Sehwag vs Smith

[ret]

The fact is the Sehwag hit the ''newball '' too hard that can't be taken so easily even by the expert fielders of Australian side .That is more because of his strength .

and when he would offer dollies, the Australians would be too shocked to react

 

[funnygirl]

and when he would offer dollies, the Australians would be too shocked to react

Exactly .I saw pakistanis crying over those missed chances that they did when he scored his 306 against them . .

Okay his chances were dropped .Then what ?

Even Akhtar's hyperextension couldn't able to produce an unplayable yorker ,whose fault is that ? .Talk about being awestruck.

 

[Richard]

The fact is the Sehwag hit the ''newball '' too hard that can't be taken so easily even by the expert fielders of Australian side .That is more because of his strength .

and when he would offer dollies, the Australians would be too shocked to react

Exactly .I saw pakistanis crying over those missed chances that they did when he scored his 306 against them.

Okay his chances were dropped .Then what ?

Even Akhtar's hyperextension couldn't able to produce an unplayable yorker ,whose fault is that ? .Talk about being awestruck.

Some of the excuses people come-up with to try and find reasons why batsmen "deserve" let-offs are amusing.

 

[Richard]

Why then must not giving a chance at all clearly be marked way above giving one and being let-off.

There might have been 100 false shots without giving a chance, so is this marked way below playing one false shot and giving a chance or not? If it's not necessarily the better innings why is it marked way above just because it doesn't contain a let off.

Perhaps the presence of "other circumstances being at least roughly equal" would make that sound better?

In any case, there is something at least vaguely commendible about in innings where a batsman plays lots of false strokes but doesn't actually get out. It's rarely going to be a terribly good innings, but it can be hugely admirable in its own way.

What's annoying is when batsmen are credited for "fighting their way through" a period when they played lots of false strokes... if in reality they didn't, they were just allowed through by the fact a fielder couldn't catch or an Umpire could give an lbw or whatever.

 

[funnygirl]

some people just can't stand ''let offs'' to particular player .

First of all why a particular batsman blessed with so many ''let offs '' .May be he born with so much luck .

 

[Richard]

some people just can't stand ''let offs'' to particular player .

I can't stand let-offs to any batsman, really. Every time a batsman should be out, I want to see him be out.

First of all why a particular batsman blessed with so many ''let offs '' .May be he born with so much luck .

You can't be born with luck - luck is by definition random. And as it's random, no two people will get the exact same amount of it, and there is no influence from the individual involved. Once the individual influences it, it ceases to be luck.

 

[funnygirl]

I can't stand let-offs to any batsman, really. Every time a batsman should be out, I want to see him be out.

You can't be born with luck - luck is by definition random. And as it's random, no two people will get the exact same amount of it, and there is no influence from the individual involved. Once the individual influences it, it ceases to be luck.

I have full respect for those batsmen who cash it on their ''let offs ''.It is not that every tom ,dick and harry can bat through the whole day after giving some let offs .Only the gifted ones can .Not all those ''lucky ''sloggers are having averages around 50 .one needs more than luck for that .i respect Sehwag's ability .

yes .some one like Dravid may play a chanceless innings ,and will be regarded as a great player as well .but some times those type of innings wouldn't help the team in any particular way .Then we need some one to get the initiative .To counter attack ,such batting can ''put the fielders under pressure ,that how these ''let offs'' happen .

 

[Richard]

But most batsmen who give chances as regularly as Sehwag don't tend to do especially well. Because most of them get taken with enough regularity to keep the batsman's score down.

 

[ret]

Some of the excuses people come-up with to try and find reasons why batsmen "deserve" let-offs are amusing.

it's suppose to be amusing .... though not as amusing as your serious take on 'let-offs' and the presentation of urself as the 'source'

 

[honestbharani]

It's been a while since the "first chance average" came up but it has been worth the wait, I think.......





CW would be so dreary if it weren't for this concept...

 

[Beleg]

Here's a novel idea! Let's just count runs scored against Australia! It's not as if other teams matter!

 

[DaRick]

Here's a novel idea! Let's just count runs scored against Australia! It's not as if other teams matter!

