Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[fineleg]

and you agree with SRT and VVS not being treated as equal when it comes to test cricket when they bench VVS and not SRT to accomodate YS in that Mumbai test, though VVS has as many if not better history of coming with better knocks than SRT since 2001 or there after in matches we won or have drawn in critical situations.

No, I do not agree with this. Because SRT and VVS have IMHO same no. of match winning/match saving innings since 2001. One was on the decline. The other was as inconsistent as it gets. So, it was a toss up between SRT and VVS if YS had to be accomodated and was a fair captain's choice, either way.

It is not what you think or I think, it is that they will bench or drop VVS for a series and not SRT even it merits it, leaving the Mumbai test which was just one instance actually 2 if I count Mohali test as well.  That to me is wrong.  What is good for VVS should be good for SRT or SG for that matter or RD.  I am not sure if that is the case.

Well, All I said was that I do not agree with your opinion that VVS was unfairly benched in favor of SRT to accomodate YS in both the Mohali and Mumbai tests. Since, both VVS and SRT hae same number of match winning/saving innings since 2001 and VVS was also part of the Karachi and CapeTown debacles that SRT was a part of, there is no reason to believe that VVS would have fared any better than SRT and saved the Mumbai test.

No you are just going on and on about SRT's place though history recently proves he sucks big time in situations that matter and still has a gauranteed place.  Yes when SRT despite that gets a free pass then someone like VVS does not then it is a case of being unfair in comparision, whoever it is weather it is VVS or anyone else.  Simple as that.  SRT should be treated for what he is today not for what he  was in 1998.

P.S.:- This is not just about Mumbai or Mohali tests I am talking about but in general what is happening.

Yes.
SRT has become such a player - that no selector / BCCI official / Captain / Coach can dare to drop him. In the process, other consistent performers have to make the way. It is highly unfortunate that VVS has got the raw treatment, even when he was not doing badly.
See we are carrying baggage. SRT can not be dropped; SG can not be dropped. So out of 4   slots (middle order) - one is place is left - and  that too, if we are playing with six batsmen. So - our entire middle order is fragile (if we play with 5 batsmen - 2  openers; RD, SRT, SG). Now if we play with six batsmen - then, VVS / YRS are contenders.
We had the same arguments by GC in zim series - that how can we fit in players doing well (that time - YRS / kaif); but the entire issue was diverted and blown away in the controversy. But if we look at cricketing reasons - the key issue is still the same.

Now, BCCI must rigidly follow rotation policy as well. This will help in bringing young players.

Did you just say that GC was right afterall ? Nice knowing you mate

LOL 

Prafulla,
Fear not - express ur opinions freely. Clique will provide u support

[Prafulla]

and you agree with SRT and VVS not being treated as equal when it comes to test cricket when they bench VVS and not SRT to accomodate YS in that Mumbai test, though VVS has as many if not better history of coming with better knocks than SRT since 2001 or there after in matches we won or have drawn in critical situations.

No, I do not agree with this. Because SRT and VVS have IMHO same no. of match winning/match saving innings since 2001. One was on the decline. The other was as inconsistent as it gets. So, it was a toss up between SRT and VVS if YS had to be accomodated and was a fair captain's choice, either way.

It is not what you think or I think, it is that they will bench or drop VVS for a series and not SRT even it merits it, leaving the Mumbai test which was just one instance actually 2 if I count Mohali test as well.  That to me is wrong.  What is good for VVS should be good for SRT or SG for that matter or RD.  I am not sure if that is the case.

Well, All I said was that I do not agree with your opinion that VVS was unfairly benched in favor of SRT to accomodate YS in both the Mohali and Mumbai tests. Since, both VVS and SRT hae same number of match winning/saving innings since 2001 and VVS was also part of the Karachi and CapeTown debacles that SRT was a part of, there is no reason to believe that VVS would have fared any better than SRT and saved the Mumbai test.

No you are just going on and on about SRT's place though history recently proves he sucks big time in situations that matter and still has a gauranteed place.  Yes when SRT despite that gets a free pass then someone like VVS does not then it is a case of being unfair in comparision, whoever it is weather it is VVS or anyone else.  Simple as that.  SRT should be treated for what he is today not for what he  was in 1998.

P.S.:- This is not just about Mumbai or Mohali tests I am talking about but in general what is happening.

Yes.
SRT has become such a player - that no selector / BCCI official / Captain / Coach can dare to drop him. In the process, other consistent performers have to make the way. It is highly unfortunate that VVS has got the raw treatment, even when he was not doing badly.
See we are carrying baggage. SRT can not be dropped; SG can not be dropped. So out of 4   slots (middle order) - one is place is left - and  that too, if we are playing with six batsmen. So - our entire middle order is fragile (if we play with 5 batsmen - 2  openers; RD, SRT, SG). Now if we play with six batsmen - then, VVS / YRS are contenders.
We had the same arguments by GC in zim series - that how can we fit in players doing well (that time - YRS / kaif); but the entire issue was diverted and blown away in the controversy. But if we look at cricketing reasons - the key issue is still the same.

Now, BCCI must rigidly follow rotation policy as well. This will help in bringing young players.

Did you just say that GC was right afterall ? Nice knowing you mate

Yes - GC was right on that issue. It was just politically blown for insecurities of the players. Or one may say that - GC did not handle it properly through selection process (but knowing our selectors - could he really force selectors to drop non performing players !!)

Notwithstanding with the fact, how GC / SG chosen to handle the cricketing issue - but  today, we are still at the same issue. Unfortunately - our selectors, must be making this decision at each stage; but they do not - and then, it is left to emotional media/fans (either side) to put forth their views. Politically speaking, rotation policy is the best possible way forward in immediate run; and on strictly cricketing reasons - performance must be best way forward (no need for rotation policy); and emotionally speaking - media / fans will always keep on talking either sides.

[toney]

Prafulla,
Your posts make a lot of sense to me. You must be spot on then

Seriously, I think you are wishing for a lot that will be hard to happen in Indian cricket. Whether an SRT or SG or any other player who enjoys a lot of support, the board/selectors dont have the guts to take strong decisions. I am not saying that they should be dropped (which is another discussion that we have several times in a day, all aided by stats so painstakingly presented that at times, I feel that somebody new to cricket may feel that to understand the game, you need a minimum of a post graduate degree in statistics). The selectors wont dare to even contemplate such decisions because:
- they dont have the guts to take on the regional boards or the wrath of stupid fans
- they are themselves part of this system which creates such a mess.

Obviously, the change has to start at the top but you know as well as anyone how likely that is.

[Prafulla]

Prafulla,
Your posts make a lot of sense to me. You must be spot on then

Seriously, I think you are wishing for a lot that will be hard to happen in Indian cricket. Whether an SRT or SG or any other player who enjoys a lot of support, the board/selectors dont have the guts to take strong decisions. I am not saying that they should be dropped (which is another discussion that we have several times in a day, all aided by stats so painstakingly presented that at times, I feel that somebody new to cricket may feel that to understand the game, you need a minimum of a post graduate degree in statistics). The selectors wont dare to even contemplate such decisions because:
- they dont have the guts to take on the regional boards or the wrath of stupid fans
- they are themselves part of this system which creates such a mess.

Obviously, the change has to start at the top but you know as well as anyone how likely that is.

Yes - you are very right. The changes must start at top. We must have experienced cricketers as selectors (as paid ones, without regional bias / responsibility). But as you pointed out - we are expecting too much out of our politically run BCCI. Sometimes, good leaders choose adversity to make tough decision, as that moment - media / fans also support them. For example - just after WC - if non performers are dropped (by selection board), then many few would have raised their concerns.
Emotionally speaking, most fans / countrymen want Team to do well. They really do not bother, as to who is in the team and who is out (as long as team is doing well). So - BCCI must put the focus back on winning and in the process, must find good replacements over the period, in phased manner.

