What's new

Cheteshwar Pujara Discussion Thread

Lethalweapon said:
But Indians are better than most of the teams in handling spin.
Look at Swann in last test, Panesar now. 4fer and 5fer at the cost of nearly 100 runs.
Spinners rarely get Indian wkts. cheaply. Even Mendis had to contend with a rampaging Sehwag.
Click to expand...

Look at the players who have scored runs against them, you will find only 2-3 batsmen out of 11 who have scored against spinners. And the reason for that is because those 2-3 batsmen worked hard for runs. They kept their temperament well and utilized the skills. They put the same concentration and effort as any other batsmen.

So, just because we know Indians players play well against spin doesn't mean it's cruise ride for them. And speaking of current spin duo of England, they were sure tasting Indian batters' temperament and skill.
 
Last edited:
^ Look at the difference between number of matches with your stat and my link. You are missing whole lot of matches and large chunk of performances.
 
panther said:
Just proved my point look at the ftbs averages jump.
Click to expand...

How do you prove that draw matches were flat wickets and those which were won and lost weren't?

You just can't prove that. Test cricket was never just about winning or losing, that's why we have draw section still open.
 
cricketworm said:
How do you prove that draw matches were flat wickets and those which were won and lost weren't?

You just can't prove that. Test cricket was never just about winning or losing, that's why we have draw section still open.
Click to expand...

look at the scorecard, if both teams could not force a result than the pitch is flat , there are a few exceptions due to rain.
 
And if match is drawn how do you prove that it was batsmen's fault? What if it was bowler's fault who were unable to take 20 wickets? Does that make batsmen's effort useless? Ridiculous bias analysis.
 
Lethalweapon said:
This is true.
But 8-0 has given India a negative image.
what Zahid87 says is also true.
Click to expand...

I didn't say otherwise ! I remember thinking in 2010 if Sehwag scores in the upcoming SA , Eng and Aus tours he has case for being the best opening bat ever.We know how that turned out.
 
panther said:
look at the scorecard, if both teams could not force a result than the pitch is flat , there are a few exception due to rain.
Click to expand...

I can create zillion scenarios and prove that those matches which were won and lost, were also played on flat wicket. But wickets were fallen because of batsmen's incompetence!

It's just wrong and misleading assumptions to think that draw pitches were flat. Test cricket is whole different ball game when you do stat analysis, the best way is to see the every single match and should know the condition.
 
cricketworm said:
And if match is drawn how do you prove that it was batsmen's fault? What if it was bowler's fault who were unable to take 20 wickets? Does that make batsmen's effort useless? Ridiculous bias analysis.
Click to expand...

bowlers unable to take 20 wickets because the pitch is flat.
 
cricketworm said:
I can create zillion scenarios and prove that those matches which were won and lost, were also played on flat wicket. But wickets were fallen because of batsmen's incompetence!

It's just wrong and misleading assumptions to think that draw pitches were flat. Test cricket is whole different ball game when you do stat analysis, the best way is to see the every single match and should know the condition.
Click to expand...

please do.

lemme give you an example I think in 2010 nz toured india and lost the 3 match series 1-0, that time Indian test team was stronger.

This year nz came and lost 2-0 against a weaker test side or not in form indian team.

why was this?, simply because both the pitches in 2012 were not flat but 2 out 3 in 2010 were.
 
panther said:
bowlers unable to take 20 wickets because the pitch is flat.
Click to expand...

Wrong! That's just outright bogus assumptions. May be batsmen batted better and defied the loss? How do you assume that each side as same kind of skilled bowlers as other side? And how do you assume that all bowlers have skills to take wickets at will!What about the bowlers who have taken the wickets even on a flat wicket and force a win?
 
panther said:
please do.

lemme give you an example I think in 2010 nz toured india and lost the 3 match series 1-0, that time Indian test team was stronger.

This year nz came and lost 2-0 against a weaker test side or not in form indian team.

why was this?, simply because both the pitches in 2012 were not flat but 2 out 3 in 2010 were.
Click to expand...

How can you predict Indian team was stronger? What about NZ team? I can also say NZ team was stronger before and they were weaker now!

And I just created few scenarios above, clear that for me.
 
panther said:
bowlers unable to take 20 wickets because the pitch is flat.
Click to expand...

