You cannot compare the batting strike rates of Sehwag with any of the other players I mentioned, because there was no such concept called strike rate till the 1970s, & that too was started for one day internationals in the 1970s.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I haven't watched cricket in over 12 years, so no need to gloat about things.
and he scored 293 against lankans in a day.. murali was almost crying
The point is there IS a Strike Rate for bowlers even if its a new invention (though not so new as ODI cricket started 40 years back).
Again back to defending the indefensible about how there is NO strike rate for bowlers ? Need I remind you what you said few posts back ?
You cannot compare the batting strike rates of Sehwag with any of the other players I mentioned, as they came from a much much more older time period when there was no such concept called strike rate (which was introduced only in the 1970s, & that too was started for one day internationals).
No he doesn't know and thinks Sanga is an opener.
I haven't watched cricket in over 12 years, so no need to gloat about things. Btw, read this:
It is meaningless to compare strike rates in test cricket, because it is a very new concept, only introduced in the 1970s, & that too only through one day cricket.
The psychological affect that a batsmen exerts on the opposition is not a criteria which is taken into account when ranking a batsman. It is merely his batting statistics and that's all.
Oh yes it does matter !
Listen to what Umar Gul had to say in a recent interview.He said that the first three overs of Sehwag in the WC semis destroyed him mentally that he was out of the game and could not concentrate on bowling the remaining 7 overs.
You need such batsmen as there are enough 'solid' batsmen later on to consolidate in case he does not fire.
Again, repeating things for you to make you understand:
Sangakara did play as an opener. In fact his original position was as an opener.
What you said was THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS STRIKE RATE AS BOWLERS which even cursory followers of cricket know exists.
No use in telling the nuances of the game to a fellow who does not even know the basics of cricket.
So the interview of Umar Gul is more important than batting statistical evidence?
There was no such thing as a strike rate during the times of the openers that have a higher batting average than Sehwag, so you can't compare strike rates there. The fact that the strike rate was first introduced for the ODI game & not for the test one (& never existed before the 70s) shows strike rate is not important in the test game.
The 'strike rate' is for batting, not bowling. 'Strike', as in striking, hitting... batting. Strike rate is used exclusively for batting, to see how much runs are scored per 100 balls faced.
The bowling average indicates the rate at which wickets are taken.
My knowledge of cricket might suck, but not of the English Language.
You should have edited ths previous post which betrayed you COMPLETE IGNORANCE about teh basics of cricket
You don't even have an argument based on 'physical' evidence to prove why strike rate is important in test cricket, besides providing conjecture [which includes Umar Gul's interview (which was for the One Day International form of the game btw)].
bla bla bla....anything else ?