Print

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

[vijay]

Rams: I don't think it has anything to do with a corrupt BCCI. Selection involves judgement. And- I can see very reasonable people coming to the conclusion that SRT coming out of a slump is a good bet. There was a span of a decade plus, where he did not really have a bad series.  More importantly, I don't see anybody exactly playing barn burner innings on the domestic circuit and banging on the doors of selection. At present I see both VVS and SRT making it into an Indian test side not an either/or. In my mind, SG will have more of a struggle getting in as YS attempts to establish himself than either SRT or VVS.  

However, as far as VVS, SRT comparisons go- 281 notwithstanding, I think SRT stacks up fine with VVS even in recent years.  We often use the "281" as a reference point for VVS' standard. But that is not the case. VVS, I would argue, is an underachiever- given the talent he brings to the table. Also, this idea of performing at a "critical" time or during a "win" is pretty bogus. If the majority of a player's good innings occur when his side wins, that means he typically sucked when his team lost. Arguably,then, if the player was able to perform in some of those losing causes those losses could have been avoided. Does that make him responsible for the team's defeats? If that is the case- then we need to apply the offset i.e. good innings in a winning cause offset by the times when the player got out cheaply in a defeat. Besides, most of the time when a guy goes out to bat he does not know what the outcome is going to be. Every run has value while he is at the crease. That is why picking and choosing games and assigning them some higher value, is too subjective to have merit. Plain cold averages, even if not perfect- are more useful than cherry picking.  

Anyway, just for fun, I thought I would take a look at the last few years' test averages for both players. I picked 2001 onward, because 2001 is the year that VVS started to establish himself as a premier player in the Indian side. Top row is SRT, second row is VVS. I see two things. (1) Clearly, SRT slumped a lot in 2006 and (2) both SRT, VVS compare very well with each other during the 2001-6 period.

So, the real question from SRT's perspective is whether his 2006 record is representative of what we will see in the future, or whether he can get back to what would be an "average" level by SRT's standards. I can see the selectors taking a view that SRT will get out of that slump. Now, if this goes on in 2007- then no question, SRT is toast.  

2001                  10  1003 155   62.68   3   6  
                         10   869 281   54.31   1   5

2002                  16  1392 193   55.68   4   5
                         15   984 154*  51.78   2   5

2003                   5   153  55   17.00   0   1  
                         5   595 148   85.00   2   3  

2004                  10   915 248*  91.50  3   2
                        12   513 178   32.06   1   2

2005                   6   444 109   44.40   1   3  
                         8   508 140   46.18   2   3  

2006                   8   267  63   24.27   0   1  
                        10   561 100   40.07   1   4  

[ramshorns]

Rams: I don't think it has anything to do with a corrupt BCCI. Selection involves judgement. And- I can see very reasonable people coming to the conclusion that SRT coming out of a slump is a good bet. There was a span of a decade plus, where he did not really have a bad series.  More importantly, I don't see anybody exactly playing barn burner innings on the domestic circuit and banging on the doors of selection. At present I see both VVS and SRT making it into an Indian test side not an either/or. In my mind, SG will have more of a struggle getting in as YS attempts to establish himself than either SRT or VVS.  

However, as far as VVS, SRT comparisons go- 281 notwithstanding, I think SRT stacks up fine with VVS even in recent years.  We often use the "281" as a reference point for VVS' standard. But that is not the case. VVS, I would argue, is an underachiever- given the talent he brings to the table. Also, this idea of performing at a "critical" time or during a "win" is pretty bogus. If the majority of a player's good innings occur when his side wins, that means he typically sucked when his team lost. Arguably,then, if the player was able to perform in some of those losing causes those losses could have been avoided. Does that make him responsible for the team's defeats? If that is the case- then we need to apply the offset i.e. good innings in a winning cause offset by the times when the player got out cheaply in a defeat. Besides, most of the time when a guy goes out to bat he does not know what the outcome is going to be. Every run has value while he is at the crease. That is why picking and choosing games and assigning them some higher value, is too subjective to have merit. Plain cold averages, even if not perfect- are more useful than cherry picking.  

Anyway, just for fun, I thought I would take a look at the last few years' test averages for both players. I picked 2001 onward, because 2001 is the year that VVS started to establish himself as a premier player in the Indian side. Top row is SRT, second row is VVS. I see two things. (1) Clearly, SRT slumped a lot in 2006 and (2) both SRT, VVS compare very well with each other during the 2001-6 period.

So, the real question from SRT's perspective is whether his 2006 record is representative of what we will see in the future, or whether he can get back to what would be an "average" level by SRT's standards. I can see the selectors taking a view that SRT will get out of that slump. Now, if this goes on in 2007- then no question, SRT is toast.  

2001                  10  1003 155   62.68   3   6  
                         10   869 281   54.31   1   5

2002                  16  1392 193   55.68   4   5
                         15   984 154*  51.78   2   5

2003                   5   153  55   17.00   0   1  
                         5   595 148   85.00   2   3  

2004                  10   915 248*  91.50  3   2
                        12   513 178   32.06   1   2

2005                   6   444 109   44.40   1   3  
                         8   508 140   46.18   2   3  

2006                   8   267  63   24.27   0   1  
                        10   561 100   40.07   1   4  

Vijay:I am fully aware of all the stats and what SRT did and what VVS did.  As I identified in my previous post, more than the just the averages the number of times Sachin let down the team in 2nd innings of matches being an automatic selection which VVS is not, when he never fits his bill as a great player and that has become a norm in 2005 and 2006.  Also in ODI's while chasing out of sub-continent you can almost gaurantee a free wicket when SRT bats these days.  Still, never ever he is a candidate for dropping though very clearly after RD in tests it should be VVS who should be the player considered given the knocks he played since 2001 but he is on the chopping blocks perpetually.  Sachin always and is still enjoying that pool and double standards that has been the bane of Indian cricket for so long.  Agree with you 100% that VVS probably did not fully do justice to his potential and talent partly due to his own doing and partly due to the BCCI and selectors ways where he is always the fall guy and hence have to play with that chip on the shoulder.  Wish he was given a free ride like a Sachin.

Also I see your point for now that SRT and VVS along with SG still should get a spot in tests with YS breathing down the shoulders of all these men.  Now I want this to become between the 4 than just between SG/VVS/YS and SRT being an automatic.  That is my point and main grouse.  I hope you see where I am coming from.

[atticus]

More stats - for whatever it's worth.

I'm trying to guage the importance of batsmen to India's win-loss chances and to see who has contributed a lot to wins/draws. Instead of looking at averages, I thought of looking at the plain numbers. So I've drawn up these tables. I'm going to assume that a combined score (of both innings) of less than 50 is a poor performance. 50-75 is below average. 75-100 is average and 100+ is a very good performance. Here is the list for each batsmen (all stats from 01/01/2001 to current).