[justforkix]

Well, All I said was that I do not agree with your opinion that VVS was unfairly benched in favor of SRT to accomodate YS in both the Mohali and Mumbai tests. Since, both VVS and SRT hae same number of match winning/saving innings since 2001 and VVS was also part of the Karachi and CapeTown debacles that SRT was a part of, there is no reason to believe that VVS would have fared any better than SRT and saved the Mumbai test.

No you are just going on and on about SRT's place though history recently proves he sucks big time in situations that matter and still has a gauranteed place.  Yes when SRT despite that gets a free pass then someone like VVS does not then it is a case of being unfair in comparision, whoever it is weather it is VVS or anyone else.  Simple as that.  SRT should be treated for what he is today not for what he  was in 1998.

P.S.:- This is not just about Mumbai or Mohali tests I am talking about but in general what is happening.

The discussion was whether VVS was unfairly treated w.r.t. SRT for a test place. I don't think so. VVS was dropped only on 2 occasions in Mohali and Mumbai since 2001. Otherwise, he's been a regular in the XI. So, there is no question of SRT getting a free pass, while VVS gets treated unfairly. Also, it has to be about Mumbai and Mohali only, since those are the 2 instances of VVS being left out in the XI.

No. I am not going on and on about SRT's place thorugh history. To remind you again, VVS was also part of the Karachi, Capetown, Bangalore debacles, which SRT was also part of. So, there is no reason to believe that VVS would have made a difference, if he had been included in place of SRT. So, VVS sucks big time in these situations as much as SRT.

To reiterate, it was really a toss-up between SRT and VVS if YS had to accomodated, and since it was only a toss-up and not a clear case of choosing VVS or SRT, the captain made his choice and it was a fair decision.

And finally, VVS also has to be treated for what he is today and not what he was in 2001.

[keep-it-cool]

As things stand today, my pecking order for tests (assuming WJ and KKD open) would be RD, SG, VVS, YS, SRT. This is, of course, from the options available in the test squad. I would have personally liked MK to be in the squad on the basis of his TEST performances over the last two years. He would, in that case, be my number 3 pick.

[justforkix]

All Maharathis should be treated for what they are *today* - no what they were in past

Assessment of current form during team selection should be one of the most critical job of a selector!
(cue for sgusa to post "Wake up!")

It is difficult to judge this at the start of a new season with very little cricket played in the last few weeks.

RD is pencilled in for tests for now.

Can we say that SRT is in form? - he played well in the 20/20, did badly in the WC, did decently in the WI/SL ODIs, average in the SA tests.
Can we say VVS is in form? - above average in SA tests, but 4 months back.
Is YS in form? - decent in WC, OK in WI/SL ODIs. injured before.
Is SG in form? - avg (struggling) WC, good WI/SL ODIs, good in tests in SA.

Therefore, IMO, it is a fair decision by RD to leave any of the above 4 out in the BD series.

[ramshorns]

Well, All I said was that I do not agree with your opinion that VVS was unfairly benched in favor of SRT to accomodate YS in both the Mohali and Mumbai tests. Since, both VVS and SRT hae same number of match winning/saving innings since 2001 and VVS was also part of the Karachi and CapeTown debacles that SRT was a part of, there is no reason to believe that VVS would have fared any better than SRT and saved the Mumbai test.

No you are just going on and on about SRT's place though history recently proves he sucks big time in situations that matter and still has a gauranteed place.  Yes when SRT despite that gets a free pass then someone like VVS does not then it is a case of being unfair in comparision, whoever it is weather it is VVS or anyone else.  Simple as that.  SRT should be treated for what he is today not for what he  was in 1998.

P.S.:- This is not just about Mumbai or Mohali tests I am talking about but in general what is happening.

The discussion was whether VVS was unfairly treated w.r.t. SRT for a test place. I don't think so. VVS was dropped only on 2 occasions in Mohali and Mumbai since 2001. Otherwise, he's been a regular in the XI. So, there is no question of SRT getting a free pass, while VVS gets treated unfairly. Also, it has to be about Mumbai and Mohali only, since those are the 2 instances of VVS being left out in the XI.

No. I am not going on and on about SRT's place thorugh history. To remind you again, VVS was also part of the Karachi, Capetown, Bangalore debacles, which SRT was also part of. So, there is no reason to believe that VVS would have made a difference, if he had been included in place of SRT. So, VVS sucks big time in these situations as much as SRT.
To reiterate, it was really a toss-up between SRT and VVS if YS had to accomodated, and since it was only a toss-up and not a clear case of choosing VVS or SRT, the captain made his choice and it was a fair decision.

And finally, VVS also has to be treated for what he is today and not what he was in 2001.

Actually VVS has that Mohali test where he got us out from 18 for 3 and saved us the match.   If VVS too got out in the situation we would had added Mohali to those 3 debacles.  So for me there is a reason to believe that if he could have played for SRT we could have saved that Mumbai test or had a better chance.  I will stick to my belief based on a reason than making a general statement like there is no gaurantee that VVS could have done better than SRT.  Atleast he has Eden gardens like knocks from 2001 and to a lesser extent the Mohali like knocks and the Wanderers kind of knocks to believe his success rates in 2nd innings are better than SRT who is down right pathetic, when we have a crisis situation.

Also Sachin getting a free pass is not based on one or two incidents because those were only the 2 cases they went for 5 bats or should I say 3 middle order bats.  I am saying that when they play 3 middle order bats, SRT cannot be an automatic as he made out to be given his dismal record in the recent years and history says that with VVS you have an odd chance of drawing a match while with SRT it is almost zero.

To end this if VVS was treated for what he was in 2001 he would have played ahead of SRT but that was not the case as was proven.

My main argument is not even between VVS and SRT.  They will drop VVS or even a Sehwag or a YS or a Ganguly if the situation demands and with SRT that is not the case and it is plain wrong.  I hope you see where I am coming from in this and agree with me that should change for the good of the team.

[ramshorns]

and you agree with SRT and VVS not being treated as equal when it comes to test cricket when they bench VVS and not SRT to accomodate YS in that Mumbai test, though VVS has as many if not better history of coming with better knocks than SRT since 2001 or there after in matches we won or have drawn in critical situations.

No, I do not agree with this. Because SRT and VVS have IMHO same no. of match winning/match saving innings since 2001. One was on the decline. The other was as inconsistent as it gets. So, it was a toss up between SRT and VVS if YS had to be accomodated and was a fair captain's choice, either way.

It is not what you think or I think, it is that they will bench or drop VVS for a series and not SRT even it merits it, leaving the Mumbai test which was just one instance actually 2 if I count Mohali test as well.  That to me is wrong.  What is good for VVS should be good for SRT or SG for that matter or RD.  I am not sure if that is the case.

Well, All I said was that I do not agree with your opinion that VVS was unfairly benched in favor of SRT to accomodate YS in both the Mohali and Mumbai tests. Since, both VVS and SRT hae same number of match winning/saving innings since 2001 and VVS was also part of the Karachi and CapeTown debacles that SRT was a part of, there is no reason to believe that VVS would have fared any better than SRT and saved the Mumbai test.

No you are just going on and on about SRT's place though history recently proves he sucks big time in situations that matter and still has a gauranteed place.  Yes when SRT despite that gets a free pass then someone like VVS does not then it is a case of being unfair in comparision, whoever it is weather it is VVS or anyone else.  Simple as that.  SRT should be treated for what he is today not for what he  was in 1998.

P.S.:- This is not just about Mumbai or Mohali tests I am talking about but in general what is happening.

Yes.
SRT has become such a player - that no selector / BCCI official / Captain / Coach can dare to drop him. In the process, other consistent performers have to make the way. It is highly unfortunate that VVS has got the raw treatment, even when he was not doing badly.
See we are carrying baggage. SRT can not be dropped; SG can not be dropped. So out of 4   slots (middle order) - one is place is left - and  that too, if we are playing with six batsmen. So - our entire middle order is fragile (if we play with 5 batsmen - 2  openers; RD, SRT, SG). Now if we play with six batsmen - then, VVS / YRS are contenders.
We had the same arguments by GC in zim series - that how can we fit in players doing well (that time - YRS / kaif); but the entire issue was diverted and blown away in the controversy. But if we look at cricketing reasons - the key issue is still the same.

