Sehwag, an all-time Indian great?

[Ikki]

Is that the only difference ? Why dont you tell me ? Come on this is supposed to be an intelligent discussion. The question asked was Is Sehwag comparable to Indian All time greats like Tendulkar, Dravid, Gavaskar. The answer, IMO, is no. because those three have achieved much more than Sehwag has at this stage of his career e.g. 10K runs.

You seem to be lost in what ret was pointing out: you should not have irrelevant guidelines to "all-time status" like those of aggregate means...such as 10k runs. You don't HAVE to have had 10k runs to be an all-time great, that's the same thing with Bradman. Do you know how many players in history have 10k runs? Only 7: Lara, Tendulkar, Border, Gavaskar, Waugh, Ponting and Dravid. So there are only 7 all-time greats?

If Tendulkar had retired in 1999, he would not be considered as great as Gavaskar as a 'Test Batsman'. I would have put him firmly behind the likes of Gundappa Vishwanath, Vengsarkar, Amarnath, Azhar, Merchant etc.(please note that is considering Tendulkar's test career ended in 1999)

It's about jan 29 where he gets his 100th innings so that's more or less correct. The rest of the names you put are quite...let's not even get into that. I find only Azharuddin near him and Merchant ONLY if you bring his FC record. But that still makes him an all-time Indian great.

In fact, the irony is that post 1999 is where Tendulkar is at his worst and prior at his best.

Probably None, but that's not enough to put him at par with Gavaskar as an all time great. And with the exception of Merchant - Vengsarkar, Azhar, Amarnath, vishwanath all had more accomplished test careers than Tendulkar had by 1999. Its not just about Numbers.

Sorry, but who said he has to be par with Gavaskar? The contention was that if Tendulkar retired after his 100th innings (in 1999) he'd be an all-time Indian great. And he would be. Most people would not put him behind Vengsarar or Amarnath and Wishwanath even then. I know it's not about numbers, but Tendulkar was still better. I mean, what do you think Amarnath achieved only playing about 11 more innings then Tendulkar (if he were to have retired then). This is getting silly, mate.

 

[Sanz]

You seem to be lost in what ret was pointing out: you should not have irrelevant guidelines to "all-time status" like those of aggregate means...such as 10k runs. You don't HAVE to have had 10k runs to be an all-time great, that's the same thing with Bradman. Do you know how many players in history have 10k runs? Only 7: Lara, Tendulkar, Border, Gavaskar, Waugh, Ponting and Dravid. So there are only 7 all-time greats?

It is kinda tiring and annoying to have to explain one's opinion over and over again. But I will try one last time.

Let's revisit the first post of the thread, first line :-

"IS Sehwag an all-time Indian great, along with Gavaskar, Tendulkar and Dravid? "

Now Sehwag may or may not be an all time great (according to one's own definition of the term) but when you have already made the qualification of an Indian 'All Time Great' to be like 'Gavaskar, Sachin, Tendulkar', then you obviously are comparing their achievements to that of a young cricketer who is only half way through his Test Career. He certainly has the makings of an all time great but In My Opinion, he has not reached that level yet. IMO he needs to touch some of the batting landmarks set by these greats.

Sacin is an all time great but if someone comes and says that He is an all time great along with the likes of Bradman, then obviously people are going to bring the landmarks set by Sir Don and deny that same level to SRT.


If you believe Sehwag has already achieved enough to be counted among the likes of SRT, SMG, RD then fine. You can have your opinion. I can have mine. I dont need to be mocked for having a different opinion.

 

[Sanz]

Sorry, but who said he has to be par with Gavaskar? The contention was that if Tendulkar retired after his 100th innings (in 1999) he'd be an all-time Indian great.

Read the first line of the first thread again :- "IS Sehwag an all-time Indian great, along with Gavaskar, Tendulkar and Dravid? "

Clearly we are forced to compare a 100 innings player with the legends like SRT, SMG and RD. Hence the assumption.

And he would be. Most people would not put him behind Vengsarar or Amarnath and Wishwanath even then. I know it's not about numbers, but Tendulkar was still better. I mean, what do you think Amarnath achieved only playing about 11 more innings then Tendulkar (if he were to have retired then). This is getting silly, mate.