Dravid

Combined Score	Total	% Games	won	Draw	Loss
< 50	24	35.82%	6	7	11	the wins were against Zim, Zim, WI, Pak, Bang, SA
50 - 75	8	11.94%	2	2	4
75 - 100	12	17.91%	6	3	3
100+	23	34.33%	11	10	2
	67		25	22	20

S.R.T

Combined Score	Total	% Games	won	Draw	Loss
< 50	23	41.82%	7	8	8	the wins were against Aus, WI, Aus, Pak, Bang, SL, Eng
50 - 75	9	16.36%	4	2	3
75 - 100	7	12.73%	2	3	2
100+	16	29.09%	9	4	3
Total	55		22	17	16

V.V.S

Combined Score	Total	% Games	won	Draw	Loss
< 50	31	51.67%	12	8	11	the wins were against Eng, Zim, Eng, WI, WI, Pak, SA, Bang, Bang, Pak, Zim, WI
50 - 75	8	13.33%	3	3	2
75 - 100	7	11.67%	1	4	2
100+	14	23.33%	7	6	1
Total	60		23	21	16

S.G

Combined Score	Total	% Games	won	Draw	Loss
< 50	30	57.69%	10	10	10	the wins were against Aus, Zim, Eng, Zim, WI , WI , Aus, SA, Pak, Zim
50 - 75	7	13.46%	2	2	3
75 - 100	4	7.69%	4	0	0
100+	11	21.15%	5	3	3
Total	52		21	15	16

Sehwag

Combined Score	Total	% Games	won	Draw	Loss
< 50	25	48.08%	9	9	7	the wins were against Eng, Pak, Aus, Bang, Bang, Zim, SL, WI, SA
50 - 75	3	5.77%	2	1	0
75 - 100	8	15.38%	5	2	1
100+	16	30.77%	2	8	6
Total	52		18	20	14

I have also made a note of the teams against whom india won even when the batsman played poorly. As can be seen, it has been pretty much even for all except Dravid. Only 3 good wins for India (SA, Pak and WI) when Dravid fails completely. You guys can make your own conclusions from these stats. There is only one indisputable thing emerging from them - Dravid is far and away better than any of the rest in terms of consistency, helping India win and being someone that India cannot even afford to have a below average match let alone fail in a match (India have lost 15 of 32 such matches). Another thing that struck me was - it is appalling to have the so-called greatest batting lineup have 3 batsmen who have a failure rate of around 1 in every 2 matches.

[vijay]

Atticus- Wow. Excellent stuff.

[fineleg]

There is only one indisputable thing emerging from them - Dravid is far and away better than any of the rest in terms of consistency, helping India win and being someone that India cannot even afford to have a below average match let alone fail in a match (India have lost 15 of 32 such matches).

Another thing that struck me was - it is appalling to have the so-called greatest batting lineup have 3 batsmen who have a failure rate of around 1 in every 2 matches.

Atticus,
Applause. Great job in pulling together all the data.

[Prafulla]

More stats - for whatever it's worth.

I'm trying to guage the importance of batsmen to India's win-loss chances and to see who has contributed a lot to wins/draws. Instead of looking at averages, I thought of looking at the plain numbers. So I've drawn up these tables. I'm going to assume that a combined score (of both innings) of less than 50 is a poor performance. 50-75 is below average. 75-100 is average and 100+ is a very good performance. Here is the list for each batsmen (all stats from 01/01/2001 to current).

Dravid

Combined Score	Total	% Games	won	Draw	Loss
< 50	24	35.82%	6	7	11	the wins were against Zim, Zim, WI, Pak, Bang, SA
50 - 75	8	11.94%	2	2	4
75 - 100	12	17.91%	6	3	3
100+	23	34.33%	11	10	2
	67		25	22	20

S.R.T

Combined Score	Total	% Games	won	Draw	Loss
< 50	23	41.82%	7	8	8	the wins were against Aus, WI, Aus, Pak, Bang, SL, Eng
50 - 75	9	16.36%	4	2	3
75 - 100	7	12.73%	2	3	2
100+	16	29.09%	9	4	3
Total	55		22	17	16

V.V.S

Combined Score	Total	% Games	won	Draw	Loss
< 50	31	51.67%	12	8	11	the wins were against Eng, Zim, Eng, WI, WI, Pak, SA, Bang, Bang, Pak, Zim, WI
50 - 75	8	13.33%	3	3	2
75 - 100	7	11.67%	1	4	2
100+	14	23.33%	7	6	1
Total	60		23	21	16

S.G

Combined Score	Total	% Games	won	Draw	Loss
< 50	30	57.69%	10	10	10	the wins were against Aus, Zim, Eng, Zim, WI , WI , Aus, SA, Pak, Zim
50 - 75	7	13.46%	2	2	3
75 - 100	4	7.69%	4	0	0
100+	11	21.15%	5	3	3
Total	52		21	15	16

Sehwag

Combined Score	Total	% Games	won	Draw	Loss
< 50	25	48.08%	9	9	7	the wins were against Eng, Pak, Aus, Bang, Bang, Zim, SL, WI, SA
50 - 75	3	5.77%	2	1	0
75 - 100	8	15.38%	5	2	1
100+	16	30.77%	2	8	6
Total	52		18	20	14

I have also made a note of the teams against whom india won even when the batsman played poorly. As can be seen, it has been pretty much even for all except Dravid. Only 3 good wins for India (SA, Pak and WI) when Dravid fails completely. You guys can make your own conclusions from these stats. There is only one indisputable thing emerging from them - Dravid is far and away better than any of the rest in terms of consistency, helping India win and being someone that India cannot even afford to have a below average match let alone fail in a match (India have lost 15 of 32 such matches). Another thing that struck me was - it is appalling to have the so-called greatest batting lineup have 3 batsmen who have a failure rate of around 1 in every 2 matches.

Yes - invariably, when RD fails and India loses. In Pakistan (recent series) - first two tests - India drawn with RD hitting centuries. Third test - RD failed and India lost. Same again with England in domestic series - we lost mumbai match.
VVS has often been a better player for second inning - specially when we are chasing or saving the game. SRT / SG / VS have rarely played crisis innings in past 5 / 6 years. Most of the stats of SRT / VS / SG etc will be misleading, as they have made runs - when openers / RD has laid down the solid foundation. Few quick wickets down and then SRT / SG will also be down quickly.

[Cernunnos]

Well..we can not rate players based upon their 10 years old performances. We must take their performance in past 5 years, 3 years, 1 year etc; and also must exclude weaker teams like Zim / Ban (when india played in Bangladesh - they were very weak team).

Agreed the question is not about who perfomed well over a career and use that as the metric to say he is still good.  Clearly over the last 5 or 6 years Sachin was not that good and over the last 2 years he has been dismal in games that mattered.