Well, according to some (bond21), the Australian XI may as well be the World XI, anyway.

Seriously though, I'm not a big fan of Sehwag or Smith, TBH. Smith gropes around his front-pad and is a sitting duck to the inswinger, while Sehwag flays the ball through the off-side with little in the way of footwork, taking advantage of poor captaincy (why you wouldn't fire it in at his body and have a fly slip is beyond me).

If I was forced to pick between the two, I'd go for Sehwag, as he is less of a weak-attack bully than Smith.

 

[Googenheim]

Here's a novel idea! Let's just count runs scored against Australia! It's not as if other teams matter!

Agreed. And since only runs scored against world class Australia count as legitimate quality runs, none of the world class Aussie batsmen can claim to be world class *combusts in paradox*

 

[jeevan]

In case there was any body sitting on the fence on this one, the third days play at Chennai was for you to make up your mind. It's only one innings, and the pitch is a road, but look at the bowling sheet.

 

[ret]

now Sehwag has the fastest triple to this name

the last samurai

One moment typified Virender Sehwag's buccaneering masterclass on the third day in Chennai. He had led a stunning fightback, just brought up his 100th run for the session, and was facing the final ball before the tea break. The astonishing part wasn't that Sehwag clobbered the ball past cover for four - if any batsman is expected to show such daring, it's tough to look beyond him - but the manner in which he turned around in a flash and began his walk back to the pavilion.

So furiously was the ball struck that those who didn't see it travel could have thought Sehwag was actually dismissed. Such a rapid walk back is usually the preserve of batsmen who have been dismissed bowled, turning back in frustration and fuming all the way to the dressing-room. Some batsmen might have held on to their pose on the follow-through, others could have walked towards the non-striker, and a few more might have waited for the umpires to remove the bails to signal tea. Not Sehwag, a unique batsman and a singular man.

Like most of Sehwag's hundreds, records there were aplenty. There was a third fastest double-hundred in Tests, the fastest triple hundred (since the time number of balls per innings were recorded), the highest score by an Indian, and a slew of others. But numbers will never tell the story of this once-in-a-lifetime batsman. On a sleep-inducing pitch, in searing heat, he lifted the spirits like few others. With due respect to Neil McKenzie and Hashim Amla, Sehwag's was the innings that injected some life into what was turning into a dead Test. Stirring, explosive, creative and audacious, this was one for the ages. A crowd of 29,356 watched the innings today but you can be rest assured that many years later several more Chennai residents would claim that they were there.

Sehwag's strokeplay is dazzling enough, but it's the context which makes it even more thrilling. He reverse-swept two fours, the first four balls before lunch and the second when he was on 244; tried to bring up his hundred with a six, only to see the ball drop short of the cover fence; started the second session with a four; lofted Makhaya Ntini without a trace of regard when on 193; pounded two fours and a six in the last over before tea; and clattered a straight six when on 291.



Some batsmen take into account the nature of the pitch, time of day, phase of innings, and quality of the bowler. Sehwag prefers to have only one parameter in mind: type of delivery. This was batting reduced to its simplest form



Some batsmen take into account the nature of the pitch, time of day, phase of innings, and quality of the bowler. Sehwag prefers to have only one parameter in mind: type of delivery. This was batting reduced to its simplest form. As the Last Samurai postulates: "the highest level of martial and spiritual skill is only attainable through No Mind".

Batsmen normally talk of cashing in on featherbeds, making sure they thrive when the going is good. Sehwag doesn't seem to really care. He has often talked about not looking at a pitch before a game and rarely alters his approach according to the surface. He has taken a different approach according to match situations - his match-saving hundred in the previous Test in Adelaide showed as much - but conditions don't seem to matter. When he's as balanced at the crease as this, there's little to stop him.

In the three Tests since his Test comeback it's pretty clear that he's worked on his on-side game. His struggles at the Test level coincided with the time when he tried to back away and swat most balls to the off side but he's obviously worked on the clip to leg - the shot where he gets up on his toes and turns it towards square leg. He's brought back the hoick and has now started to again loft powerfully over cover. It's helped that he's got fitter, shedding some fat around the waist-line.