Please speak for yourself. It is not silly, I watched lot of cricket in 80s and 90s and Azhar, Vishwanath, Vengaskar and Mohinder were very highly accomplished batsmen and had Tendulkar retired in 1999, I would have put all of them ahead of him fairly easily.

 

[honestbharani]

For me, Viru is not an all time "great" yet but he is well on his way... And he has already made it to my all time Indian XI as an opener, for what it's worth..

 

[Sanz]

In fact, the irony is that post 1999 is where Tendulkar is at his worst and prior at his best.

Tendulkar's average in his first 100 innings is slightly less than his average in next 141 innings.

 

[Ikki]

It is kinda tiring and annoying to have to explain one's opinion over and over again. But I will try one last time.

Let's revisit the first post of the thread, first line :-

"IS Sehwag an all-time Indian great, along with Gavaskar, Tendulkar and Dravid? "

Now Sehwag may or may not be an all time great (according to one's own definition of the term) but when you have already made the qualification of an Indian 'All Time Great' to be like 'Gavaskar, Sachin, Tendulkar', then you obviously are comparing their achievements to that of a young cricketer who is only half way through his Test Career. He certainly has the makings of an all time great but In My Opinion, he has not reached that level yet. IMO he needs to touch some of the batting landmarks set by these greats.

Sacin is an all time great but if someone comes and says that He is an all time great along with the likes of Bradman, then obviously people are going to bring the landmarks set by Sir Don and deny that same level to SRT.


If you believe Sehwag has already achieved enough to be counted among the likes of SRT, SMG, RD then fine. You can have your opinion. I can have mine. I dont need to be mocked for having a different opinion.

But he didn't say Sehwag has to be LIKE them, he just said is he ALONG with them. I can see how the two different interpretations will cause vastly different opinions so I agree with you in your interpretation of it. He is not like those 3 at all. But I also still hold my own that he is an all-time Indian batsman ALONG with those 3.

Read the first line of the first thread again :- "IS Sehwag an all-time Indian great, along with Gavaskar, Tendulkar and Dravid? "

Clearly we are forced to compare a 100 innings player with the legends like SRT, SMG and RD. Hence the assumption.

But the first post ret also compares Sehwag to all the other openers and in the end says

"defiantly, an all-time Indian batsman for me"

Please speak for yourself. It is not silly, I watched lot of cricket in 80s and 90s and Azhar, Vishwanath, Vengaskar and Mohinder were very highly accomplished batsmen and had Tendulkar retired in 1999, I would have put all of them ahead of him fairly easily.

Tendulkar uptil his 100th inning was compared with guys like Bradman and Sobers. Had beaten the best sides of his time with his blade and did so averaging much much more than those batsmen. I saw less cricket than you obviously and am not as intimate with the details of the others as you are but I still find it very hard to believe that you'd have that opinion. I wonder if all Indians would feel the same

Tendulkar's average in his first 100 innings is slightly less than his average in next 141 innings.

That's because they are inflated a good 6 points on average because of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. He averages sub-50 there.

 

[Sanz]

That's because they are inflated a good 6 points on average because of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. He averages sub-50 there.

Getting Selective again. Go Ahead and ignore that he average much better against Pakistan, NZ and SA too in the post 100 inning period.

 

[Ikki]

Getting Selective again. Go Ahead and ignore that he average much better against Pakistan, NZ and SA too in the post 100 inning period.

I don't think All-Time status is bestowed upon a batsman for having beaten minnows to a pulp.

             [B]Before After[/B]
[B]Pakistan[/B]       44    42
[B]S.Africa[/B]       34    37
[B]NZ[/B]             46    53

Pretty much no difference apart from NZ. The irony about his record in Pakistan is they were probably better before than after. It's pretty much based on his "before" that he was rated so highly - he has fallen somewhat since - and was inducted into ESPN Legends of Cricket at #7, ahead of even Gavaskar.

 

[Sanz]

I don't think All-Time status is bestowed upon a batsman for having beaten minnows to a pulp.

Yes Averaging 64 in Australia is beating minnows to pulp. Scoring close to 7000 runs with 21 100s is beating minnows to pulp.

 

[Sanz]

It's pretty much based on his "before" that he was rated so highly - he has fallen somewhat since - and was inducted into ESPN Legends of Cricket at #7, ahead of even Gavaskar.

ESPN legends of the game came out in Aug 2001(not in 1999), Tendulkar was at his peak during 1997-2002.