The question is even if we for a second concede that SRT was on par with VVS or a little better in the last 5-6 years in tests which he is not in my books, VVS is benched while SRT is not though he was a candidate when we played 5 bats and he was one of the the reasons we lost the Mumbai test against England where a VVS could have made a difference.  I clealy see a double standard there.

I think for the number of innings or tests played to the number of good to great innings I think VVS as a percantage will pip SRT.

Again I clearly stick to my perception of stats can be analysed and dissected in anyway we want to show a player how good or bad he was depending on how we chose to show them.

Here is the stat I use and Sachin gets 0 points for how pathetic he played when it mattered in 2006.

Not once he even came close to saving one of them. 

Mumbai against England in 2006
Karachi against Pakistan in 2006
Capetown against SA in 2006

How many points does Laxman get for his stellar role in these tests?
And for the Sabina Park test in 2006 which he tried his best to lose?

[ramshorns]

Well..we can not rate players based upon their 10 years old performances. We must take their performance in past 5 years, 3 years, 1 year etc; and also must exclude weaker teams like Zim / Ban (when india played in Bangladesh - they were very weak team).

Agreed the question is not about who perfomed well over a career and use that as the metric to say he is still good.  Clearly over the last 5 or 6 years Sachin was not that good and over the last 2 years he has been dismal in games that mattered.

The question is even if we for a second concede that SRT was on par with VVS or a little better in the last 5-6 years in tests which he is not in my books, VVS is benched while SRT is not though he was a candidate when we played 5 bats and he was one of the the reasons we lost the Mumbai test against England where a VVS could have made a difference.  I clealy see a double standard there.

I think for the number of innings or tests played to the number of good to great innings I think VVS as a percantage will pip SRT.

Again I clearly stick to my perception of stats can be analysed and dissected in anyway we want to show a player how good or bad he was depending on how we chose to show them.

Here is the stat I use and Sachin gets 0 points for how pathetic he played when it mattered in 2006.

Not once he even came close to saving one of them. 

Mumbai against England in 2006
Karachi against Pakistan in 2006
Capetown against SA in 2006

How many points does Laxman get for his stellar role in these tests?
And for the Sabina Park test in 2006 which he tried his best to lose?

He got dropped for his failing's atleast unlike SRT now and your god SG in the previous regime where he was hanging on to his place on borrowed times and all he was doing is chewing his nails off when others were pefroming.

[Cernunnos]

Well..we can not rate players based upon their 10 years old performances. We must take their performance in past 5 years, 3 years, 1 year etc; and also must exclude weaker teams like Zim / Ban (when india played in Bangladesh - they were very weak team).

Agreed the question is not about who perfomed well over a career and use that as the metric to say he is still good.  Clearly over the last 5 or 6 years Sachin was not that good and over the last 2 years he has been dismal in games that mattered.

The question is even if we for a second concede that SRT was on par with VVS or a little better in the last 5-6 years in tests which he is not in my books, VVS is benched while SRT is not though he was a candidate when we played 5 bats and he was one of the the reasons we lost the Mumbai test against England where a VVS could have made a difference.  I clealy see a double standard there.

I think for the number of innings or tests played to the number of good to great innings I think VVS as a percantage will pip SRT.

Again I clearly stick to my perception of stats can be analysed and dissected in anyway we want to show a player how good or bad he was depending on how we chose to show them.

Here is the stat I use and Sachin gets 0 points for how pathetic he played when it mattered in 2006.

Not once he even came close to saving one of them. 

Mumbai against England in 2006
Karachi against Pakistan in 2006
Capetown against SA in 2006

How many points does Laxman get for his stellar role in these tests?
And for the Sabina Park test in 2006 which he tried his best to lose?

He got dropped for his failing's atleast unlike SRT now and your god SG in the previous regime where he was hanging on to his place on borrowed times and all he was doing is chewing his nails off when others were pefroming.

But your claim is Laxman > SRT in the last few years. Then why is Laxman failing more than SRT?

[ramshorns]

Well..we can not rate players based upon their 10 years old performances. We must take their performance in past 5 years, 3 years, 1 year etc; and also must exclude weaker teams like Zim / Ban (when india played in Bangladesh - they were very weak team).

Agreed the question is not about who perfomed well over a career and use that as the metric to say he is still good.  Clearly over the last 5 or 6 years Sachin was not that good and over the last 2 years he has been dismal in games that mattered.

The question is even if we for a second concede that SRT was on par with VVS or a little better in the last 5-6 years in tests which he is not in my books, VVS is benched while SRT is not though he was a candidate when we played 5 bats and he was one of the the reasons we lost the Mumbai test against England where a VVS could have made a difference.  I clealy see a double standard there.

I think for the number of innings or tests played to the number of good to great innings I think VVS as a percantage will pip SRT.

Again I clearly stick to my perception of stats can be analysed and dissected in anyway we want to show a player how good or bad he was depending on how we chose to show them.

Here is the stat I use and Sachin gets 0 points for how pathetic he played when it mattered in 2006.

Not once he even came close to saving one of them. 

Mumbai against England in 2006
Karachi against Pakistan in 2006
Capetown against SA in 2006

How many points does Laxman get for his stellar role in these tests?
And for the Sabina Park test in 2006 which he tried his best to lose?

He got dropped for his failing's atleast unlike SRT now and your god SG in the previous regime where he was hanging on to his place on borrowed times and all he was doing is chewing his nails off when others were pefroming.

But your claim is Laxman > SRT in the last few years. Then why is Laxman failing more than SRT?

Did you get CP's scoresheet for last week.  I know he was complaining about body pains from last week's game.  Now I am claiming that CP is better at seeing off the new ball than SG and changed my mind on SRT vs VVS.

[LosingNow]

ROFL!!!!!

[kban1]

Did you get CP's scoresheet for last week.  I know he was complaining about body pains from last week's game.  Now I am claiming that CP is better at seeing off the new ball than SG and changed my mind on SRT vs VVS.

humor notwithstanding, expected better than this dismissive comment from you rams.

This will just kill the debate

[ramshorns]

Did you get CP's scoresheet for last week.  I know he was complaining about body pains from last week's game.  Now I am claiming that CP is better at seeing off the new ball than SG and changed my mind on SRT vs VVS.

humor notwithstanding, expected better than this dismissive comment from you rams.

This will just kill the debate

May be it will, may be it will.  You should see the intent of this guy before questioning why I want to get some humor out of this.  So I am hardly dismissive, may be someelse can attest to this as well.

 

[ramshorns]

OK on second thoughts, may be I will stay out of this thread for a while and see where it goes.

[Cover Point]

Well..we can not rate players based upon their 10 years old performances. We must take their performance in past 5 years, 3 years, 1 year etc; and also must exclude weaker teams like Zim / Ban (when india played in Bangladesh - they were very weak team).

Agreed the question is not about who perfomed well over a career and use that as the metric to say he is still good.  Clearly over the last 5 or 6 years Sachin was not that good and over the last 2 years he has been dismal in games that mattered.