I have posted the many matches
which have ended / rained off with India only needing 1 or 2 wkts. to win.
2 matches in WI in 2006, One in NZ in 2009 , one in SA in 97-98.
There is only one at Lords where India got lucky.
Indian batsman have saved many matches as well one test in WI 2006, In England 2002 Edgbaston.
Matches like Lords 1996, Capetown 2011,Oval 2007,one test in SA 2001 were evenly contested. and India even dominated some of those.
These cover most of the draws since 96 involving India.
 
panther said:
please do.

lemme give you an example I think in 2010 nz toured india and lost the 3 match series 1-0, that time Indian test team was stronger.

This year nz came and lost 2-0 against a weaker test side or not in form indian team.

why was this?, simply because both the pitches in 2012 were not flat but 2 out 3 in 2010 were.
Click to expand...

you were talking Overseas and example is in India!
Stop trying, drawing tests away is not easy.
Only the Aus tour 2003-04 , pitches were flat. not any others. Only oval in 2002 was flatter.
 
Last edited:
Indians have been part of more draws outside Asia than Pakistani or SL players as well in the last 15 odd years.
This can be confirmed.
 
cricketworm said:
Wrong! That's just outright bogus assumptions. May be batsmen batted better and defied the loss? How do you assume that each side as same kind of skilled bowlers as other side? And how do you assume that all bowlers have skills to take wickets at will!What about the bowlers who have taken the wickets even on a flat wicket and force a win?
Click to expand...

draw 9/10 times pitch was flat.

india tour of aus 2003/4

1st test flat = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64059.html

ganguly cashing in

4th test flat = draw

srt, laxman dravid all cashing in

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64062.html

2008

4th test flat pitch = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ausvind/engine/match/291354.html

srt and sehwag cashing in.

england 2002

2nd test flat pitch = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63998.html

sehwag, dravid srt and ganguly all cashing in.

4th test flat pitch=draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64000.html

dravid cashing in

england 2007

1st test rain ruined result.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/engvind/engine/match/258468.html

3rd test flat pitch = draw


http://www.espncricinfo.com/engvind/engine/match/258470.html

various indian batsman cashing in.

sa 2001

rained ruined possible result

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63952.html

sa 2011

3rd test drawn rain affected match

http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-india-2010/engine/match/463148.html

nz 2009

2nd test flat pitch = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/nzvind2009/engine/match/386496.html

gg, dravid and laxman cashing in.

3rd test flat pitch = draw
http://www.espncricinfo.com/nzvind2009/engine/match/366629.html
gg cashing in

wi 2002

1st test flat pitch = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63984.html

dravid, srt cashing in

4th test flat pitch = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63987.html

laxman, dravid cashin in

wi 2006

1st test flat pitch = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/wivind/engine/match/239920.html

jaffer cashing in

2nd test rain affected match

http://www.espncricinfo.com/wivind/engine/match/239921.html

3rd test flat pitch = draw


http://www.espncricinfo.com/wivind/engine/match/239922.html

laxman cashing in

wi 2011

2nd test affected by rain

http://www.espncricinfo.com/west-indies-v-india-2011/engine/match/489227.html

3rd test affected by rain

http://www.espncricinfo.com/west-indies-v-india-2011/engine/match/489228.html

If we were to exclude all these draws except the rain affected matches, the indian batsman's averages would fall that's why I exclude draws in my analysis.

9/10 too much 8/10 would be right.
 
Last edited:
panther said:
draw 9/10 times pitch was flat.

india tour of aus 2003/4

1st test flat = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64059.html

ganguly cashing in

4th test flat = draw

srt, laxman dravid all cashing in

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64062.html

2008

4th test flat pitch = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ausvind/engine/match/291354.html

srt and sehwag cashing in.

england 2002

2nd test flat pitch = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63998.html

sehwag, dravid srt and ganguly all cashing in.

4th test flat pitch=draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64000.html

dravid cashing in

england 2007

1st test rain ruined result.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/engvind/engine/match/258468.html

3rd test flat pitch = draw


http://www.espncricinfo.com/engvind/engine/match/258470.html

various indian batsman cashing in.

sa 2001

rained ruined possible result

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63952.html

sa 2011

3rd test drawn rain affected match

http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-india-2010/engine/match/463148.html

nz 2009

2nd test flat pitch = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/nzvind2009/engine/match/386496.html

gg, dravid and laxman cashing in.