After his 100th inning :-

1. Tendulkar Averaged - 68 in 1999, 70 in 2000, 63 in 2001, 56 in 2002 and again 70 in 2004.

2. Between 1999-2005, Under Ganguly's and his own captaincy he averaged 60. Must have been pulping the minnows like Australia then.

 

[ret]

First of all, saying that Tendulkar was not an all-time Indian great by the time he had played his 100th test inning is a fallacy. Tendulkar was a legend by the late 90s and one of the best batsmen in the world. Clearly his talent was already established. Same would be true for Gavaskar

2ndly saying that you need 10K runs to be an all-time Indian great is another fallacy as Dravid was one by the time he had 8k runs [iirc]. ofc he had to struggle more to get that status but its well deserved

3rdly, saying that Sehwag hasn't achieved much is again a big misconception as he has beaten both Tendulkar and Dravid to 5k runs and has scored more 100s then them. He also has 2 triples and also the most double 100s of an Indian, along with some of the other greats.

In 58 tests that Sehwag and Dravid have played together,
Dravid - 4882 runs with 14 Hs
Sehwag - 5082 runs with 15 Hs

Some of those Dravid runs were during his best phase and still Sehwag manages to out score him. Same is the case with Sehwag and Tendulkar. Clearly, Sehwag is in their league. There is no doubt that he is one of the all-time Indian greats. And since Sehwag keeps on improving as a batsman, the chances are he could create a league of his own!!!!

 

[Sanz]

In 58 tests that Sehwag and Dravid have played together,
Dravid - 4882 runs with 14 Hs
Sehwag - 5082 runs with 15 Hs

That Dravid has been reaching the end of the career doesn't have anything to do with ? Picking out random stats and make conclusions to suit your argument is abusing the stats.

 

[Sanz]

First of all, saying that Tendulkar was not an all-time Indian great by the time he had played his 100th test inning is a fallacy. Tendulkar was a legend by the late 90s and one of the best batsmen in the world. Clearly his talent was already established. Same would be true for Gavaskar.

That is your opinion not a fact. Besides Tendulkar's legendry status(in early 1999) had a lot to do with his ODI performances also. At around 1999, As a test batsman, he was great but not in the category of someone like Gavaskar. If I am not mistaken SRT didn't have a test double hundred by then.

Even Mohinder Amarnath is an all time great, So are Gundappa Vishwanath, Vengsarkar etc as well. But are they comparable to Sunil Gavaskar ? NO. Similarly SRT in 1999 may (or may not have been an all time great, depending on your definition of the term) but he certainly was not comparable to Gavaskar in 1999.

 

[Sanz]

2ndly saying that you need 10K runs to be an all-time Indian great is another fallacy as Dravid was one by the time he had 8k runs [iirc]. ofc he had to struggle more to get that status but its well deserved !!

No, you do not need 10K runs to be an alltime great. But if you want to be counted among the greats who have done so, you have to put up those scores year after year, you have to clear some of those landmarks set by them. 10K (or close) is one of those bars, scoring 25 (or close) is another, Be the best batsman in the world is another etc etc.

Clearly Sehwag has been doing it, but he still has a while to go before he can be considered as great as Dravid, Gavaskar, Tendulkar etc. Dravid was, for a while, the best batsman in the world. So was Sachin, So was Gavaskar. Sehwag, despite all his brilliance, has not done so. Gavaskar/Tendulkar/Dravid all make 50+ score every 2.7 innings, Sehwag does it every 3.4 innings. He has to show much better consistency (although I must say he overcomes this by scoring big and fast).

No one is saying that his status is not deserved, please do not construct your argument on baseless assumptions. And I don't believe Sehwag has had to struggle much in Tests, He has been given the freedom to bat his own way regardless of the situation has been unique in Test Cricket. Not too many players in the history of Indian Cricket can claim to have that freedom.

 

[ret]

That Dravid has been reaching the end of the career doesn't have anything to do with ? Picking out random stats and make conclusions to suit your argument is abusing the stats.

how is Sehwag and Dravid playing together a random stats and that too for 58 tests [2001-2008] .... some of the best innings that Dravid has played were during this period, period

dude, learn to see things in the correct perspective

 

[Sanz]

3rdly, saying that Sehwag hasn't achieved much is again a big misconception as he has beaten both Tendulkar and Dravid to 5k runs and has scored more 100s then them. He also has 2 triples and also the most double 100s of an Indian, along with some of the other greats.