The question is even if we for a second concede that SRT was on par with VVS or a little better in the last 5-6 years in tests which he is not in my books, VVS is benched while SRT is not though he was a candidate when we played 5 bats and he was one of the the reasons we lost the Mumbai test against England where a VVS could have made a difference.  I clealy see a double standard there.

I think for the number of innings or tests played to the number of good to great innings I think VVS as a percantage will pip SRT.

Again I clearly stick to my perception of stats can be analysed and dissected in anyway we want to show a player how good or bad he was depending on how we chose to show them.

Here is the stat I use and Sachin gets 0 points for how pathetic he played when it mattered in 2006.

Not once he even came close to saving one of them. 

Mumbai against England in 2006
Karachi against Pakistan in 2006
Capetown against SA in 2006

How many points does Laxman get for his stellar role in these tests?
And for the Sabina Park test in 2006 which he tried his best to lose?

He got dropped for his failing's atleast unlike SRT now and your god SG in the previous regime where he was hanging on to his place on borrowed times and all he was doing is chewing his nails off when others were pefroming.

But your claim is Laxman > SRT in the last few years. Then why is Laxman failing more than SRT?

Did you get CP's scoresheet for last week.  I know he was complaining about body pains from last week's game.  Now I am claiming that CP is better at seeing off the new ball than SG and changed my mind on SRT vs VVS.

Ramji, i am very disappointed. You clearly know that the league games dont start until NEXT week! so how can he get the scoresheet. If next week, I do score over 15 (yes we have very relaxed expectations ... after all we are just proving me better than SG) I will post the scoresheet and we can then debate endlessly about the beautiful cover drive that I almost hit for a single and how great I was shaping up until that bit of hardluck that brought that unplayable delivery that even Bradman would have struggled against.

Last week was Tennis ball cricket and despite me hitting a couple of lusty fours I got suckered into a run out and we all know it wasnt my fault. Thats bloody Dravid's fault as all run outs are!

[CLR James]

CP, just out of curiosity, to what extent did those two fours improve your career strike rate? Where does it stand now?

[Cover Point]

CP, just out of curiosity, to what extent did those two fours improve your career strike rate? Where does it stand now?

Tennis ball or league?

Tennis ball the strike rate is pretty good ... probably around 140. Since this includes indoor and outdoor and its easier to hit a 4 indoors (which the above game was). But I am a good runner between the wickets and thus even otherwise am able to maintain a good strike rate.

League (leather ball) the strike rate is a bit low.... in the low 80's but thats not bad since 1) I played on a poor team and 2) was specifically charged with playing out the new ball. 3) Have had a few slow innings to bring it down. I call it low since a par score on our ground, all things being equal should be 180 in 30 over games. But then I do open and as I said am charged with being the anchor.

 

[atticus]

Yes - invariably, when RD fails and India loses. In Pakistan (recent series) - first two tests - India drawn with RD hitting centuries. Third test - RD failed and India lost. Same again with England in domestic series - we lost mumbai match.
VVS has often been a better player for second inning - specially when we are chasing or saving the game. SRT / SG / VS have rarely played crisis innings in past 5 / 6 years. Most of the stats of SRT / VS / SG etc will be misleading, as they have made runs - when openers / RD has laid down the solid foundation. Few quick wickets down and then SRT / SG will also be down quickly.

Yes. You are absolutely right. Although, I would nitpick you placing VS also in the same category as SRT/SG as someone who made runs when openers / RD has laid down the solid foundation. After all, he is an opener. So it is him laying down the foundation. He has been a miserable failure in the 2nd innings though. As far as SRT/SG are concerned, one need not even dig deep into SG's stats to show his failure. Just plain numbers above are enough. he has failed to score 50 combined runs in 57% of the matches since 2001. SRT's case is different. He has scored runs except in crisis situations. If you look at the number of 50's + 100's scored in the 2nd team innings (since 2001), this is how it would look

RD -    4 50's, 2 100's in wins ;  6 50's, 1 100 in draws ;  4 50's in losses - total of 14 50's and 3 100's
VVS -   5 50's, 1 100 in wins ; 2 50's, 1 100 in draws ;1 50 in loss - total of 8 50's and 2 100's
SRT -  2 50's in wins ; 2 50's, 1 100 in draws; 4 50's in losses - total of 8 50's and 1 100.
SG - 2 50's in wins ; 1 50 in draw ; 2 50's in losses - total of 5 50's.

Although VVS and SRT have scored almost the same number of > 50 score, 4/9 of SRT's have resulted in losses while VVS has 9/10 in wins and draws. So VVS edges him in that.

[Prafulla]

Yes - invariably, when RD fails and India loses. In Pakistan (recent series) - first two tests - India drawn with RD hitting centuries. Third test - RD failed and India lost. Same again with England in domestic series - we lost mumbai match.
VVS has often been a better player for second inning - specially when we are chasing or saving the game. SRT / SG / VS have rarely played crisis innings in past 5 / 6 years. Most of the stats of SRT / VS / SG etc will be misleading, as they have made runs - when openers / RD has laid down the solid foundation. Few quick wickets down and then SRT / SG will also be down quickly.

Very well said. I agree - VS has played first inning well and has often failed in second inning. I wanted to list VS with SRT / SG for second inning failures.
Yes. You are absolutely right. Although, I would nitpick you placing VS also in the same category as SRT/SG as someone who made runs when openers / RD has laid down the solid foundation. After all, he is an opener. So it is him laying down the foundation. He has been a miserable failure in the 2nd innings though. As far as SRT/SG are concerned, one need not even dig deep into SG's stats to show his failure. Just plain numbers above are enough. he has failed to score 50 combined runs in 57% of the matches since 2001. SRT's case is different. He has scored runs except in crisis situations. If you look at the number of 50's + 100's scored in the 2nd team innings (since 2001), this is how it would look

RD -    4 50's, 2 100's in wins ;  6 50's, 1 100 in draws ;  4 50's in losses - total of 14 50's and 3 100's
VVS -   5 50's, 1 100 in wins ; 2 50's, 1 100 in draws ;1 50 in loss - total of 8 50's and 2 100's
SRT -  2 50's in wins ; 2 50's, 1 100 in draws; 4 50's in losses - total of 8 50's and 1 100.
SG - 2 50's in wins ; 1 50 in draw ; 2 50's in losses - total of 5 50's.

Although VVS and SRT have scored almost the same number of > 50 score, 4/9 of SRT's have resulted in losses while VVS has 9/10 in wins and draws. So VVS edges him in that.

[LosingNow]

..and you were saying???

[toney]

Yes - invariably, when RD fails and India loses. In Pakistan (recent series) - first two tests - India drawn with RD hitting centuries. Third test - RD failed and India lost. Same again with England in domestic series - we lost mumbai match.
VVS has often been a better player for second inning - specially when we are chasing or saving the game. SRT / SG / VS have rarely played crisis innings in past 5 / 6 years. Most of the stats of SRT / VS / SG etc will be misleading, as they have made runs - when openers / RD has laid down the solid foundation. Few quick wickets down and then SRT / SG will also be down quickly.