3rd test flat pitch = draw
http://www.espncricinfo.com/nzvind2009/engine/match/366629.html
gg cashing in

wi 2002

1st test flat pitch = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63984.html

dravid, srt cashing in

4th test flat pitch = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63987.html

laxman, dravid cashin in

wi 2006

1st test flat pitch = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/wivind/engine/match/239920.html

jaffer cashing in

2nd test rain affected match

http://www.espncricinfo.com/wivind/engine/match/239921.html

3rd test flat pitch = draw


http://www.espncricinfo.com/wivind/engine/match/239922.html

laxman cashing in

wi 2011

2nd test affected by rain

http://www.espncricinfo.com/west-indies-v-india-2011/engine/match/489227.html

3rd test affected by rain

http://www.espncricinfo.com/west-indies-v-india-2011/engine/match/489228.html

If we were to exclude all these draws except the rain affected matches, the indian batsman's averages would fall that's why I exclude draws in my analysis.

9/10 too much 8/10 would be right.
Click to expand...

You have included 15 matches out of 50+ tests where many were rain affected. So tell me how does it prove that draw tests are flat pitches?

And how do you prove that those that are won and lost are NOT flat pitches? It's all assumptions. You just can't take out drawn matches effort as it still would have tested batsmen's ability.
 
panther said:
I could add more but you get the point
Click to expand...

No I didn't get the point, as you haven't listed almost 100+ tests result of matches won and lost, and hasn't proved that those were played on tough wickets, you are just assuming! So go on make this list.
 
cricketworm said:
You have included 15 matches out of 50+ tests where many were rain affected. So tell me how does it prove that draw tests are flat pitches?

And how do you prove that those that are won and lost are NOT flat pitches? It's all assumptions. You just can't take out drawn matches effort as it still would have tested batsmen's ability.
Click to expand...

I only included drawn matches.
 
cricketworm said:
But does it make Cullinan's effort useless as per your point?

And what about rain affected matches? How do you plan to include them in your stat?
Click to expand...

majority of draws are not rain affected but if we wanted to find a certain batsman average with rain affected draws than we just add those runs on to his total runs in won and lost matches and divide by how many extra innings there was.
 
And many matches from your list are showing many one handed innings played in 4th inning. You can see that many batsmen had batted out of their skin to save test match!

Here are examples.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/nzvind2009/engine/match/366629.html

Does it make Ross Taylor's effort useless?

What about Sehwag's match saving 150?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ausvind/engine/match/291354.html

How can you discard this effort by just labeling it .. 'oh they are flat track bullies that's why you can't count them' !!! What does it even mean?
 
panther said:
I only included drawn matches.
Click to expand...

That's what I am asking you, how do you prove that those matches that are 'won and lost' played on non-flat pitch? Just because there was result, doesn't make it non-flat pitch!
 
panther said:
majority of draws are not rain affected but if we wanted to find a certain batsman average with rain affected draws than we just add those runs on to his total runs in won and lost matches and divide by how many extra innings there was.
Click to expand...

And who is going to do that? Unless you can't do them you can't discard that effort from your initial stat right? Means your initial stat of just 'won and loss' matches isn't the best to judge batsmen's effort.
 
cricketworm said:
And many matches from your list are showing many one handed innings played in 4th inning. You can see that many batsmen had batted out of their skin to save test match!

Here are examples.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/nzvind2009/engine/match/366629.html

Does it make Ross Taylor's effort useless?

What about Sehwag's match saving 150?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ausvind/engine/match/291354.html

How can you discard this effort by just labeling it .. 'oh they are flat track bullies that's why you can't count them' !!! What does it even mean?
Click to expand...

my mistake that 1st test was rain affected, last test is flat both teams racking up big scores.
 
panther said:
my mistake that 1st test was rain affected, last test is flat both teams racking up big scores.
Click to expand...

No other batsmen were able to reach even 50 in both tests, other than Ross and Viru, so how can you label that effort useless?
 
cricketworm said:
And who is going to do that? Unless you can't do them you can't discard that effort from your initial stat right? Means your initial stat of just 'won and loss' matches isn't the best to judge batsmen's effort.
Click to expand...

It's a good indicator although not 100%.
 
panther said:
It's a good indicator although not 100%.
Click to expand...

It's no where near 100%. it's blind assumptions to discredit batsmen's hard work. As I said before, if test cricket was just about winning and losing then vast majority of test cricket's record would have disappeared. And batsmen aren't the only aspect of the game that decides the outcome, it's depended on 11 player's contributions with bat, ball and field.

One just can't make assumptions of outcome where there are many factors involved. And this is just for one team that you are doing due to your bias thinking, what about 8 other team members' effort! Who is going to calculate that?

The best way to analysis is to watch those games again or read reports of the each games and see the conditions of the match, how batsmen have negated certain bowlers in particular condition etc. etc.
 
Last edited:
panther said:
are you sure?, there was 5 tons in that match
Click to expand...

