlers even if its a new invention (though not so new as ODI cricket started 40 years back).

Again back to defending the indefensible about how there is NO strike rate for bowlers ? Need I remind you what you said few posts back ?

I haven't watched cricket in over 12 years, so no need to gloat about things.

Then don't talk as if you know everything to avid followers of cricket. Stick with your areas of experstise which is clearly not cricket.

Moreover even if you had watches cricket before 12 years, which I suspect, you should have known Strike rate exists for bowlers too.

 

[RayBan]

and he scored 293 against lankans in a day.. murali was almost crying

he had a chance to make a record of three triple centuries. which he failed by just 7 runs

 

[53fd]

The point is there IS a Strike Rate for bowlers even if its a new invention (though not so new as ODI cricket started 40 years back).

Again back to defending the indefensible about how there is NO strike rate for bowlers ? Need I remind you what you said few posts back ?

Again, repeating things for you to make you understand:

You cannot compare the batting strike rates of Sehwag with any of the other players I mentioned, as they came from a much much more older time period when there was no such concept called strike rate (which was introduced only in the 1970s, & that too was started for one day internationals).

 

[Mabs]

No he doesn't know and thinks Sanga is an opener.

Sangakara did play as an opener. In fact his original position was as an opener.

 

[RayBan]

I haven't watched cricket in over 12 years, so no need to gloat about things. Btw, read this:



It is meaningless to compare strike rates in test cricket, because it is a very new concept, only introduced in the 1970s, & that too only through one day cricket.

what matters is a match winning ability which sehwag has done it for up many times with his blistering knocks with a good batting average. he's got 15* consecutive 100s which are above 150 runs mark.

 

[Bhairava]

The psychological affect that a batsmen exerts on the opposition is not a criteria which is taken into account when ranking a batsman. It is merely his batting statistics and that's all.

Oh yes it does matter !

Listen to what Umar Gul had to say in a recent interview.He said that the first three overs of Sehwag in the WC semis destroyed him mentally that he was out of the game and could not concentrate on bowling the remaining 7 overs.

You need such batsmen as there are enough 'solid' batsmen later on to consolidate in case he does not fire.

 

[53fd]

Oh yes it does matter !

Listen to what Umar Gul had to say in a recent interview.He said that the first three overs of Sehwag in the WC semis destroyed him mentally that he was out of the game and could not concentrate on bowling the remaining 7 overs.

You need such batsmen as there are enough 'solid' batsmen later on to consolidate in case he does not fire.

So the interview of Umar Gul is more important than batting statistical evidence?

 

[Bhairava]

Again, repeating things for you to make you understand:

What you said was THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS STRIKE RATE AS BOWLERS which even cursory followers of cricket know exists.

No use in telling the nuances of the game to a fellow who does not even know the basics of cricket.

Sangakara did play as an opener. In fact his original position was as an opener.

He is an established no 4 or no 3 batsmen for SL.

He experimented with opening and found his real place was in first or second down slot.

 

[53fd]

You cannot compare the batting strike rates of Sehwag with any of the other openers I mentioned (with the higher batting averages), as they came from a much much more older time period when there was no such concept called strike rate (which was introduced only in the 1970s, & that too was started for one day internationals).

 

[53fd]

What you said was THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS STRIKE RATE AS BOWLERS which even cursory followers of cricket know exists.

No use in telling the nuances of the game to a fellow who does not even know the basics of cricket.

There was no such thing as a strike rate during the times of the openers that have a higher batting average than Sehwag, so you can't compare strike rates there. The fact that the strike rate was first introduced for the ODI game & not for the test one (& never existed before the 70s, & is a recent phenomena) shows strike rate is not important in the test game. Clear????

 

[Bhairava]

So the interview of Umar Gul is more important than batting statistical evidence?

The opinion of a bowler, a damn good one at that does matter as emotions felt by bowlers cant be said through statistics.

You should know cricket, have played cricket to understand its nuances which you do not.

There was no such thing as a strike rate during the times of the openers that have a higher batting average than Sehwag, so you can't compare strike rates there. The fact that the strike rate was first introduced for the ODI game & not for the test one (& never existed before the 70s) shows strike rate is not important in the test game.

You should have edited ths previous post which betrayed your COMPLETE IGNORANCE about the basics of cricket . Why bother to get humiliated more and more ?

The 'strike rate' is for batting, not bowling. 'Strike', as in striking, hitting... batting. Strike rate is used exclusively for batting, to see how much runs are scored per 100 balls faced.

The bowling average indicates the rate at which wickets are taken.

My knowledge of cricket might suck, but not of the English Language.

You yourself admitted you have not watched cricket for 12 years. So why bother about things you hardly have a clue about ?

 

[53fd]

You should have edited ths previous post which betrayed you COMPLETE IGNORANCE about teh basics of cricket

You don't even have an argument based on any 'physical' evidence to prove why strike rate is important in test cricket, besides providing conjecture [which includes Umar Gul's interview (which was for the One Day International form of the game btw, not the test game)].

 

[Bhairava]

You don't even have an argument based on 'physical' evidence to prove why strike rate is important in test cricket, besides providing conjecture [which includes Umar Gul's interview (which was for the One Day International form of the game btw)].

bla bla bla....anything else ?

Good that I educated some one about a fact in cricket today.

First watch some cricket matches and then tell us about it. If you had seen the matches you would know what I am speaking about.

 

[53fd]

bla bla bla....anything else ?

I'm sorry, 'bla bla bla' is not any more convincing than the Umar Gul interview you were trying to use as your argument to substantiate that strike rate is as important as batting average. Try harder.