Now, BCCI must rigidly follow rotation policy as well. This will help in bringing young players.

Very valid points.

[justforkix]

Actually VVS has that Mohali test where he got us out from 18 for 3 and saved us the match.   If VVS too got out in the situation we would had added Mohali to those 3 debacles.  So for me there is a reason to believe that if he could have played for SRT we could have saved that Mumbai test or had a better chance.  I will stick to my belief based on a reason than making a general statement like there is no gaurantee that VVS could have done better than SRT.  Atleast he has Eden gardens like knocks from 2001 and to a lesser extent the Mohali like knocks and the Wanderers kind of knocks to believe his success rates in 2nd innings are better than SRT who is down right pathetic, when we have a crisis situation.

I have already explained why I discount the Mohali innings from being a match saving one. 16 wickets fell in 4+ days for 1100 runs. Wanderers happened after Mumbai. One can't make a choice by looking at the future. So, all that is left is 281 in 2001. I believe miracles can happen only once in a player's career. So, my comments are also based on reasons and do not become general statements without logic just because you did not read my reasoning in my prior posts or did not agree with those reasons. 1 innings for VVS vs. 0 innings for SRT does not make VVS success rate too much better than SRT.

Anyways, both of us know where we stand on this. Agree to disagree here.

Also Sachin getting a free pass is not based on one or two incidents because those were only the 2 cases they went for 5 bats or should I say 3 middle order bats.  I am saying that when they play 3 middle order bats, SRT cannot be an automatic as he made out to be given his dismal record in the recent years and history says that with VVS you have an odd chance of drawing a match while with SRT it is almost zero.

To end this if VVS was treated for what he was in 2001 he would have played ahead of SRT but that was not the case as was proven.

According to the reasons given above, I reiterate that there was a fair case to choose either VVS or SRT in both Mohali and Mumbai, the 2 instances where VVS was dropped. These instances do not show a bias against VVS and bias for SRT and also do not indicate a free pass to SRT. And yes, both were treated for what they were in 2006 and it was really a toss-up at that time.

Again, agree to disagree.

My main argument is not even between VVS and SRT.  They will drop VVS or even a Sehwag or a YS or a Ganguly if the situation demands and with SRT that is not the case and it is plain wrong.  I hope you see where I am coming from in this and agree with me that should change for the good of the team.

I have never disagreed with this at any point of time. All players should be treated based on current form and not based on their cricketing history. Only then India can make progress as a cricket team.

[rajesh]

completely agree with u jfk on this vvs vs srt debate. I agree with Ram's argument that srt shld be treated on par with others but disagree with him on the imporatnce he gives to VVS batting...

Both VVS and SRT are not what they were even couple of years back ..
VVS in his modern avatar of slow and steady batting actually has lost his touch of 2001/2004 as is the case with SRT who more and more looks like he is repeating the kapil's last few years (After aus)

[inoc]

Rams

I went through the whole of this thread and would have not bothered to answer you if you had said that you felt VVS would have done India more justice than SRT as an extension of your personal assessment.

You, however, suggested that the probability of VVS performing was better than SRT when he (VVS) was dropped, suggesting that VVS performed much better in certain situations than SRT. Here is a part of one of your posts. There have been many in this line of thinking.

The above inning is exactly the kind of matches we lost at Mumbai, Karachi and CapeTown.  What bugged me most was they dropped VVS to play Yuvraj in that Mumbai test when the recent history showed relatively speaking he should have been pencilled in after RD as far as batsman were concered and if they had to play Yuvraj they should have dropped SRT for that test.

So lets look at it properly rather than relying on memory particularly ones that are six years away..

Since you mentioned recent history lets look at the last ten matches India lost.

These of course include two of the three tests you keep mentioning to highlight the failures of SRT where another (VVS) is never mentioned as a part of the team in these tests but somehow the reasoning is that if he were there instead of SRT he would win/save test matches.

Nevertheless,

1.

3rd Test  v SA  in SA  2006/07 at Cape Town
VVS 13, 1
SRT 64, 14


2.

2nd Test  v SA  in SA  2006/07 at Durban
India chasing 354
VVS 50,15
SRT 63,0


3.

3rd Test v ENG in Ind 2005/06 at Mumbai
VVS didn’t play
SRT 1, 34 (Top score in 100 all out)

4.

3rd Test  v Pak in Pak 2005/06 at Karachi

VVS 19, 21.
SRT 23,26

5.

3rd Test v PAK in Ind  V Pak 2004/05 at Bangalore

VVS 79, 5
SRT 41, 16

6.
3rd Test v AUS in Ind 2004/05 at Nagpur

VVS 13,2
SRT 8, 2

7.

1st Test  v AUS in Ind 2004/05 at Bangalore

VVS 31, 3

8.
2nd Test PAK in Pak 2003/04 at Lahore
VVS 11, 13
SRT 2, 8

9.

3rd Test  in Aus 2003/04 at Melbourne
VVS 19, 18
SRT 0,44

10.
2nd Test  in NZ  2002/03 at Hamilton

VVS 23, 4
SRT 9, 32


As far as second innings scores go VVS doesn’t have a single fifty in the last ten matches that India lost (he didn’t play in one).
His highest (in the first inn which you don’t give much importance to but I will mention anyway since I feel they are important) was 79 (2 fifties). 

SRT wasn’t much better with a high of 64 (2 fifties)

Therefore in the recent (last ten matches) VVS hasn’t done anything better than in matches lost.

This might mean that when VVS doesn’t perform India loses and the corollary is that he performs and India wins.

Let us look at the last ten Indian wins

1.

1st Test  in SA  2006/07 at Johannesburg

SRT 44, 14
VVS 28, 73

2.

4th Test  in WI  2006    at Kingston

VVS 18,16

3.

2nd Test  in Ind 2005/06 at Mohali
SRT 4, DNB

4.

3rd Test  in Ind 2005/06 at Ahmedabad

VVS 104, 5
SRT 23, 19

5.

2nd Test  in Ind 2005/06 at Delhi

VVS 69, 11
SRT 109, 16


6.

2nd Test  in Ind 2004/05 at Kolkata

VVS  0, 24
SRT 52, 52

7.

2nd Test V SAin Ind 2004/05 at Kolkata
VVS 38
SRT 20, 32*

8.
4th Test V AUS in Ind 2004/05 at Mumbai

SRT 5, 55
VVS 1, 69

9.
3rd Test PAK in Pak 2003/04 at Rawalpindi

VVS 71
SRT 1

10.
1st Test  in Pak 2003/04 at Multan

VVS 29
SRT 194*


Excluded minnows where :
VVS 140 ZIM
SRT 248 BAN


VVS
2nd innings 2 fifties
1st innings 1 hundred 2 fifties

SRT
2nd 1 fifty
1st innings 2 hundreds 1 fifty

Nah, not much to choose between the two here either.


SRT marginally better in the second innings which is the brunt of your argument.



Surely he must have saved more matches, so lets look at the last ten matches India played which were drawn.

1.

3rd Test WI in WI  2006    at Basseterre

VVS 100, 63

2.

2nd Test WI in WI  2006    at Gros Islet

VVS 0

3.

1st Test WI in WI  2006    at St John's

VVS 29, 31

4.

1st Test ENG in Ind 2005/06 at Nagpur
VVS 0, 0*
SRT 16, 28*

5.

2nd Test PAK in Pak 2005/06 at Faisalabad

VVS 90, 8*

6.

1st Test PAK in Pak 2005/06 at Lahore

VVS 0*

7.

1st Test SL in Ind 2005/06 at Chennai
VVS 5
SRT 22


8.
1st Test PAK in Ind 2004/05 at Mohali
VVS 58
SRT 94


9.

1st Test SA in Ind 2004/05 at Kanpur

VVS 9
SRT 3

10
2nd Test v AUS in Ind 2004/05 at Chennai

VVS 4


VVS
2nd innings 1 fifty
1st inn 1 hundred 2 fifties

SRT
2ND innings 28* in the only innings he played
1 fifty SRT did not bat/play in six of the ten matches.