Note in the last inning. 8 wickets were fallen in both circumstances. Had pitch condition and match conditions were that easy, those wickets shouldn't have fallen.
 
laxmans average outside the sc excluding minnows and draws is 33.67 if we were to add all the runs on to his current runs where rain affected the match significantly (less than 400 overs bowled in the match), his average would be

2088 + 918 ( runs in rain affected matches)

divided by total number of innings 67+ 18 ( rain affected match innings)

3006/85 = 35.36 so his average only went up 1.69, so laxman is a ftb outside asia.
 
Last edited:
panther said:
laxmans average outside the sc excluding minnows and draws is 33.67 if we were to add all the runs on to his current runs where rain affected the match significantly (less than 400 overs bowled in the match), his average would be

2088 + 918 ( runs in rain affected matches)

divided by total number of innings 67+ 18 ( rain affected match innings)

3006/85 = 35.36 so his average only went up 1.69, so laxman is a ftb outside asia.
Click to expand...

So, now you are going away from our discussion as you have no answer.

How do you prove matches he played in India are flat track, how do you prove that matches he played out side aren't flat track?

I can list many batsmen who has done well at home and not so good away, Here is M. Clarke http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...home_or_away=2;template=results;type=allround

who has done nothing much outside of Australia, and many knocks he played in Aus. were on flat tracks, do you see anyone nitpicking that ANALysing this way?
 
All this non sense aside, fact is only three SC batsmen have 50+ average outside SC and there is very good reasons for it. It's not easy to do so and batsmen who were able to do so are ATG. Match being draw or win or loss is hardly an issue when we are talking about scoring heavily over huge number of matches. That reflects how good batsmen have to be maintain 50+ average outside the SC if batsman learned his cricket in SC.

Forget about stats, if you have watched cricket you know that it's difficult for SC batsmen to score outside SC heavily and averages just support that observation. Same arguments holds true for English batsmen who have hard time playing on turners. I am laving out players from 30-50 years ago because England used to have turners in England at that time.
 
Last edited:
cricketworm said:
So, now you are going away from our discussion as you have no answer.

How do you prove matches he played in India are flat track, how do you prove that matches he played out side aren't flat track?

I can list many batsmen who has done well at home and not so good away, Here is M. Clarke http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...home_or_away=2;template=results;type=allround

who has done nothing much outside of Australia, and many knocks he played in Aus. were on flat tracks, do you see anyone nitpicking that ANALysing this way?
Click to expand...

you originally replied to my post on thease stats.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=batting

so I kept it to outside asia.

ok clarke

in asia average excluding minnows and draws is 35.94.

add runs due to rain affected macthes

647+ 57( runs in rain affected matches)

19+ 2 ( innings in rain affected matches)

704/21= 33.5

clarke is a ftb but his career is not finished so he can change this.
 
Last edited:
panther said:
you originally replied to my post on thease stats.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=batting

so I kept it to outside asia.

ok clarke

in asia average excluding minnows and draws is 35.94.

add runs due to rain affected macthes

647+ 57( runs in rain affected matches)

19+ 2 ( innings in rain affected matches)

704/21= 33.5

clarke is a ftb but his career is not finished so he can change this.
Click to expand...

There are many FTBs if you nitpick like that, and many players have barely played enough number of tests as much as Gavaskar, SRT, Dravid and Laxman played.

Anyway, you still have responded to my many queries I have posted above and proved nothing! Means you can't ignore the drawn test result and discard their performances. That is all.
 
cricketworm said:
There are many FTBs if you nitpick like that, and many players have barely played enough number of tests as much as Gavaskar, SRT, Dravid and Laxman played.

Anyway, you still have responded to my many queries I have posted above and proved nothing! Means you can't ignore the drawn test result and discard their performances. That is all.
Click to expand...

I have shown you 2 examples vvs and clarke and the difference between there averages in won+ lost games and won+lost games with rain affected draws is only 2-3 runs so my analysis is pretty accurate.
 
panther said:
I have shown you 2 examples vvs and clarke and the difference between there averages in won+ lost games and won+lost games with rain affected draws is only 2-3 runs so my analysis is pretty accurate.
Click to expand...

You haven't given proper response to any of these!


cricketworm said:
No I didn't get the point, as you haven't listed almost 100+ tests result of matches won and lost, and hasn't proved that those were played on tough wickets, you are just assuming! So go on make this list.
Click to expand...

cricketworm said:
And many matches from your list are showing many one handed innings played in 4th inning. You can see that many batsmen had batted out of their skin to save test match!

Here are examples.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/nzvind2009/engine/match/366629.html

Does it make Ross Taylor's effort useless?