It's also interesting that the two occasions when he's consulted a mental conditioner have been followed up with brutal innings. The blistering 180 on the first day in Gros Islet came on the back of a chat with Rudi Webster, the renowned sports psychologist, and this knock was preceded by a lengthy interaction with Paddy Upton. Sehwag has often said that his one-day failures are mainly because of too many parameters coming into play - number of overs, run-rate, Powerplays and the like - and it's the Test arena that he enjoys the most.

His last ten hundreds have all been 150-plus knocks, a trot unlike any other batsman in Test history. He joined Brian Lara and Don Bradman as the only two batsmen to cross 300 twice. He may not be mentioned in the same league as those two legends - not as yet - but like them he remains a man apart.

Sehwag, A Samurai indeed!!!

 

[ret]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/indvrsa/content/current/story/344333.html

No batsman had scored over 250 runs in a day's play of a Test for over 50 years; Virender Sehwag smashed past the mark on the way to scoring his second triple-hundred, one of several statistical highlights from the record-breaking day in Chennai:

Sehwag's unbeaten 309 is the second triple-century by an Indian - he had scored the first in Multan in 2004. It was also the first time that a batsman had gone past the 300-run mark in India; VVS Laxman's epic 281 in Kolkata in 2001 was the previous highest score in the country.

Sehwag needed only 278 balls to reach 300, making it by far the fastest Test triple-hundred. Sehwag also becomes the third batsman after Don Bradman and Brian Lara to score two triple-hundreds.

Sehwag scored 257 runs in the third day's play, a feat bettered only by three other batsmen, with Don Bradman's 309 runs in a day against England in Leeds in 1930 topping the list. However, the last time a batsman scored over 250 runs in a day was in 1954, when Dennis Compton made 273 runs on the second day of the Nottingham Test against Pakistan on the way to his 278.

Sehwag's two partnerships so far - 213 for the first wicket with Wasim Jaffer and an unbroken 255-run stand for the second with Rahul Dravid - make it the first time double-century stands have been posted for the first two wickets of a Test innings.

Two triples indicate Sehwag's appetite for scoring big runs but what confirms it is the fact that each of his last ten centuries have seen him go past 150, including a couple of double-hundreds and triple-hundreds.

Sehwag's unbeaten 309 in a total of 468 for 1 so far equates to just over 66% of his team's total. The record for a completed innings is 67.35%, when Charles Bannerman scored 165 of the 245 made by Australia in the first innings of the first-ever Test in 1877. Another Australian, Michael Slater, is second on the list, having made 123 in Australia's 184 in the second innings of the Sydney Test against England in 1999. Laxman's 167 at the same ground is third; he scored 63.98% of India's 261 as they went down to Australia.

In the 14 innings when Sehwag has scored a century, his strike rate has been 77.79. Among batsmen with at least ten Test hundreds, only Adam Gilchrist has a faster strike rate in centuries (99.64). The fact that his overall career strike rate is 75 also reveals his tendency to bat at the same tempo regardless of his score.

For the second time in his Test career, March 28 turned out to be a day to remember for Sehwag. In 2004, on the first day of the first Test against Pakistan, Sehwag had finished the day on an unbeaten 228, and went on to score 309 the following day.

some cool stats on Sehwag's inning, at the end of Day 3

 

[unccricket]

sehwag is a flat-track bully, but i'd rather have him than smith.

 

[Richard]

Just in case anyone should believe I thought otherwise, or () that I was "avoiding" the thread, I should post to mention that the innings from Sehwag on the third-day of the First Test against South Africa was a superlative one.

 

[Manee]

Just in case anyone should believe I thought otherwise, or () that I was "avoiding" the thread, I should post to mention that the innings from Sehwag on the third-day of the First Test against South Africa was a superlative one.

It was also very good

 

[weldone]

sehwag is a flat-track bully, but i'd rather have him than smith.

My reply to the above post will be as simple as his batting - 'Not everyone can scoe a 309 not out in 292 balls in test cricket in the flattest of tracks.'