I challenge you ramshorns to prove that VVS was better than SRT in any respect in these last thirty matches which should have compelled the selectors to chose him ahead of SRT. If you conclude that both sucked then I may agree.

For the sake of completeness the career stats of these two:

Averages overall/team first innings/team second innings

Matches lost

SRT 35.67/42.30/29.04
VVS 24.46/25.54/23.52

Matches won

SRT 62.89/66.70/53.37
VVS 51.02/47.64/57.53

Matches drawn

SRT 71.52/70.57/74.71
VVS 59.63/55.50/76.16

PS

I am awaiting the 'stats are like bikinis' type of argument.


















 
 

[rajesh]

Inoc, 
Wonderful analysis ...  Hats off to u ..Clearly proves that both SRT and VVS suck and VVS sucks more than SRT in the same period. For a batsman who is going to play only in test cricket, i really feel we should not invest in him too much as returns are likely very low.

The only positive thing i have for vvs is that VVS has always scored against Aus. Except against australia , i have not seen VVS dominate any attacks.  As aus is very strong one VVS shld get some more points for the runs he has scored aganst them ..  I will include VVS agaisnt Aus or on hard bouncy pitches. In other surface i will summarily drop him even from test side of 15 or bench him.

What baffeles me is For us a batsman with avg 42 and 5 match winning knocks  in a test career spanning 10 years is called a champion in crisis situation?. To me VVS is neither consistent or is a match winner . He has now become a average inconsistent player.

If only we have had some more players waiting in the wings rather than a kaif, We would have long back said good bye to laxman,SG and SRT.

[ramshorns]

Inoc, 
Wonderful analysis ...  Hats off to u ..Clearly proves that both SRT and VVS suck and VVS sucks more than SRT in the same period. For a batsman who is going to play only in test cricket, i really feel we should not invest in him too much as returns are likely very low.

The only positive thing i have for vvs is that VVS has always scored against Aus. Except against australia , i have not seen VVS dominate any attacks.  As aus is very strong one VVS shld get some more points for the runs he has scored aganst them ..  I will include VVS agaisnt Aus or on hard bouncy pitches. In other surface i will summarily drop him even from test side of 15 or bench him.

What baffeles me is For us a batsman with avg 42 and 5 match winning knocks  in a test career spanning 10 years is called a champion in crisis situation?. To me VVS is neither consistent or is a match winner . He has now become a average inconsistent player.

If only we have had some more players waiting in the wings rather than a kaif, We would have long back said good bye to laxman,SG and SRT.

OK if VVS has 5 match winning knocks in that span how may did RD have and can you list them.  My point is give or take VVS has as many important knocks as any of them may be barring RD who probably has few more but not many more.  The thing is VVS is not as consistent as an RD or a SRT in more bastman friendly conditions and in games where the result is a draw or a win on the home turf.

Sure his average of 42 is less but bear in mind in the first 20 or so tests he was just used where they wanted him instead of his preferred middle order spot and that 42 average has all these factored in.

I agree in general that over the last 2 years he has been more incosistent for my tastes and would have liked him to be more productive.

So is you suggest VVS should only be played against Aus. and not against others, I think that way we will have SRT on the same token be used against only some set of conditions and not others.  I suggest play SRT at No 8 when we are trying to save a important match in the 3rd ot 4th inning.  I do not think it works that way.

[ramshorns]

Rams

I went through the whole of this thread and would have not bothered to answer you if you had said that you felt VVS would have done India more justice than SRT as an extension of your personal assessment.

You, however, suggested that the probability of VVS performing was better than SRT when he (VVS) was dropped, suggesting that VVS performed much better in certain situations than SRT. Here is a part of one of your posts. There have been many in this line of thinking.

The above inning is exactly the kind of matches we lost at Mumbai, Karachi and CapeTown.  What bugged me most was they dropped VVS to play Yuvraj in that Mumbai test when the recent history showed relatively speaking he should have been pencilled in after RD as far as batsman were concered and if they had to play Yuvraj they should have dropped SRT for that test.

PS

I am awaiting the 'stats are like bikinis' type of argument.

There is nothing compelling for me in that post of yours with numbers and a jab at my 'stats are like bikinis'  thing, for me to debate on the issue.

There is a reason for me to come up with a line like that.

If you followed the DG for long you will see why??

I think I spent enough time on the issue with exchanges on the topic with JFK, Atticus, Vijay, Prafulla, DB, Toney and others.

You are more than free to read them again and see what each one feel about a SRT or a VVS in a certain way and why they do so.

[Dayal Baba]

Inoc, 
Wonderful analysis ...  Hats off to u ..Clearly proves that both SRT and VVS suck and VVS sucks more than SRT in the same period. For a batsman who is going to play only in test cricket, i really feel we should not invest in him too much as returns are likely very low.

The only positive thing i have for vvs is that VVS has always scored against Aus. Except against australia , i have not seen VVS dominate any attacks.  As aus is very strong one VVS shld get some more points for the runs he has scored aganst them ..  I will include VVS agaisnt Aus or on hard bouncy pitches. In other surface i will summarily drop him even from test side of 15 or bench him.

What baffeles me is For us a batsman with avg 42 and 5 match winning knocks  in a test career spanning 10 years is called a champion in crisis situation?. To me VVS is neither consistent or is a match winner . He has now become a average inconsistent player.

If only we have had some more players waiting in the wings rather than a kaif, We would have long back said good bye to laxman,SG and SRT.

OK if VVS has 5 match winning knocks in that span how may did RD have and can you list them.  My point is give or take VVS has as many important knocks as any of them may be barring RD who probably has few more but not many more.  The thing is VVS is not as consistent as an RD or a SRT in more bastman friendly conditions and in games where the result is a draw or a win on the home turf.

Sure his average of 42 is less but bear in mind in the first 20 or so tests he was just used where they wanted him instead of his preferred middle order spot and that 42 average has all these factored in.

I agree in general that over the last 2 years he has been more incosistent for my tastes and would have liked him to be more productive.

So is you suggest VVS should only be played against Aus. and not against others, I think that way we will have SRT on the same token be used against only some set of conditions and not others.  I suggest play SRT at No 8 when we are trying to save a important match in the 3rd ot 4th inning.  I do not think it works that way.

rahul dravid is head and shoulders above vvs laxman in match-winning knocks.

[ramshorns]

Inoc, 
Wonderful analysis ...  Hats off to u ..Clearly proves that both SRT and VVS suck and VVS sucks more than SRT in the same period. For a batsman who is going to play only in test cricket, i really feel we should not invest in him too much as returns are likely very low.

The only positive thing i have for vvs is that VVS has always scored against Aus. Except against australia , i have not seen VVS dominate any attacks.  As aus is very strong one VVS shld get some more points for the runs he has scored aganst them ..  I will include VVS agaisnt Aus or on hard bouncy pitches. In other surface i will summarily drop him even from test side of 15 or bench him.

What baffeles me is For us a batsman with avg 42 and 5 match winning knocks  in a test career spanning 10 years is called a champion in crisis situation?. To me VVS is neither consistent or is a match winner . He has now become a average inconsistent player.

If only we have had some more players waiting in the wings rather than a kaif, We would have long back said good bye to laxman,SG and SRT.

OK if VVS has 5 match winning knocks in that span how may did RD have and can you list them.  My point is give or take VVS has as many important knocks as any of them may be barring RD who probably has few more but not many more.  The thing is VVS is not as consistent as an RD or a SRT in more bastman friendly conditions and in games where the result is a draw or a win on the home turf.

Sure his average of 42 is less but bear in mind in the first 20 or so tests he was just used where they wanted him instead of his preferred middle order spot and that 42 average has all these factored in.

I agree in general that over the last 2 years he has been more incosistent for my tastes and would have liked him to be more productive.