Yes. You are absolutely right. Although, I would nitpick you placing VS also in the same category as SRT/SG as someone who made runs when openers / RD has laid down the solid foundation. After all, he is an opener. So it is him laying down the foundation. He has been a miserable failure in the 2nd innings though. As far as SRT/SG are concerned, one need not even dig deep into SG's stats to show his failure. Just plain numbers above are enough. he has failed to score 50 combined runs in 57% of the matches since 2001. SRT's case is different. He has scored runs except in crisis situations. If you look at the number of 50's + 100's scored in the 2nd team innings (since 2001), this is how it would look

RD -    4 50's, 2 100's in wins ;  6 50's, 1 100 in draws ;  4 50's in losses - total of 14 50's and 3 100's
VVS -   5 50's, 1 100 in wins ; 2 50's, 1 100 in draws ;1 50 in loss - total of 8 50's and 2 100's
SRT -  2 50's in wins ; 2 50's, 1 100 in draws; 4 50's in losses - total of 8 50's and 1 100.
SG - 2 50's in wins ; 1 50 in draw ; 2 50's in losses - total of 5 50's.

Although VVS and SRT have scored almost the same number of > 50 score, 4/9 of SRT's have resulted in losses while VVS has 9/10 in wins and draws. So VVS edges him in that.

Atticus,
First of all, I am in awe of your ability to organize numbers!!!
But I disagree with your final statement above. How does VVS have an edge over SRT based on the fact that he has scored more when India has won? Can't it be argued that he (or the rest of the bastmen) didn't show up for work in situations where INdia lost but SRT scored well?

Unless every one of those big innings from VVS is similar to a 281, I don't see why it deserves more credit than any other 100 (either by him or others). The 281 turned a match on its head. Even there, had HS not bowled brilliantly on day5 or had SG not had made that master move of bowling part timers, we may not have won. Would that make the 281 of any lesser value?

In tests, a batsman can only improve a team's fortunes except in the rarest of crcumstances. So it is unfair to reduce a person's contribution to the team in a defeat simply because the rest of the team sucked on that day/match.

[fineleg]

In tests, a batsman can only improve a team's fortunes except in the rarest of crcumstances. So it is unfair to reduce a person's contribution to the team in a defeat simply because the rest of the team sucked on that day/match.

Bowlers win Tests for the most part, yes.

But Tests can be saved by batsmen in 4th Inn. That is not a rare circumstance. If u've already included this in the "improve a team's fortune" then fine. But we need to call this out explicitly. Almost all our Maharathis suck there.

[inoc]

In tests, a batsman can only improve a team's fortunes except in the rarest of crcumstances. So it is unfair to reduce a person's contribution to the team in a defeat simply because the rest of the team sucked on that day/match.

Bowlers win Tests for the most part, yes.

But Tests can be saved by batsmen in 4th Inn. That is not a rare circumstance. If u've already included this in the "improve a team's fortune" then fine. But we need to call this out explicitly. Almost all our Maharathis suck there.

depends on your definition of suck


in drawn test matches

in the fourth innings averages

RD   153.33
SRT  76.66
VVS  61.00
SG   166.00

In the team second innings

RD    88.69
SRT  74.71
VVS  76.16
SG    68.68

[Prafulla]

..and you were saying???

I am extremely sorry .. now realized that my message was typed within the quote.
**
Very well said. I agree - VS has played first inning well and has often failed in second inning. I wanted to list VS with SRT / SG for second inning failures.
**

[atticus]

But I disagree with your final statement above. How does VVS have an edge over SRT based on the fact that he has scored more when India has won? Can't it be argued that he (or the rest of the bastmen) didn't show up for work in situations where INdia lost but SRT scored well?

But, it's not like SRT showed up a lot more than VVS even in losses, right? Totally (wins, draws and losses) they are pretty even in terms of 50+ scores. So, I don't see anything wrong in handing VVS an edge in terms of wins. We can say a small edge, if it pleases you

Unless every one of those big innings from VVS is similar to a 281, I don't see why it deserves more credit than any other 100 (either by him or others). The 281 turned a match on its head. Even there, had HS not bowled brilliantly on day5 or had SG not had made that master move of bowling part timers, we may not have won. Would that make the 281 of any lesser value?

In tests, a batsman can only improve a team's fortunes except in the rarest of crcumstances. So it is unfair to reduce a person's contribution to the team in a defeat simply because the rest of the team sucked on that day/match.

All true. Except the value of an innings does not depend just on the absolute number. For example, RD scored 47 runs in the 3rd test at SA. But his play was actually painful. His innings did not actually help the team to go for the win. So it will have much lesser value than a well played 30 from RD. So, it all depends on how they played according to situation. The same 47, if it came on the 4th day trying to save the match would be rated much higher. Over the last 5 years, SRT has very few such 2nd innings performance and VVS certianly has more.

[Prafulla]

Yes - invariably, when RD fails and India loses. In Pakistan (recent series) - first two tests - India drawn with RD hitting centuries. Third test - RD failed and India lost. Same again with England in domestic series - we lost mumbai match.
VVS has often been a better player for second inning - specially when we are chasing or saving the game. SRT / SG / VS have rarely played crisis innings in past 5 / 6 years. Most of the stats of SRT / VS / SG etc will be misleading, as they have made runs - when openers / RD has laid down the solid foundation. Few quick wickets down and then SRT / SG will also be down quickly.

Yes. You are absolutely right. Although, I would nitpick you placing VS also in the same category as SRT/SG as someone who made runs when openers / RD has laid down the solid foundation. After all, he is an opener. So it is him laying down the foundation. He has been a miserable failure in the 2nd innings though. As far as SRT/SG are concerned, one need not even dig deep into SG's stats to show his failure. Just plain numbers above are enough. he has failed to score 50 combined runs in 57% of the matches since 2001. SRT's case is different. He has scored runs except in crisis situations. If you look at the number of 50's + 100's scored in the 2nd team innings (since 2001), this is how it would look

RD -    4 50's, 2 100's in wins ;  6 50's, 1 100 in draws ;  4 50's in losses - total of 14 50's and 3 100's
VVS -   5 50's, 1 100 in wins ; 2 50's, 1 100 in draws ;1 50 in loss - total of 8 50's and 2 100's
SRT -  2 50's in wins ; 2 50's, 1 100 in draws; 4 50's in losses - total of 8 50's and 1 100.
SG - 2 50's in wins ; 1 50 in draw ; 2 50's in losses - total of 5 50's.

Although VVS and SRT have scored almost the same number of > 50 score, 4/9 of SRT's have resulted in losses while VVS has 9/10 in wins and draws. So VVS edges him in that.