What about Sehwag's match saving 150?

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ausvind/engine/match/291354.html

How can you discard this effort by just labeling it .. 'oh they are flat track bullies that's why you can't count them' !!! What does it even mean?
Click to expand...

cricketworm said:
That's what I am asking you, how do you prove that those matches that are 'won and lost' played on non-flat pitch? Just because there was result, doesn't make it non-flat pitch!
Click to expand...

cricketworm said:
And who is going to do that? Unless you can't do them you can't discard that effort from your initial stat right? Means your initial stat of just 'won and loss' matches isn't the best to judge batsmen's effort.
Click to expand...

cricketworm said:
No other batsmen were able to reach even 50 in both tests, other than Ross and Viru, so how can you label that effort useless?
Click to expand...

cricketworm said:
Note in the last inning. 8 wickets were fallen in both circumstances. Had pitch condition and match conditions were that easy, those wickets shouldn't have fallen.
Click to expand...
 
panther said:
draw 9/10 times pitch was flat.

india tour of aus 2003/4

1st test flat = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64059.html

ganguly cashing in
This was not a flat pitch, India took a 1st innings lead in this test.
4th test flat = draw

srt, laxman dravid all cashing in

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64062.html

2008

4th test flat pitch = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ausvind/engine/match/291354.html

srt and sehwag cashing in.
India collapsed on in the 2nd innings , Sehwag's ton saved the match.
england 2002

2nd test flat pitch = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63998.html

sehwag, dravid srt and ganguly all cashing in.
India again saved the test here.
4th test flat pitch=draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64000.html

dravid cashing in

england 2007

1st test rain ruined result.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/engvind/engine/match/258468.html

3rd test flat pitch = draw

India DOMINATED this test, might have won it but England saved the test.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/engvind/engine/match/258470.html

various indian batsman cashing in.

sa 2001

rained ruined possible result

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63952.html

sa 2011

3rd test drawn rain affected match

http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-india-2010/engine/match/463148.html

nz 2009

2nd test flat pitch = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/nzvind2009/engine/match/386496.html

gg, dravid and laxman cashing in.
India followed on and had to save this match.
3rd test flat pitch = draw
http://www.espncricinfo.com/nzvind2009/engine/match/366629.html
gg cashing in
This is SHAMEFUL. This is a WASHOUT which India should have won.
wi 2002

1st test flat pitch = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63984.html

dravid, srt cashing in

4th test flat pitch = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63987.html

laxman, dravid cashin in

wi 2006

1st test flat pitch = draw

http://www.espncricinfo.com/wivind/engine/match/239920.html

jaffer cashing in
There was one wkt. left for Indian win.
2nd test rain affected match

http://www.espncricinfo.com/wivind/engine/match/239921.html
Again India needed one wkt. to win , rain interfered.
3rd test flat pitch = draw


http://www.espncricinfo.com/wivind/engine/match/239922.html

laxman cashing in
India saved this test.
wi 2011

2nd test affected by rain

http://www.espncricinfo.com/west-indies-v-india-2011/engine/match/489227.html

3rd test affected by rain

http://www.espncricinfo.com/west-indies-v-india-2011/engine/match/489228.html

If we were to exclude all these draws except the rain affected matches, the indian batsman's averages would fall that's why I exclude draws in my analysis.

9/10 too much 8/10 would be right.
Click to expand...
INDIA EITHER SAVED OR DOMINATED (MIGHT HAVE WON) MOST OF THOSE TESTS .
BARELY 3-4 ARE DULL DRAWS.
YOUR ANALYSIS IS MASSIVELY FLAWED.
how many matches have Pakistan drawn after 2000 outside Asia? that number is far lesser than the Indian ones.
 
Last edited:
Lethalweapon said:
You proved you are biased.
India dominated half of those tests and could have won those.
Click to expand...

1st test my mistake it was affected by rain.

how did sehwag save the match? , when aus had not even batted yet for there 2nd innings?

@India saved the test, doesn't make the wicket any flatter 1398 runs scored for the loss of 28 wickets = 49 runs per batsman.

@engalnd saved the match, again flat wicket 48 runs per batsman average in that game.

@ india followed on and saved the match , another flat wicket 60 runs per batsman was the average during this match.

@ this is shameful, already admitted mistake in above post somewhere.

@ there was 1 wicket ,left pitch can be considered flat 41 runs per batsman average during this test.

@ again india needed 1 wicket to win, my mistake

@ india saved this test, another flat wicket 47 runs per batsman during this match.
 