So is you suggest VVS should only be played against Aus. and not against others, I think that way we will have SRT on the same token be used against only some set of conditions and not others.  I suggest play SRT at No 8 when we are trying to save a important match in the 3rd ot 4th inning.  I do not think it works that way.

rahul dravid is head and shoulders above vvs laxman in match-winning knocks.

Depends on what is your definition of Match Winning knock is and also the relativity of term 'Head and Shoulders'.

VVS has  14 knocks of 50 or over in 72 tests in which India won 11 tests.  (Not counting minnows Zim and Ban)
RD   has  21 knocks of 50 or over in 99 tests in which India won 17 tests.  (Not counting minnows Zim and Ban)

To me that is not enough to qualify to call one 'head and shoulders above' another especially if you also see the difference in the number of tests played and the ratio of wins to matches played is taken into account.

Nevertheless, I would pick RD over anyone that includes VVS in today's team just based on the consistency factor and reliability over the last 2 years.  No second thoughts there.

[pieterSAN]

Can we move on to the next dead horse?

[Dayal Baba]

Inoc, 
Wonderful analysis ...  Hats off to u ..Clearly proves that both SRT and VVS suck and VVS sucks more than SRT in the same period. For a batsman who is going to play only in test cricket, i really feel we should not invest in him too much as returns are likely very low.

The only positive thing i have for vvs is that VVS has always scored against Aus. Except against australia , i have not seen VVS dominate any attacks.  As aus is very strong one VVS shld get some more points for the runs he has scored aganst them ..  I will include VVS agaisnt Aus or on hard bouncy pitches. In other surface i will summarily drop him even from test side of 15 or bench him.

What baffeles me is For us a batsman with avg 42 and 5 match winning knocks  in a test career spanning 10 years is called a champion in crisis situation?. To me VVS is neither consistent or is a match winner . He has now become a average inconsistent player.

If only we have had some more players waiting in the wings rather than a kaif, We would have long back said good bye to laxman,SG and SRT.

OK if VVS has 5 match winning knocks in that span how may did RD have and can you list them.  My point is give or take VVS has as many important knocks as any of them may be barring RD who probably has few more but not many more.  The thing is VVS is not as consistent as an RD or a SRT in more bastman friendly conditions and in games where the result is a draw or a win on the home turf.

Sure his average of 42 is less but bear in mind in the first 20 or so tests he was just used where they wanted him instead of his preferred middle order spot and that 42 average has all these factored in.

I agree in general that over the last 2 years he has been more incosistent for my tastes and would have liked him to be more productive.

So is you suggest VVS should only be played against Aus. and not against others, I think that way we will have SRT on the same token be used against only some set of conditions and not others.  I suggest play SRT at No 8 when we are trying to save a important match in the 3rd ot 4th inning.  I do not think it works that way.

rahul dravid is head and shoulders above vvs laxman in match-winning knocks.

Depends on what is your definition of Match Winning knock is and also the relativity of term 'Head and Shoulders'.

VVS has  14 knocks of 50 or over in 72 tests in which India won 11 tests.  (Not counting minnows Zim and Ban)
RD   has  21 knocks of 50 or over in 99 tests in which India won 17 tests.  (Not counting minnows Zim and Ban)

To me that is not enough to qualify to call one 'head and shoulders above' another especially if you also see the difference in the number of tests played and the ratio of wins to matches played is taken into account.

Nevertheless, I would pick RD over anyone that includes VVS in today's team just based on the consistency factor and reliability over the last 2 years.  No second thoughts there.

i didn't have fifties in mind. a fifty cannot be termed "matchwinning". useful, yes. but not matchwinning. it will be interesting to see how many 100's in matches won he has, or 75's.

[justforkix]

i didn't have fifties in mind. a fifty cannot be termed "matchwinning". useful, yes. but not matchwinning. it will be interesting to see how many 100's in matches won he has, or 75's.

While what you say may be generally true, there are few exceptions in this discussion. SRT and VVS 50s in Mumbai test against Aus were match-winning in the context of that match. Also, SG and VVS 60s in Port of Spain were match winning in the context of the match. Dravid 70 in Adelaide was a match winning innings.

[ramshorns]

Inoc, 
Wonderful analysis ...  Hats off to u ..Clearly proves that both SRT and VVS suck and VVS sucks more than SRT in the same period. For a batsman who is going to play only in test cricket, i really feel we should not invest in him too much as returns are likely very low.

The only positive thing i have for vvs is that VVS has always scored against Aus. Except against australia , i have not seen VVS dominate any attacks.  As aus is very strong one VVS shld get some more points for the runs he has scored aganst them ..  I will include VVS agaisnt Aus or on hard bouncy pitches. In other surface i will summarily drop him even from test side of 15 or bench him.

What baffeles me is For us a batsman with avg 42 and 5 match winning knocks  in a test career spanning 10 years is called a champion in crisis situation?. To me VVS is neither consistent or is a match winner . He has now become a average inconsistent player.

If only we have had some more players waiting in the wings rather than a kaif, We would have long back said good bye to laxman,SG and SRT.

OK if VVS has 5 match winning knocks in that span how may did RD have and can you list them.  My point is give or take VVS has as many important knocks as any of them may be barring RD who probably has few more but not many more.  The thing is VVS is not as consistent as an RD or a SRT in more bastman friendly conditions and in games where the result is a draw or a win on the home turf.

Sure his average of 42 is less but bear in mind in the first 20 or so tests he was just used where they wanted him instead of his preferred middle order spot and that 42 average has all these factored in.

I agree in general that over the last 2 years he has been more incosistent for my tastes and would have liked him to be more productive.

So is you suggest VVS should only be played against Aus. and not against others, I think that way we will have SRT on the same token be used against only some set of conditions and not others.  I suggest play SRT at No 8 when we are trying to save a important match in the 3rd ot 4th inning.  I do not think it works that way.

rahul dravid is head and shoulders above vvs laxman in match-winning knocks.

Depends on what is your definition of Match Winning knock is and also the relativity of term 'Head and Shoulders'.

VVS has  14 knocks of 50 or over in 72 tests in which India won 11 tests.  (Not counting minnows Zim and Ban)
RD   has  21 knocks of 50 or over in 99 tests in which India won 17 tests.  (Not counting minnows Zim and Ban)

To me that is not enough to qualify to call one 'head and shoulders above' another especially if you also see the difference in the number of tests played and the ratio of wins to matches played is taken into account.

Nevertheless, I would pick RD over anyone that includes VVS in today's team just based on the consistency factor and reliability over the last 2 years.  No second thoughts there.

i didn't have fifties in mind. a fifty cannot be termed "matchwinning". useful, yes. but not matchwinning. it will be interesting to see how many 100's in matches won he has, or 75's.

As JFK explained with a few examples in his previous post, to me a 50 or a 60 or a 70 in a relatively low scoring game or inning is as important as a 100 in a 350 or 400 run inning and 200 in a 500 plus team total.   So that way we cannot totally rule out a 50 plus knock in its entirety and not consider it in match winning knock.

[Dayal Baba]

i didn't have fifties in mind. a fifty cannot be termed "matchwinning". useful, yes. but not matchwinning. it will be interesting to see how many 100's in matches won he has, or 75's.

While what you say may be generally true, there are few exceptions in this discussion. SRT and VVS 50s in Mumbai test against Aus were match-winning in the context of that match. Also, SG and VVS 60s in Port of Spain were match winning in the context of the match. Dravid 70 in Adelaide was a match winning innings.

i disagree about mumbai. do you think setting a total of 100, in any sort of pitch, is match-winning? we were plain lucky to win that match. a 50 may or may not be matchwinning. whereas a 100 or even 75 definitely has more impact. another thing, why exclude zimbabwe of the andy flower era, that was by no means a minnow team.

[ramshorns]

i didn't have fifties in mind. a fifty cannot be termed "matchwinning". useful, yes. but not matchwinning. it will be interesting to see how many 100's in matches won he has, or 75's.