Atticus,
First of all, I am in awe of your ability to organize numbers!!!
But I disagree with your final statement above. How does VVS have an edge over SRT based on the fact that he has scored more when India has won? Can't it be argued that he (or the rest of the bastmen) didn't show up for work in situations where INdia lost but SRT scored well?

Unless every one of those big innings from VVS is similar to a 281, I don't see why it deserves more credit than any other 100 (either by him or others). The 281 turned a match on its head. Even there, had HS not bowled brilliantly on day5 or had SG not had made that master move of bowling part timers, we may not have won. Would that make the 281 of any lesser value?

In tests, a batsman can only improve a team's fortunes except in the rarest of crcumstances. So it is unfair to reduce a person's contribution to the team in a defeat simply because the rest of the team sucked on that day/match.

Yes - but if he is able to make the difference, then he is rated as great batsman. Since, other fails in difficult circumstances - such players are rated above failed members.

[Prafulla]

In tests, a batsman can only improve a team's fortunes except in the rarest of crcumstances. So it is unfair to reduce a person's contribution to the team in a defeat simply because the rest of the team sucked on that day/match.

Bowlers win Tests for the most part, yes.

But Tests can be saved by batsmen in 4th Inn. That is not a rare circumstance. If u've already included this in the "improve a team's fortune" then fine. But we need to call this out explicitly. Almost all our Maharathis suck there.

depends on your definition of suck


in drawn test matches

in the fourth innings averages

RD   153.33
SRT  76.66
VVS  61.00
SG   166.00

In the team second innings

RD    88.69
SRT  74.71
VVS  76.16
SG    68.68

Is this stats for last 5 years?

Your stats also confirms the fact that - if openers / RD play well, then SRT / SG have done well. Does it mean that - they play well only in friendly situations !!

[inoc]

prafulla

no they are career stats.

Reducing them to the last five years only reduces the number of innings and hence the chances of an erroneous result. More about that later. nevertheless here are the last five years stats

4th innings
RD   187.00 (4 innings, 3 times not out, total runs scored 187)
SRT * (1 innings 28, not out)
VVS 32
SG * (didnt bat at all)

team second innings
RD   91.66
SRT 91.00
VVS 32.85
SG   46.66


are you any wiser? i am not.

this thread has reinforced my view that whichever way you look at the various scores/averages of different players, the overall averages/stats are almost always the appropriate indicator of a player's worth in the team. just look at the various permutations and combinations and equate it with the overall stats. without all this discussion you would have come to the conclusion which is rightly suggested by career stats.

various permutations and combinations has shown RD (tops every category dreamt of so far) followed by SRT and then by VVS and SG. SG as a batsman comes bottom of the quartet on every occasion (i am sure there are exceptions ) and would have lost his place in the side a lot earlier had he not been the captain. the next one in line is VVS and if not for that 281 would have lost his place as well by now. SRTs position is being questioned now and the only one who has escaped criticism as a batsman is RD by all means the best of the quartet.

 

[atticus]

result. More about that later. nevertheless here are the last five years stats

4th innings
RD   187.00 (4 innings, 3 times not out, total runs scored 187)
SRT * (1 innings 28, not out)
VVS 32
SG * (didnt bat at all)

Inoc,

This is one of the reasons why I did not give the 4th innings average in draws too much emphasis. Basically, if you drew chasing in the 4th - more often than not you will have batsmen not out and lower order batsmen will mostly have DNB. So it provides very little information. If you just plainly look at the number of opportunities available and the number of times a batsmen came through, that might give a bit more detail. I'm sure India had to chase in the 4th inning more than 15-16 times in the last 5 years. The fact that SG has never batted in a draw or VVS, SRT have only 1 such innings shows that Indian batsmen simply did not put up any fight at all and mostly caved. That is really bad.

[Prafulla]

prafulla

no they are career stats.

Reducing them to the last five years only reduces the number of innings and hence the chances of an erroneous result. More about that later. nevertheless here are the last five years stats

4th innings
RD   187.00 (4 innings, 3 times not out, total runs scored 187)
SRT * (1 innings 28, not out)
VVS 32
SG * (didnt bat at all)

team second innings
RD   91.66
SRT 91.00
VVS 32.85
SG   46.66


are you any wiser? i am not.

this thread has reinforced my view that whichever way you look at the various scores/averages of different players, the overall averages/stats are almost always the appropriate indicator of a player's worth in the team. just look at the various permutations and combinations and equate it with the overall stats. without all this discussion you would have come to the conclusion which is rightly suggested by career stats.

various permutations and combinations has shown RD (tops every category dreamt of so far) followed by SRT and then by VVS and SG. SG as a batsman comes bottom of the quartet on every occasion (i am sure there are exceptions ) and would have lost his place in the side a lot earlier had he not been the captain. the next one in line is VVS and if not for that 281 would have lost his place as well by now. SRTs position is being questioned now and the only one who has escaped criticism as a batsman is RD by all means the best of the quartet.

 

Inoc

Yes - I agree. In past 5 years - we did not have many draws (unlike past decades).

[justforkix]

In tests, a batsman can only improve a team's fortunes except in the rarest of crcumstances. So it is unfair to reduce a person's contribution to the team in a defeat simply because the rest of the team sucked on that day/match.

Bowlers win Tests for the most part, yes.

But Tests can be saved by batsmen in 4th Inn. That is not a rare circumstance. If u've already included this in the "improve a team's fortune" then fine. But we need to call this out explicitly. Almost all our Maharathis suck there.

depends on your definition of suck


in drawn test matches

in the fourth innings averages

RD   153.33
SRT  76.66
VVS  61.00
SG   166.00

In the team second innings

RD    88.69
SRT  74.71
VVS  76.16
SG    68.68

As far as I can remember (maybe, hopefully, I am wrong), in 4th innings, SG scored 98 in Kandy to win the game against SL, RD scored 70+ to beat Aussies in Adelaide, VVS scored 60+ in Chennai to win against Aussies and SRT scored that 119 against Eng to save the game. Other than that, I don't remember any of these 4 (SRT, RD, SG, VVS) winning/saving a game in the 4th innings.

I do not know how many chances these FOUR had to save/win in a 4th innings during their careers, but 4 Maharathis with almost 400 tests between them together have 1 such innings each - This is really sad. None of them have really put up their hands when their needed it most !!!!

[Dayal Baba]

In tests, a batsman can only improve a team's fortunes except in the rarest of crcumstances. So it is unfair to reduce a person's contribution to the team in a defeat simply because the rest of the team sucked on that day/match.

Bowlers win Tests for the most part, yes.

