Virender Sehwag

[sphynx]

Well.. I m guessing the story behind those numbers would be more telling than just the numbers itself but I am not in the mood for statistic based debates.. I agree with your analysis to an extent, that he is obviously much more comfortable in these conditions than in those conditions but I do think he has become a worse player abroad than he was as recently as 3 or 4 years ago due to a lot of laziness and indiscipline than anything else.


His innings yesterday for instance, it was clear he still has the same issues in terms of footwork and fitness (compared to his pomp) but at least his mind was in a better state and he seemed to be thinking with more clarity and that helped him get those runs.

Most first class cricketers could of tonned up on that pitch, with their eyes closed yesterday.

When the ball doesn't get above the knee roll, it's pretty easy to smack.

 

[Spikey]

' I realised that if I played the new ball cautiously it's good for me and good for the team.'

what a ****ing ****

 

[weldone]

Most first class cricketers could of tonned up on that pitch, with their eyes closed yesterday.

When the ball doesn't get above the knee roll, it's pretty easy to smack.

Yes, it's as easy as eating a plum pudding or a KFC Zinger Burger. Tom Moody could score a test ton on this pitch with a broomstick every day of the week against Anil Kumble's bowling, indeed.

 

[smash84]

Yes, it's as easy as eating a plum pudding or a KFC Zinger Burger. Tom Moody could score a test ton on this pitch with a broomstick every day of the week against Anil Kumble's bowling, indeed.

 

[Jono]

Most first class cricketers could of tonned up on that pitch, with their eyes closed yesterday.

When the ball doesn't get above the knee roll, it's pretty easy to smack.

It is could 'have'. And you're getting pretty repetitive.

 

[Senile Sentry]

England beware. He is hightime due for a big one.

The "didn't I say so" moment.

 

[Salamuddin]

He is a good enough player to have success at times in conditions he is not entirely comfortable with. He has played enough cricket to score runs on occasions when it is swinging around or seaming about a bit, but his record in England where he averages 27.80, South Africa 25.47, and New Zealand 20.00 suggest he generally finds the going much more difficult, and that isn't surprising with the way he plays. He has had success in Australia to his credit where there's more bounce around, but his record is so impeccable because once he is in in his own comfortable conditions, he cashes in.

His record in England & New Zealand is a bit misleading - he clearly wasn't fit when picked to play in England in 2011 and averaged a reasonable 40 on his maiden tour there in 2002.

His failures in NZ in 2009 isn't because of the swinging ball. I'm always amused that people qualify Gambhir's success on that tour as due to the flat wickets and Sehwag's failure as due to the swinging and seaming conditions . So which is it ?

His other tour to NZ in 2002 was that rather infamous series in which the batsmen on both sides failed.

I think India's next round of tours in 2013/2014 (to RSA, England, NZ and AUstralia) are gonna be crucial in judging how he is ultimately viewed. .
He has the innate ability (contrary to what a lot of his detractors think) to score runs on picthes where their is some juice for the seamers - he showed it at Bloiemforntein in 2001 , Trent Bridge 2002 and Chennai 2004). Question is how badly does he want the success ?

 

[Flem274*]

NZ 2002 were classical NZ pitches made infamous by Ganguly's incessant whinging. Batsmen with quality defensive techniques like Dravid and Richardson scored runs.

NZ 2009 was flaaaaaat, and Sehwag failed because he's weird and I think Vettori may have been the one getting him as well, and Vettori loves batsmen who take him on.

Seriously, 2009 had some of the flattest pitches I've seen in this country. We basically rolled out the red carpet for the Indian batting for whatever reason when we should have produced some green tops to show Ganguly what one was and bring the Indian batting down to our level and make it a battle of the bowlers.

 

[Salamuddin]

Seriously, 2009 had some of the flattest pitches I've seen in this country. We basically rolled out the red carpet for the Indian batting for whatever reason when we should have produced some green tops to show Ganguly what one was and bring the Indian batting down to our level and make it a battle of the bowlers.

dare I say it , but had 2009 been greentops, India probably still would have won given the way Zaheer Khan was bolwing at the time.

And the Indian side of 2009 was >>>> the one in 2002.

 

[Salamuddin]

NZ 2002 were classical NZ pitches made infamous by Ganguly's incessant whinging. Batsmen with quality defensive techniques like Dravid and Richardson scored runs.

Considering that NZ have never produced wickets like what they did in the summer of 2002 either before or after - they can hardly be termed "classic" NZ pitches.

 

[Flem274*]

No doubt, but New Zealanders who weren't Taylor, Ryder or Vettori were going collapse regardless of the pitch conditions. At least on a green top you can dent the Indian batting averages somewhat.

 

[Athlai]

Considering that NZ have never produced wickets like what they did in the summer of 2002 either before or after - they can hardly be termed "classic" NZ pitches.

NZ Test wickets hardly match up the club standard greenery typically on show that our cricketers would have been brought up on.

 

[Flem274*]

Considering that NZ have never produced wickets like what they did in the summer of 2002 either before or after - they can hardly be termed "classic" NZ pitches.

....before 2000 they were pretty standard pitches, and considerably fairer than the domestic pitches at times.

India just couldn't handle Bond and co. on wickets that had pace and bounce with a bit of sideways movement, so Ganguly cried.

 

[Athlai]

And Phlegm is also wrong in his timeframe. Since 2007 our pitches both in Tests and domestic matches have been far flatter than they had been historically. Not 2009.

 

[Flem274*]

2009 was the worst.

 

[Athlai]

You're only saying that because Gambhir batted for 50 days and there was great famine in CD.

 

[Senile Sentry]

....before 2000 they were pretty standard pitches, and considerably fairer than the domestic pitches at times.

India just couldn't handle Bond and co. on wickets that had pace and bounce with a bit of sideways movement, so Ganguly cried.

What explains then NZ's batting average of 20.65 in that series? Fleming & Co. crying against Nehra and Zaheer?

 

[Flem274*]

What explains then NZ's batting average of 20.65 in that series? Fleming & Co. crying against Nehra and Zaheer?

Idiotic post. Yes, it was a seam bowling friendly series, so what? How does that make it any different from an Indian dustbowl series? They didn't cry, they copped their dismissals on the chin and set to bowling India out for less than we scored. Maybe if Ganguly spent as much time practising his batting as he did complaining he would have scored some bloody runs.

 

[Jono]

India could have won that 2002 series if Srinath played the tests.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Idiotic post. Yes, it was a seam bowling friendly series, so what? How does that make it any different from an Indian dustbowl series? They didn't cry, they copped their dismissals on the chin and set to bowling India out for less than we scored. Maybe if Ganguly spent as much time practising his batting as he did complaining he would have scored some bloody runs.

Dude, the fact that the winner of that test series could average just 20 suggests that the pitch and conditions had the final say. Those were never proper test wickets, especially the one at Hamilton, and a bad advert for test cricket.