While what you say may be generally true, there are few exceptions in this discussion. SRT and VVS 50s in Mumbai test against Aus were match-winning in the context of that match. Also, SG and VVS 60s in Port of Spain were match winning in the context of the match. Dravid 70 in Adelaide was a match winning innings.

i disagree about mumbai. do you think setting a total of 100, in any sort of pitch, is match-winning? we were plain lucky to win that match. a 50 may or may not be matchwinning. whereas a 100 or even 75 definitely has more impact. another thing, why exclude zimbabwe of the andy flower era, that was by no means a minnow team. i believe vvs laxman did not do so well against them.

so you would rather lose than set some score in trying conditions and be lucky and win.  if you want to be picky let me know, i will say any knock less than a total 281 will not be conidered match winning. why 75 or 100?? yes for the purposes of this discussion in this DG we normally do not include Zim.  If you want to use that to show RD is any greater then feel free.   To me that is not required.

[Dayal Baba]

i didn't have fifties in mind. a fifty cannot be termed "matchwinning". useful, yes. but not matchwinning. it will be interesting to see how many 100's in matches won he has, or 75's.

While what you say may be generally true, there are few exceptions in this discussion. SRT and VVS 50s in Mumbai test against Aus were match-winning in the context of that match. Also, SG and VVS 60s in Port of Spain were match winning in the context of the match. Dravid 70 in Adelaide was a match winning innings.

i disagree about mumbai. do you think setting a total of 100, in any sort of pitch, is match-winning? we were plain lucky to win that match. a 50 may or may not be matchwinning. whereas a 100 or even 75 definitely has more impact. another thing, why exclude zimbabwe of the andy flower era, that was by no means a minnow team. i believe vvs laxman did not do so well against them.

so you would rather lose than set some score in trying conditions and be lucky and win. 

in that case you would have to include 50s which resulted in a loss. and yes, i would include knocks against andy flower era zimbabwe as we lost some tests against them and came close to losing a test against them in india. they were as strong as the current west indies in tests.

[ramshorns]

i didn't have fifties in mind. a fifty cannot be termed "matchwinning". useful, yes. but not matchwinning. it will be interesting to see how many 100's in matches won he has, or 75's.

While what you say may be generally true, there are few exceptions in this discussion. SRT and VVS 50s in Mumbai test against Aus were match-winning in the context of that match. Also, SG and VVS 60s in Port of Spain were match winning in the context of the match. Dravid 70 in Adelaide was a match winning innings.

i disagree about mumbai. do you think setting a total of 100, in any sort of pitch, is match-winning? we were plain lucky to win that match. a 50 may or may not be matchwinning. whereas a 100 or even 75 definitely has more impact. another thing, why exclude zimbabwe of the andy flower era, that was by no means a minnow team. i believe vvs laxman did not do so well against them.

so you would rather lose than set some score in trying conditions and be lucky and win. 

in that case you would have to include 50s which resulted in a loss. and yes, i would include knocks against andy flower era zimbabwe as we lost some tests against them and came close to losing a test against them in india. they were as strong as the current west indies in tests.

You are free to include anything and exclude anything for the purpose of any discussion if that falls in your line of belief.  Nothing wrong with that.  If someone does not agree with that they can say so.  Again nothing wrong with that either.  That is why for most part I stay out of just projecting everything based on plain stats.  Sure they help to build a case but there are many underlying facts like the conditions, degree of difficulty in them and strength of the opponents etc they will never be able to gauge.  That is where the analysis part comes in and based on how one reads the game the opinions follow in direct conjunction with that.

[justforkix]

i didn't have fifties in mind. a fifty cannot be termed "matchwinning". useful, yes. but not matchwinning. it will be interesting to see how many 100's in matches won he has, or 75's.

While what you say may be generally true, there are few exceptions in this discussion. SRT and VVS 50s in Mumbai test against Aus were match-winning in the context of that match. Also, SG and VVS 60s in Port of Spain were match winning in the context of the match. Dravid 70 in Adelaide was a match winning innings.

i disagree about mumbai. do you think setting a total of 100, in any sort of pitch, is match-winning? we were plain lucky to win that match. a 50 may or may not be matchwinning. whereas a 100 or even 75 definitely has more impact. another thing, why exclude zimbabwe of the andy flower era, that was by no means a minnow team.

Not exactly, considering that those were the 2 highest scores of the match. On that pitch probably 125 was a match winning score. So, we were pretty close to a match winning score. SRT started playing attacking cricket, realzing that surviving and scoring on this pitch was not possible and VVS also followed suit.

Another example is both VVS and SG scored 70+ in Rawalpindi, but neither was match winning because RD was the main scorer with 270 and we scored 600.

So, a better idea is to look at all 50+ scores in the context of the match and then decide, since there are only a handful of them.

[inoc]

Rams

I went through the whole of this thread and would have not bothered to answer you if you had said that you felt VVS would have done India more justice than SRT as an extension of your personal assessment.

You, however, suggested that the probability of VVS performing was better than SRT when he (VVS) was dropped, suggesting that VVS performed much better in certain situations than SRT. Here is a part of one of your posts. There have been many in this line of thinking.

The above inning is exactly the kind of matches we lost at Mumbai, Karachi and CapeTown.  What bugged me most was they dropped VVS to play Yuvraj in that Mumbai test when the recent history showed relatively speaking he should have been pencilled in after RD as far as batsman were concered and if they had to play Yuvraj they should have dropped SRT for that test.

PS

I am awaiting the 'stats are like bikinis' type of argument.

There is nothing compelling for me in that post of yours with numbers and a jab at my 'stats are like bikinis'  thing, for me to debate on the issue.

There is a reason for me to come up with a line like that.

If you followed the DG for long you will see why??

I think I spent enough time on the issue with exchanges on the topic with JFK, Atticus, Vijay, Prafulla, DB, Toney and others.

You are more than free to read them again and see what each one feel about a SRT or a VVS in a certain way and why they do so.

rams

no need to be so touchy.  i made the comment 'stats are like bikinis' not based on the stats you have provided but because you have used the phrase before to counter stats that me or others have provided.

i mentioned in my post that i had read the entire thread - so your advice to re read the thread is pointless. it might be of help if you re read my post which wasnt a put down on VVS but an attempt to show that your impression that VVS is better than SRT in crisis situation is somewhat flawed, statistically. i used statistics because you used the term probability/chance of success. i also said that if it was a personal impression not based on stats - i have no problems with you choosing VVS ahead of SRT. if the probability/chance of VVS succeeding is computed then your contention is erroneous in recent times and over each of their careers.

the quote i used was an example of your kind of analysis where SRT is criticised for not performing in three named matches and VVS is absolved of any responsibility when he was present in two out of the three named matches and failed to provide anything in terms of performance to even lessen the embarrassment. not only that he is championed to have suppossedly been better at saving the one he didnt play. 

as far as length of my following the DG is concerned a look at my profile would reveal that i have been here since its inception.

[ramshorns]

Rams

I went through the whole of this thread and would have not bothered to answer you if you had said that you felt VVS would have done India more justice than SRT as an extension of your personal assessment.

You, however, suggested that the probability of VVS performing was better than SRT when he (VVS) was dropped, suggesting that VVS performed much better in certain situations than SRT. Here is a part of one of your posts. There have been many in this line of thinking.

The above inning is exactly the kind of matches we lost at Mumbai, Karachi and CapeTown.  What bugged me most was they dropped VVS to play Yuvraj in that Mumbai test when the recent history showed relatively speaking he should have been pencilled in after RD as far as batsman were concered and if they had to play Yuvraj they should have dropped SRT for that test.

PS

I am awaiting the 'stats are like bikinis' type of argument.

There is nothing compelling for me in that post of yours with numbers and a jab at my 'stats are like bikinis'  thing, for me to debate on the issue.

There is a reason for me to come up with a line like that.

If you followed the DG for long you will see why??

I think I spent enough time on the issue with exchanges on the topic with JFK, Atticus, Vijay, Prafulla, DB, Toney and others.