Last edited:
panther said:
1st test my mistake it was affected by rain.

how did sehwag save the match? , when aus had not even batted yet for there 2nd innings?

@India saved the test, doesn't make the wicket any flatter 1398 runs scored for the loss of 28 wickets = 49 runs per batsman.

@engalnd saved the match, again flat wicket 48 runs per batsman average in that game.

@ india followed on and saved the match , another flat wicket 60 runs per batsman was the average during this match.
Follow on was on the 3rd day. India had to dig in for 2 whole days.
@ this is shameful, already admitted mistake in above post somewhere.

@ there was 1 wicket ,left pitch can be considered flat 41 runs per batsman average during this test.
Windies took a 130 runs lead, India fought back and nearly won the test..
@ again india needed 1 wicket to win, my mistake

@ india saved this test, another flat wicket 47 runs per batsman during this match.
Click to expand...

Without Sehwag, India would have been bowled out for 150 and Aussies would have won it.
See carefully what the other batsman did in the second innings.. See ADELAIDE'S HISTORY too.

So you give ZERO importance to the runs a batsman scores saving a test? Very unfair.
 
Last edited:
Lethalweapon said:
INDIA EITHER SAVED OR DOMINATED (MIGHT HAVE WON) MOST OF THOSE TESTS .
BARELY 3-4 ARE DULL DRAWS.
YOUR ANALYSIS IS MASSIVELY FLAWED.
how many matches have Pakistan drawn after 2000 outside Asia? that number is far lesser than the Indian ones.
Click to expand...

40 matches, 10 wins, 23 losses and 7 draws.
 
Lethalweapon said:
Without Sehwag, India would have been bowled out for 150 and Aussies would have won it.
See carefully what the other batsman did in the second innings..

So you give ZERO importance to the runs a batsman scores saving a test? Very unfair.
Click to expand...

there would not be enough overs left for aus to chase down the target lol, and you can not be sure they would have.
 
Lethalweapon said:
Without Sehwag, India would have been bowled out for 150 and Aussies would have won it.
See carefully what the other batsman did in the second innings.. See ADELAIDE'S HISTORY too.

So you give ZERO importance to the runs a batsman scores saving a test? Very unfair.
Click to expand...

were the runs scored on a flat pitch or not?

are Indian batsman the biggest ftbs?
 
panther said:
there would not be enough overs left for aus to chase down the target lol, and you can not be sure they would have.
Click to expand...
The collapse happened in the morning session on day 5.Sehwag played through the post lunch session till tea and hit only one 4. Otherwise, India would have been bowled out after lunch,
Aus would have batted before tea and would have won it before stumps.
They were capable of getting even 4 runs per over with Hayden,Symonds and Gilchrist. Got 250 odd vs SA in under 2 sessions in 2006.
 
Last edited:
panther said:
were the runs scored on a flat pitch or not?

are Indian batsman the biggest ftbs?
Click to expand...

None of those pitches are close to flat Asian pitches. Oval in Eng and Adelaide provide bounce to tall bowlers and spinners. If a team bats poorly , those pitches don't look flat.
In that 8-0 those 2 pitches were not flat , isn't it?
Indians are big ftb's in Asia , not outside Asia.
 
Lethalweapon said:
None of those pitches are close to flat Asian pitches. Oval in Eng and Adelaide provide bounce to tall bowlers and spinners. If a team bats poorly , those pitches don't look flat.
In that 8-0 those 2 pitches were not flat , isn't it?
Indians are big ftb's in Asia , not outside Asia.
Click to expand...

A big misconception is that people think flat pitches are only prepared in asia.
 
panther said:
did I say it makes the wicket tough, a pitch which brings about a result can not be flat 9/10.
Click to expand...

Again another out of air presumption 9/10?? Or is it 9.1/10? Or 8.5/10?

You can't just predict this stuff out of air and discard the batting performance totally. You didn't respond to those two matches I showed where only two batsmen were able to score 100s and rest couldn't even reach 50! What does it tell you about the match situation pitch on that particular time?

How will you take out the rain affected drawn matches and add that to your initial stat for all the matches?
 
cricketworm said:
Again another out of air presumption 9/10?? Or is it 9.1/10? Or 8.5/10?

You can't just predict this stuff out of air and discard the batting performance totally. You didn't respond to those two matches I showed where only two batsmen were able to score 100s and rest couldn't even reach 50! What does it tell you about the match situation pitch on that particular time?

How will you take out the rain affected drawn matches and add that to your initial stat for all the matches?
Click to expand...