But Tests can be saved by batsmen in 4th Inn. That is not a rare circumstance. If u've already included this in the "improve a team's fortune" then fine. But we need to call this out explicitly. Almost all our Maharathis suck there.

depends on your definition of suck


in drawn test matches

in the fourth innings averages

RD   153.33
SRT  76.66
VVS  61.00
SG   166.00

In the team second innings

RD    88.69
SRT  74.71
VVS  76.16
SG    68.68

As far as I can remember (maybe, hopefully, I am wrong), in 4th innings, SG scored 98 in Kandy to win the game against SL, RD scored 70+ to beat Aussies in Adelaide, VVS scored 60+ in Chennai to win against Aussies and SRT scored that 119 against Eng to save the game. Other than that, I don't remember any of these 4 (SRT, RD, SG, VVS) winning/saving a game in the 4th innings.

I do not know how many chances these FOUR had to save/win in a 4th innings during their careers, but 4 Maharathis with almost 400 tests between them together have 1 such innings each - This is really sad. None of them have really put up their hands when their needed it most !!!!

did they play 400 different tests?

[toney]

...
As far as I can remember (maybe, hopefully, I am wrong), in 4th innings, SG scored 98 in Kandy to win the game against SL, RD scored 70+ to beat Aussies in Adelaide, VVS scored 60+ in Chennai to win against Aussies and SRT scored that 119 against Eng to save the game. Other than that, I don't remember any of these 4 (SRT, RD, SG, VVS) winning/saving a game in the 4th innings.

I do not know how many chances these FOUR had to save/win in a 4th innings during their careers, but 4 Maharathis with almost 400 tests between them together have 1 such innings each - This is really sad. None of them have really put up their hands when their needed it most !!!!

Although WI should be considered minnows nowadays, SRT scored a 100 (I think VVS had a 50 or 100 as well) to save a test at Eden Gardens (SRT's only test 100 at EG). But I agree with the general opinion in your post, our guys have never done very well in saving a test.

[ramshorns]

...
As far as I can remember (maybe, hopefully, I am wrong), in 4th innings, SG scored 98 in Kandy to win the game against SL, RD scored 70+ to beat Aussies in Adelaide, VVS scored 60+ in Chennai to win against Aussies and SRT scored that 119 against Eng to save the game. Other than that, I don't remember any of these 4 (SRT, RD, SG, VVS) winning/saving a game in the 4th innings.

I do not know how many chances these FOUR had to save/win in a 4th innings during their careers, but 4 Maharathis with almost 400 tests between them together have 1 such innings each - This is really sad. None of them have really put up their hands when their needed it most !!!!

Although WI should be considered minnows nowadays, SRT scored a 100 (I think VVS had a 50 or 100 as well) to save a test at Eden Gardens (SRT's only test 100 at EG). But I agree with the general opinion in your post, our guys have never done very well in saving a test.

Actually VVS has scored 150 plus in that 4th inning against WI to save that game in which SRT scored 100 as well.

Scorecard:
http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/2002-03/WI_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/WI_IND_T3_30OCT-03NOV2002.html

One other inning of VVS that people forget I remember is that Mohali test against NZ where he along with Akash Chopra saved that match and had to play more than 50 overs after RD, SRT and VS were out following on and he played another crucial knock from 18 for 3.  Though technically it was 3rd inning since we were following on I would say it is like a 4th inning.

Scorecard:
http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/2003-04/NZ_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/NZ_IND_T2_16-20OCT2003.html

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.

[Dayal Baba]

...
As far as I can remember (maybe, hopefully, I am wrong), in 4th innings, SG scored 98 in Kandy to win the game against SL, RD scored 70+ to beat Aussies in Adelaide, VVS scored 60+ in Chennai to win against Aussies and SRT scored that 119 against Eng to save the game. Other than that, I don't remember any of these 4 (SRT, RD, SG, VVS) winning/saving a game in the 4th innings.

I do not know how many chances these FOUR had to save/win in a 4th innings during their careers, but 4 Maharathis with almost 400 tests between them together have 1 such innings each - This is really sad. None of them have really put up their hands when their needed it most !!!!

Although WI should be considered minnows nowadays, SRT scored a 100 (I think VVS had a 50 or 100 as well) to save a test at Eden Gardens (SRT's only test 100 at EG). But I agree with the general opinion in your post, our guys have never done very well in saving a test.

Actually VVS has scored 150 plus in that 4th inning against WI to save that game in which SRT scored 100 as well.

Scorecard:
http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/2002-03/WI_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/WI_IND_T3_30OCT-03NOV2002.html

i saw this match. it was sachin who blasted the bowlers and saved the match, vvs laxman gave good support. it was not fourth innings but third innings.

[ramshorns]

...
As far as I can remember (maybe, hopefully, I am wrong), in 4th innings, SG scored 98 in Kandy to win the game against SL, RD scored 70+ to beat Aussies in Adelaide, VVS scored 60+ in Chennai to win against Aussies and SRT scored that 119 against Eng to save the game. Other than that, I don't remember any of these 4 (SRT, RD, SG, VVS) winning/saving a game in the 4th innings.

I do not know how many chances these FOUR had to save/win in a 4th innings during their careers, but 4 Maharathis with almost 400 tests between them together have 1 such innings each - This is really sad. None of them have really put up their hands when their needed it most !!!!

Although WI should be considered minnows nowadays, SRT scored a 100 (I think VVS had a 50 or 100 as well) to save a test at Eden Gardens (SRT's only test 100 at EG). But I agree with the general opinion in your post, our guys have never done very well in saving a test.

Actually VVS has scored 150 plus in that 4th inning against WI to save that game in which SRT scored 100 as well.

Scorecard:
http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/2002-03/WI_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/WI_IND_T3_30OCT-03NOV2002.html

i saw this match. it was sachin who blasted the bowlers and saved the match, vvs laxman gave good support. it was not fourth innings but third innings.

Yes it was 3rd innings, to me those are as good as 4th or any innings since it help us save the match.  No doubt SRT played more aggresively than VVS as the scorecard would suggest.  But Test Cricket is not about blasting bowlers.  We have seen enough of those 1 session players which will not help save matches like these.  Test cricket is all about playing according to the team needs and what the situation demand and in this case both VVS and SRT did do that and finish the job and also VVS and AC did again at Mohali in the match I posted in my previous post.

[Dayal Baba]

...
As far as I can remember (maybe, hopefully, I am wrong), in 4th innings, SG scored 98 in Kandy to win the game against SL, RD scored 70+ to beat Aussies in Adelaide, VVS scored 60+ in Chennai to win against Aussies and SRT scored that 119 against Eng to save the game. Other than that, I don't remember any of these 4 (SRT, RD, SG, VVS) winning/saving a game in the 4th innings.

I do not know how many chances these FOUR had to save/win in a 4th innings during their careers, but 4 Maharathis with almost 400 tests between them together have 1 such innings each - This is really sad. None of them have really put up their hands when their needed it most !!!!

Although WI should be considered minnows nowadays, SRT scored a 100 (I think VVS had a 50 or 100 as well) to save a test at Eden Gardens (SRT's only test 100 at EG). But I agree with the general opinion in your post, our guys have never done very well in saving a test.