You are more than free to read them again and see what each one feel about a SRT or a VVS in a certain way and why they do so.

rams

no need to be so touchy.  i made the comment 'stats are like bikinis' not based on the stats you have provided but because you have used the phrase before to counter stats that me or others have provided.

i mentioned in my post that i had read the entire thread - so your advice to re read the thread is pointless. it might be of help if you re read my post which wasnt a put down on VVS but an attempt to show that your impression that VVS is better than SRT in crisis situation is somewhat flawed, statistically. i used statistics because you used the term probability/chance of success. i also said that if it was a personal impression not based on stats - i have no problems with you choosing VVS ahead of SRT. if the probability/chance of VVS succeeding is computed then your contention is erroneous in recent times and over each of their careers.

the quote i used was an example of your kind of analysis where SRT is criticised for not performing in three named matches and VVS is absolved of any responsibility when he was present in two out of the three named matches and failed to provide anything in terms of performance to even lessen the embarrassment. not only that he is championed to have suppossedly been better at saving the one he didnt play. 

as far as length of my following the DG is concerned a look at my profile would reveal that i have been here since its inception.

Again none of your analysis ever provide any thing but present plain X scored so many runs versus Y without whatsoever digging into the merits of the kind of situation, conditions or opposition.  So that way to me that is more erroneous a path I would never take.  SRT is held on a higher pedestal than VVS despite all his failures when the team needs him, so I or anyone has every reason to criticise him more than a VVS, who in a head to head situation is lesser preferred of the 2.

Actually I should have also included SRT's failure in that Mohali test against NZ in 2003-2004, to the other 3 matches given the 18 for 3 situation where we could have lost if not for VVS and AC at that stage.  Due to their efforts we saved that match.  Again if one were to go by the recent trends we could have lost that match given we had 50 plus overs left at that stage.

Based on most of my observations I feel, VVS has done more in the last 5-6 years as a test player than SRT.  I will hold on that. 

Also I clearly stated in a lot of my posts I am disappointed with VVS by and large with his consistency.   

So I guess anything I say more here would be a repetition at this point.  I will let it go.

[inoc]

Rams

It is easy to dismiss facts others have posted by saying they are numbers and nothing else. You don’t shy away from producing numbers when they suit you. A recent example is the number of fifty plus scores by RD and VVS in winning situation. Cleverly or otherwise not mentioned is the fact that RD had 7 hundreds in the 21 innings you mentioned to VVSs 3 not to mention the significantly more number of runs he scored and the absolutely uncomparable average he has in those matches. I will let that rest.

My post was an answer to the contention that VVS is better than SRT in certain situations. I am repeating this because you choose to ignore the reason for my post.

A cursory glance without tinted glasses would tell anybody else that your ascertion is not clear cut. Subjectively yes objectively too close to call. I honour your subjective conclusion and have no problems with that but chose to intervene when you merged subjectivity with objectivity. Just for you:

In the last ten matches lost by India. VVS played in nine of them.

21 was his highest score in the second innings. I don’t think discussing match situations will help here. Whatever the match situation was - he was not up to it. I hope you agree. here are nine situations like the three you mentioned (cape town/mumbai/karachi) with regard to SRT where VVS came a cropper. any new thoughts?

In matches won (last ten)

VVS

1. Johannesburg 73 excellent innings

2. Ahmedabad  104 in the first inn, his partnership with pathan and a late rearguard performance by the Indian tail in the second inn ensured victory.

3. Delhi  Vvs 69 srt 109 in the first inn

4. Mumbai 69 in the second inn – again excellent

5. Rawalpindi against pak 71 overshadowed by RD 200 and others

Three match winnings innings two other supporting ones, I am being lenient here.

SRT

1. Johannesburg - 44 second highest in the first inn

2. Delhi 109

3. Kolkata 52 and 52, Supporting role to RD century in both inn

4. Mumbai 55 along with VVS 69 match winning play by both.

5. Multan  194*

Three match winning two supporting ones

Even in match situations explained – is there much to choose from?

you may disagree with one or more of the above - but concentrate on the main question is anyone decidedly better than the other? no


In the matches drawn (last ten)

SRT hardly played in these matches but if it is mandatory for you I will draw up the stats (and match situations!!) in the last few drawn matches that these two played in. let me know.

I have to best of my ability tried to explain my viewpoint objectively, if it is inadequate my apologies.

I would however like you to explain why you think VVS is better than SRT. I know you have had to repeat the same things again and again, possibly because the situations which support your belief are few and far between. I do not expect you to chart SRTs contributions but an exhaustive list of VVSs match winning performances (cant be that difficult) would help me evaluate him wrt others (srt/rd)

[ramshorns]

Rams

It is easy to dismiss facts others have posted by saying they are numbers and nothing else. You don’t shy away from producing numbers when they suit you. A recent example is the number of fifty plus scores by RD and VVS in winning situation. Cleverly or otherwise not mentioned is the fact that RD had 7 hundreds in the 21 innings you mentioned to VVSs 3 not to mention the significantly more number of runs he scored and the absolutely uncomparable average he has in those matches. I will let that rest.

My post was an answer to the contention that VVS is better than SRT in certain situations. I am repeating this because you choose to ignore the reason for my post.

A cursory glance without tinted glasses would tell anybody else that your ascertion is not clear cut. Subjectively yes objectively too close to call. I honour your subjective conclusion and have no problems with that but chose to intervene when you merged subjectivity with objectivity. Just for you:

In the last ten matches lost by India. VVS played in nine of them.

21 was his highest score in the second innings. I don’t think discussing match situations will help here. Whatever the match situation was - he was not up to it. I hope you agree. here are nine situations like the three you mentioned (cape town/mumbai/karachi) with regard to SRT where VVS came a cropper. any new thoughts?

In matches won (last ten)

VVS

1. Johannesburg 73 excellent innings

2. Ahmedabad  104 in the first inn, his partnership with pathan and a late rearguard performance by the Indian tail in the second inn ensured victory.

3. Delhi  Vvs 69 srt 109 in the first inn

4. Mumbai 69 in the second inn – again excellent

5. Rawalpindi against pak 71 overshadowed by RD 200 and others

Three match winnings innings two other supporting ones, I am being lenient here.

SRT

1. Johannesburg - 44 second highest in the first inn

2. Delhi 109

3. Kolkata 52 and 52, Supporting role to RD century in both inn

4. Mumbai 55 along with VVS 69 match winning play by both.

5. Multan  194*

Three match winning two supporting ones

Even in match situations explained – is there much to choose from?


In the matches drawn (last ten)

SRT hardly played in these matches but if it is mandatory for you I will draw up the stats (and match situations!!) in the last few drawn matches that these two played in. let me know.

I have to best of my ability tried to explain my viewpoint objectively, if it is inadequate my apologies.

I would however like you to explain why you think VVS is better than SRT. I know you have had to repeat the same things again and again, possibly because the situations which support your belief are few and far between. I do not expect you to chart SRTs contributions but an exhaustive list of VVSs match winning performances (cant be that
difficult) would help me evaluate him wrt others (srt/rd)

There is nothing for me to be clever in chosing what I did with regards to RD vs VVS.  Someone said that 'RD was head and shoulders above VVS' in playing match winning knocks. And I showed that is not the case.  Not always it has to be a hunderd to qualify as a match winning knock and JFK gave some examples of that.  So that was the reason for that.  Not to be clever or whatever you want to claim it as.

Also the difference in the 3 losses identified in the other 10 were is we lost matches which we were comfortable to draw but managed to lose.  SRT being an automatic did not play a knock expected of him in even one of them.  So why all this craze.  Also thanks to VVS lest we could have lost Mohali test too against NZ if we go by the trends.  SRT again got out in single digits there.  Instead of advising me of removing tinted glasses I ask you to do so as well and see what I am saying.   'Except RD no one should be automatic and SRT is in my opinion' and that should change.

The reason I like VVS is simple.  His 2nd INNING fifty plus knocks where we won the matches and also the style he made them in and he was the TOP Scorer or very close to it in each of the innings.