Sehwag hasn't achieved AS much. He doesn't have more Hundreds(or 50s) than SRT/Sunny had at this stage, Dravid initially batted much lower in the batting order. If you look @ 50+ scores Sehwag is fairly behind all three at this stage of their careers. He is quicker sure and he does have those big scores, but he also has the inconsistency.

Besides I am not arguing that Sehwag isn't comparable to SRT/Dravid at 100 inning stage. He sure is, its just that, IMO, he is not comparable to the (CURRENT) status of SRT, RD and SMG.

 

[ret]

That is your opinion not a fact. Besides Tendulkar's legendry status(in early 1999) had a lot to do with his ODI performances also. At around 1999, As a test batsman, he was great but not in the category of someone like Gavaskar. If I am not mistaken SRT didn't have a test double hundred by then.

Even Mohinder Amarnath is an all time great, So are Gundappa Vishwanath, Vengsarkar etc as well. But are they comparable to Sunil Gavaskar ? NO. Similarly SRT in 1999 may (or may not have been an all time great, depending on your definition of the term) but he certainly was not comparable to Gavaskar in 1999.

based on what Tendulkar displayed during the period of 1989-1999, it was clear 'then' that he was amongst the top two talented batsmen in the history of Indian cricket and thus an all-time Indian great .... i doubt whether most ppl would have selected Amarnath, Vishwanath or Vensarkar over him. He had proved then that he was easily the best

again when you say that he didn't have a test double by then thats called putting in meaningless stats to show your point of you

you probably don't even have the rationality to think that having 4 all-time Indian greats is better than having 3!!!! .... it's like someone is giving you $100K and you debate whether he should give you that

 

[ret]

No, you do not need 10K runs to be an alltime great. But if you want to be counted among the greats who have done so, you have to put up those scores year after year, you have to clear some of those landmarks set by them. 10K (or close) is one of those bars, scoring 25 (or close) is another, Be the best batsman in the world is another etc etc.

Clearly Sehwag has been doing it, but he still has a while to go before he can be considered as great as Dravid, Gavaskar, Tendulkar etc. Dravid was, for a while, the best batsman in the world. So was Sachin, So was Gavaskar. Sehwag, despite all his brilliance, has not done so. Gavaskar/Tendulkar/Dravid all make 50+ score every 2.7 innings, Sehwag does it every 3.4 innings. He has to show much better consistency (although I must say he overcomes this by scoring big and fast).

No one is saying that his status is not deserved, please do not construct your argument on baseless assumptions. And I don't believe Sehwag has had to struggle much in Tests, He has been given the freedom to bat his own way regardless of the situation has been unique in Test Cricket. Not too many players in the history of Indian Cricket can claim to have that freedom.

Sehwag hasn't achieved AS much. He doesn't have more Hundreds(or 50s) than SRT/Sunny had at this stage, Dravid initially batted much lower in the batting order. If you look @ 50+ scores Sehwag is fairly behind all three at this stage of their careers. He is quicker sure and he does have those big scores, but he also has the inconsistency.

Besides I am not arguing that Sehwag isn't comparable to SRT/Dravid at 100 inning stage. He sure is, its just that, IMO, he is not comparable to the (CURRENT) status of SRT, RD and SMG.

Ist .... thanks for accepting that 10K isn't a criteria

2nd .... learn to reply in one go then to make 3-4 posts to reply to 3-4 paras

 

[Sanz]

how is Sehwag and Dravid playing together a random stats and that too for 58 tests [2001-2008] .... some of the best innings that Dravid has played were during this period, period

It is a Random stat because :-

a. You do not post their averages (which is a better reflection of the actual performance), Dravid's average (despite the recent poor form) is 57.4 compared to Sehwag's 54.

b. Dravid has been struggling lately and is mostly likely past his peak whereas Sehwag is at his peak.

c. Dravid has had the burden of captaincy during this period

dude, learn to see things in the correct perspective

Sure...And are you going to to give the lesson on 'Correct' perspective ? Please learn to change your diapers first.

 

[Sanz]

Ist .... thanks for accepting that 10K isn't a criteria

5k is not close to 10K. Hope your maths lessons are intact.