I admitted the ross taylor 100 I made a mistake, the match was affected by rain.

but the sehwag ton was on a flat track 50 runs was the average per wicket in that test.

regarding the last bit check post 519
 
panther said:
I admitted the ross taylor 100 I made a mistake, the match was affected by rain.

but the sehwag ton was on a flat track 50 runs was the average per wicket in that test.

regarding the last bit check post 519
Click to expand...

In last inning no other batsmen were able to score 50 and 8 wickets were fallen and one guy has scored 150+ How can you prove the pitch was flat at the time when he made those runs?

How did you get the Laxman's runs in rain affected matches?

What about other 100+ cricketers? Who is going to do analysis for them?

What about Sunil Gavaskar's test at Georgetown? How can you discard that batting performance when you compare his performances with other batsmen?

I can list many many matches like that for each players! So, that doesn't prove that pitch was flat! What about Cullinan's performance? How can you discard that 100?

If you start considering for each batsmen their average will get massive boost! Means you can't discard those performances. And your analysis is flawed!
 
cricketworm said:
In last inning no other batsmen were able to score 50 and 8 wickets were fallen and one guy has scored 150+ How can you prove the pitch was flat at the time when he made those runs?

How did you get the Laxman's runs in rain affected matches?

What about other 100+ cricketers? Who is going to do analysis for them?

What about Sunil Gavaskar's test at Georgetown? How can you discard that batting performance when you compare his performances with other batsmen?

I can list many many matches like that for each players! So, that doesn't prove that pitch was flat! What about Cullinan's performance? How can you discard that 100?

If you start considering for each batsmen their average will get massive boost! Means you can't discard those performances. And your analysis is flawed!
Click to expand...

Got stats from cricinfo, filtered for all draws you can do it yourself but it's pretty long.

cullinans performance will not be discarded because it was a rain affected match.
 
panther said:
Got stats from cricinfo, filtered for all draws you can do it yourself but it's pretty long.

cullinans performance will not be discarded because it was a rain affected match.
Click to expand...

So, how do you plan to add rain affected matches for each batsmen? That means you have to add all drawn and tied test matches as well.
 
cricketworm said:
So, how do you plan to add rain affected matches for each batsmen? That means you have to add all drawn and tied test matches as well.
Click to expand...

Have to do 1 batsman at a time.

For laxman I filtered it to all draws outside asia.

Than checked scorecard for each match cheeked his scores and innings, also whether the match was affected by rain significantly, than add it all up( runs and innings)

add on to total runs( in rain affected draws) to runs in won and lost matches outside asia.

same for innings.

than divide( runs/innings) and you get your answer.
 
panther said:
Have to do 1 batsman at a time.

For laxman I filtered it to all draws outside asia.

Than checked scorecard for each match cheeked his scores and innings, also whether the match was affected by rain significantly, than add it all up( runs and innings)

add on to total runs( in rain affected draws) to runs in won and lost matches outside asia.

same for innings.

than divide( runs/innings) and you get your answer.
Click to expand...

So, you don't have your answer for other batsmen, that makes your analysis useless. You can't say since Laxman stat work it will work for other batsmen as well.

And that doesn't change the fact of lots of other assumptions you are making such as that just because it's draw you can't discard that batting performances, you have no data of how was the pitch? neither you have data for how was the pitch for 'win or lose' matches, you are just assuming.

Analysis is based on assumptions without any fact, ergo your analysis is massively flawed!
 
cricketworm said:
So, you don't have your answer for other batsmen, that makes your analysis useless. You can't say since Laxman stat work it will work for other batsmen as well.

And that doesn't change the fact of lots of other assumptions you are making such as that just because it's draw you can't discard that batting performances, you have no data of how was the pitch? neither you have data for how was the pitch for 'win or lose' matches, you are just assuming.

Analysis is based on assumptions without any fact, ergo your analysis is massively flawed!
Click to expand...

I will do the same for other Indian batsman probably over the weekend.

goodnight.
 
panther said:
I will do the same for other Indian batsman probably over the weekend.

goodnight.
Click to expand...

You just can't possibly have data for all the pitch types! It's just impossible! You are not trying to accept the fact that you can't dismiss players performances just because it was a draw test, that's just absurd.
 
How can you discard Laxman's inning he played when no other batsmen even reached 50 in first inning! India would have lost that test if it wasn't for him!

http://www.espncricinfo.com/wivind/engine/match/239922.html

There are many many examples like that in test, for each batsmen! You can't just wipe off this performances and call it useless it was on a flat track!! That's just absurd.
 
cricketworm said:
How can you discard Laxman's inning he played when no other batsmen even reached 50 in first inning! India would have lost that test if it wasn't for him!

http://www.espncricinfo.com/wivind/engine/match/239922.html

There are many many examples like that in test, for each batsmen! You can't just wipe off this performances and call it useless it was on a flat track!! That's just absurd.
Click to expand...