281 --Against Aussies in 2001

60 + -- Against Aussies in 2001

70+ --Against WI in WI in 2002

69 -- Against Aussies in 2004

73 -- Against SA in 2006

Though not a win that 67* from Mohali test against NZ which helped us draw in 2003-04 ranks high in  my books.

Also there are other innings where we won and VVS scored good as well but LESS SIGNIFICANT ones in my opinion.

And one more thing is it is NOT like I am in AWE with VVS or anything like that and I dislike SRT, but it is all about the respect that VVS gets in comparision to a SRT when by your admittence that SRT and VVS are on par in the last few years.

Look at the title of this thread and you will see the point I am making here.

I mean we need to stop respecting people just based on records and stats.  What percentage of those runs contributed to wins should matter as well.  That is what I look first and foremost.

Anyhow I have seen SRT fail time and again these last 2 years weather in tests or ODI's when it mattered.   As an example he did very well in the follow up to the WC at home against weaker teams.  But in that SL game when all were pinning hopes on that 15000 runs he made, he faltered.  Sure if we see his averages nothing drastic happened, but if you see that praticular game that failure assumed herculean proportions.  That is not the only case, look at the DLF cup before that and Champions trophy at home.   I mean a World record holder is expected to do things in these games.  Not doing so only points to some chinks in the armoury.  Now we can deflect this saying that there are others too in the team.  I would buy into that argument if SRT made a substantial contribution, but falling in single digits makes it difficult to defend even for the hardcore of fans.

[Prafulla]

Rams

It is easy to dismiss facts others have posted by saying they are numbers and nothing else. You don’t shy away from producing numbers when they suit you. A recent example is the number of fifty plus scores by RD and VVS in winning situation. Cleverly or otherwise not mentioned is the fact that RD had 7 hundreds in the 21 innings you mentioned to VVSs 3 not to mention the significantly more number of runs he scored and the absolutely uncomparable average he has in those matches. I will let that rest.

My post was an answer to the contention that VVS is better than SRT in certain situations. I am repeating this because you choose to ignore the reason for my post.

A cursory glance without tinted glasses would tell anybody else that your ascertion is not clear cut. Subjectively yes objectively too close to call. I honour your subjective conclusion and have no problems with that but chose to intervene when you merged subjectivity with objectivity. Just for you:

In the last ten matches lost by India. VVS played in nine of them.

21 was his highest score in the second innings. I don’t think discussing match situations will help here. Whatever the match situation was - he was not up to it. I hope you agree. here are nine situations like the three you mentioned (cape town/mumbai/karachi) with regard to SRT where VVS came a cropper. any new thoughts?

In matches won (last ten)

VVS

1. Johannesburg 73 excellent innings

2. Ahmedabad  104 in the first inn, his partnership with pathan and a late rearguard performance by the Indian tail in the second inn ensured victory.

3. Delhi  Vvs 69 srt 109 in the first inn

4. Mumbai 69 in the second inn – again excellent

5. Rawalpindi against pak 71 overshadowed by RD 200 and others

Three match winnings innings two other supporting ones, I am being lenient here.

SRT

1. Johannesburg - 44 second highest in the first inn

2. Delhi 109

3. Kolkata 52 and 52, Supporting role to RD century in both inn

4. Mumbai 55 along with VVS 69 match winning play by both.

5. Multan  194*

Three match winning two supporting ones

Even in match situations explained – is there much to choose from?


In the matches drawn (last ten)

SRT hardly played in these matches but if it is mandatory for you I will draw up the stats (and match situations!!) in the last few drawn matches that these two played in. let me know.

I have to best of my ability tried to explain my viewpoint objectively, if it is inadequate my apologies.

I would however like you to explain why you think VVS is better than SRT. I know you have had to repeat the same things again and again, possibly because the situations which support your belief are few and far between. I do not expect you to chart SRTs contributions but an exhaustive list of VVSs match winning performances (cant be that
difficult) would help me evaluate him wrt others (srt/rd)

There is nothing for me to be clever in chosing what I did with regards to RD vs VVS.  Someone said that 'RD was head and shoulders above VVS' in playing match winning knocks. And I showed that is not the case.  Not always it has to be a hunderd to qualify as a match winning knock and JFK gave some examples of that.  So that was the reason for that.  Not to be clever or whatever you want to claim it as.

Also the difference in the 3 losses identified in the other 10 were is we lost matches which we were comfortable to draw but managed to lose.  SRT being an automatic did not play a knock expected of him in even one of them.  So why all this craze.  Also thanks to VVS lest we could have lost Mohali test too against NZ if we go by the trends.  SRT again got out in single digits there.  Instead of advising me of removing tinted glasses I ask you to do so as well and see what I am saying.   'Except RD no one should be automatic and SRT is in my opinion' and that should change.

The reason I like VVS is simple.  His 2nd INNING fifty plus knocks where we won the matches and also the style he made them in and he was the TOP Scorer or very close to it in each of the innings.

281 --Against Aussies in 2001

60 + -- Against Aussies in 2001

70+ --Against WI in WI in 2002

69 -- Against Aussies in 2004

73 -- Against SA in 2006

Though not a win that 67* from Mohali test against NZ which helped us draw in 2003-04 ranks high in  my books.

Also there are other innings where we won and VVS scored good as well but LESS SIGNIFICANT ones in my opinion.

And one more thing is it is NOT like I am in AWE with VVS or anything like that and I dislike SRT, but it is all about the respect that VVS gets in comparision to a SRT when by your admittence that SRT and VVS are on par in the last few years.

Look at the title of this thread and you will see the point I am making here.

I mean we need to stop respecting people just based on records and stats.  What percentage of those runs contributed to wins should matter as well.  That is what I look first and foremost.

Anyhow I have seen SRT fail time and again these last 2 years weather in tests or ODI's when it mattered.   As an example he did very well in the follow up to the WC at home against weaker teams.  But in that SL game when all were pinning hopes on that 15000 runs he made, he faltered.  Sure if we see his averages nothing drastic happened, but if you see that praticular game that failure assumed herculean proportions.  That is not the only case, look at the DLF cup before that and Champions trophy at home.   I mean a World record holder is expected to do things in these games.  Not doing so only points to some chinks in the armoury.  Now we can deflect this saying that there are others too in the team.  I would buy into that argument if SRT made a substantial contribution, but falling in single digits makes it difficult to defend even for the hardcore of fans.

Let me put another perspective.   Suppose - we are at difficult stage of the game and VVS / SRT (SETTLED   AT SCORE OF 25 each) are at wicket. Now - on which player people will put their money. I will rely more on VVS - as SRT can get out by playing a loose shot - whereas, VVS plays more responsible.

[justforkix]

Let me put another perspective.   Suppose - we are at difficult stage of the game and VVS / SRT (SETTLED   AT SCORE OF 25 each) are at wicket. Now - on which player people will put their money. I will rely more on VVS - as SRT can get out by playing a loose shot - whereas, VVS plays more responsible.

Nah. Going by recent history, both will get unplayable jaffas and get bowled and will have a shocking look on their face, bend low and look at the pitch and the stumps as if to suggest that they were undone by some uneven low bounce in the pitch !!!!!!!

[inoc]

Let me put another perspective.   Suppose - we are at difficult stage of the game and VVS / SRT (SETTLED   AT SCORE OF 25 each) are at wicket. Now - on which player people will put their money. I will rely more on VVS - as SRT can get out by playing a loose shot - whereas, VVS plays more responsible.

Nah. Going by recent history, both will get unplayable jaffas and get bowled and will have a shocking look on their face, bend low and look at the pitch and the stumps as if to suggest that they were undone by some uneven low bounce in the pitch !!!!!!!

JFK

 

rams

as i have already pointed out that SRT and VVS are not much different in recent times. Both have not performed too well. If you want to choose VVS ahead of SRT because of your gut feeling its fine by me, others may want to choose SRT.
Statistically not much to choose from - that was my point. I absolutely agree that no one should be an automatic choice – not even RD (which he is at present on the strength of his performances, which should be the only benchmark).

[feverpitch]

... Now?