Actually VVS has scored 150 plus in that 4th inning against WI to save that game in which SRT scored 100 as well.

Scorecard:
http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/2002-03/WI_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/WI_IND_T3_30OCT-03NOV2002.html

i saw this match. it was sachin who blasted the bowlers and saved the match, vvs laxman gave good support. it was not fourth innings but third innings.

Yes it was 3rd innings, to me those are as good as 4th or any innings since it help us save the match.  No doubt SRT played more aggresively than VVS as the scorecard would suggest.  But Test Cricket is not about blasting bowlers.  We have seen enough of those 1 session players which will not help save matches like these.  Test cricket is all about playing according to the team needs and what the situation demand and in this case both VVS and SRT did do that and finish the job and also VVS and AC did again at Mohali in the match I posted in my previous post.

did you see this test?

[ramshorns]

...
As far as I can remember (maybe, hopefully, I am wrong), in 4th innings, SG scored 98 in Kandy to win the game against SL, RD scored 70+ to beat Aussies in Adelaide, VVS scored 60+ in Chennai to win against Aussies and SRT scored that 119 against Eng to save the game. Other than that, I don't remember any of these 4 (SRT, RD, SG, VVS) winning/saving a game in the 4th innings.

I do not know how many chances these FOUR had to save/win in a 4th innings during their careers, but 4 Maharathis with almost 400 tests between them together have 1 such innings each - This is really sad. None of them have really put up their hands when their needed it most !!!!

Although WI should be considered minnows nowadays, SRT scored a 100 (I think VVS had a 50 or 100 as well) to save a test at Eden Gardens (SRT's only test 100 at EG). But I agree with the general opinion in your post, our guys have never done very well in saving a test.

Actually VVS has scored 150 plus in that 4th inning against WI to save that game in which SRT scored 100 as well.

Scorecard:
http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/2002-03/WI_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/WI_IND_T3_30OCT-03NOV2002.html

i saw this match. it was sachin who blasted the bowlers and saved the match, vvs laxman gave good support. it was not fourth innings but third innings.

Yes it was 3rd innings, to me those are as good as 4th or any innings since it help us save the match.  No doubt SRT played more aggresively than VVS as the scorecard would suggest.  But Test Cricket is not about blasting bowlers.  We have seen enough of those 1 session players which will not help save matches like these.  Test cricket is all about playing according to the team needs and what the situation demand and in this case both VVS and SRT did do that and finish the job and also VVS and AC did again at Mohali in the match I posted in my previous post.

did you see this test?

yes.... your point?

[Dayal Baba]

...
As far as I can remember (maybe, hopefully, I am wrong), in 4th innings, SG scored 98 in Kandy to win the game against SL, RD scored 70+ to beat Aussies in Adelaide, VVS scored 60+ in Chennai to win against Aussies and SRT scored that 119 against Eng to save the game. Other than that, I don't remember any of these 4 (SRT, RD, SG, VVS) winning/saving a game in the 4th innings.

I do not know how many chances these FOUR had to save/win in a 4th innings during their careers, but 4 Maharathis with almost 400 tests between them together have 1 such innings each - This is really sad. None of them have really put up their hands when their needed it most !!!!

Although WI should be considered minnows nowadays, SRT scored a 100 (I think VVS had a 50 or 100 as well) to save a test at Eden Gardens (SRT's only test 100 at EG). But I agree with the general opinion in your post, our guys have never done very well in saving a test.

Actually VVS has scored 150 plus in that 4th inning against WI to save that game in which SRT scored 100 as well.

Scorecard:
http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/2002-03/WI_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/WI_IND_T3_30OCT-03NOV2002.html

i saw this match. it was sachin who blasted the bowlers and saved the match, vvs laxman gave good support. it was not fourth innings but third innings.

Yes it was 3rd innings, to me those are as good as 4th or any innings since it help us save the match.  No doubt SRT played more aggresively than VVS as the scorecard would suggest.  But Test Cricket is not about blasting bowlers.  We have seen enough of those 1 session players which will not help save matches like these.  Test cricket is all about playing according to the team needs and what the situation demand and in this case both VVS and SRT did do that and finish the job and also VVS and AC did again at Mohali in the match I posted in my previous post.

did you see this test?

yes.... your point?

then you would have seen when sourav got out, they had their tails up. sachin's blasting attack after that completely demoralized them. first credit has to be given to sachin.

[ramshorns]

...
As far as I can remember (maybe, hopefully, I am wrong), in 4th innings, SG scored 98 in Kandy to win the game against SL, RD scored 70+ to beat Aussies in Adelaide, VVS scored 60+ in Chennai to win against Aussies and SRT scored that 119 against Eng to save the game. Other than that, I don't remember any of these 4 (SRT, RD, SG, VVS) winning/saving a game in the 4th innings.

I do not know how many chances these FOUR had to save/win in a 4th innings during their careers, but 4 Maharathis with almost 400 tests between them together have 1 such innings each - This is really sad. None of them have really put up their hands when their needed it most !!!!

Although WI should be considered minnows nowadays, SRT scored a 100 (I think VVS had a 50 or 100 as well) to save a test at Eden Gardens (SRT's only test 100 at EG). But I agree with the general opinion in your post, our guys have never done very well in saving a test.

Actually VVS has scored 150 plus in that 4th inning against WI to save that game in which SRT scored 100 as well.

Scorecard:
http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/2002-03/WI_IN_IND/SCORECARDS/WI_IND_T3_30OCT-03NOV2002.html

i saw this match. it was sachin who blasted the bowlers and saved the match, vvs laxman gave good support. it was not fourth innings but third innings.

Yes it was 3rd innings, to me those are as good as 4th or any innings since it help us save the match.  No doubt SRT played more aggresively than VVS as the scorecard would suggest.  But Test Cricket is not about blasting bowlers.  We have seen enough of those 1 session players which will not help save matches like these.  Test cricket is all about playing according to the team needs and what the situation demand and in this case both VVS and SRT did do that and finish the job and also VVS and AC did again at Mohali in the match I posted in my previous post.

did you see this test?

yes.... your point?

then you would have seen when sourav got out, they had their tails up. sachin's blasting attack after that completely demoralized them. first credit has to be given to sachin.

I agree to that,  but those kinds of innings only have value when there is enough support on the other end.  And VVS did that.  Speaking of which remember the 167 VVS scored at SCG in a losing cause.  Wickets kept falling on one end though VVS was blasting away on the other end.  In the end that inning has no value to me though personally it may be the most dominant knock for VVS.  In a situation like that I feel if there was atleast one more batsman who could have held one end we atleast could have made a match of it perhaps, instead of surrendering meekly.

Here is the scorcard for that match I am talking about which to me that VVS 167 did no good for the team.

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/1999-2000/IND_IN_AUS/SCORECARDS/IND_AUS_T3_02-06JAN2000.html