That innings was not discarded in my analysis.
 
panther said:
That innings was not discarded in my analysis.
Click to expand...

I took random match from your selection of your long lists, where you said these innings were played on flat pitches! But does that make that inning less important for team's sack?

I can give many matches like that for each batsmen where you missed them out since you are labeling them draw aka useless inning.

And one can't possibly go by each and every single matches for all the players! All you are doing assuming.
 
Out for the first time in the series. That's 382 runs between dismissals. He has batted for 16 hours and 55 minutes, I am being told

Pujara :bow:
 
James said:
Out for the first time in the series. That's 382 runs between dismissals. He has batted for 16 hours and 55 minutes, I am being told

Pujara :bow:
Click to expand...

Some other instances when batsmen batted for more than 1000 mins

Longest cumulative time between two dismissals in Test cricket [1000 minutes or more] [6]

  • The world record of batting for the longest cumulative time between dismissals is held by West Indian Shivnarine Chanderpaul, who remained at the crease for 25 hours and 13 minutes [1513 minutes] and scored 362 runs in four innings. [see Table above].
  • South Africa's Jacques Kallis, remained at the crease for 1246 minutes and scored 456 runs in four innings. [see Table above]. Kallis sequence of scores and the time taken by him at the crease in the four consecutive innings respectively is: 157* [381 min] & 42* [65 min] at Harare; 189* [581 min] at Bulawayo and now 68 [219 min] at Bloemfontein.
  • Sachin Tendulkar took 1224 minutes for his 497 runs [see Table above]. His sequence of scores and the time taken by him at the crease in the four consecutive innings respectively is: 241* & 60 [in 613 min & 108 min respectively], 194 [in 493 min] and 2 [in 10 min].
  • Former England captain Nasser Hussain also remained at the crease for 1022 minutes and scored 231 runs. He had scores of 70* [in 302 min at Port Elizabeth, Dec 1999]; 146* [in 635 min at Durban, Dec 1999] and 15 [in 85 min at Cape Town, January 2000] all against South Africa before being dismissed.
  • Rahul Dravid also has 473 runs in 1161 minutes [see Table above] His sequence of scores and the time taken by him at the crease in the four consecutive innings respectively is: 41* [in 50 min], 200* & 70* [in 551 min 152 min respectively], 162 [in 408 min]
  • Shoaib Mohammad also had 308 runs in 1007 minutes; 203* [in 656 min vs New Zealand at Karachi in 1990-91], 105 [in 351 min vs New Zealand at Lahore in 1990-91].
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cricketworm said:
I took random match from your selection of your long lists, where you said these innings were played on flat pitches! But does that make that inning less important for team's sack?

I can give many matches like that for each batsmen where you missed them out since you are labeling them draw aka useless inning.

And one can't possibly go by each and every single matches for all the players! All you are doing assuming.
Click to expand...

It was rain affected I included it in my analysis.
 
What a solid batsman this guy is turning out to be. The next Dravid?
 
If Cheteshwar Pujara Continues To Play As Good As This And Long As Sachin Tendulkar He Will Break If Not All Then Most Of Sachin Tendulkar's Records

Another God In The Making Start Worshiping
 
khan1992 said:
If Cheteshwar Pujara Continues To Play As Good As This And Long As Sachin Tendulkar He Will Break If Not All Then Most Of Sachin Tendulkar's Records

Another God In The Making Start Worshiping
Click to expand...

:))

Ah! these new born cricket watchers :yk
 
he is amazing at home doubt, but beforre crowning him the next Sachin, lets see what he does abroad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Buffet
The role of the Ashes Test series in defining the legacy of England and Australia players
Replies
21
Views
384
Buffet
Buffet
Buffet
Joe Root versus Hashim Amla in the Test format
2
Replies
158
Views
3K
atreus
atreus
MenInG
POTW: Buffet
Replies
21
Views
362
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
FearlessRoar
South Africa (315/6) defeat Afghanistan (208) comprehensively by 107 runs to start their ICC Champions Trophy 2025 campaign on a high
4 5 6
Replies
453
Views
3K
jnaveen1980
J
BouncerGuy
  • Locked
Pakistan vs West Indies | 2nd Test | Multan | January 25-29 | Pre-Match Discussion
Replies
65
Views
1K
FearlessRoar
FearlessRoar
Back
Top