• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Sehwag, an all-time Indian great?

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Regardless, you are being dishonest because you are ignoring my point. From his arrival from about his 100th inning Tendulkar made his legacy. From about after that he has fallen somewhat.
If you think that Tendulkar's Legacy has fallen Since his 100th Test inning then I must say you are in huge minority and if that is the point you are trying to make then IMO it is sheer idiocy and not even worth entertaining.

And this is as honest as I can get here.
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
1. Would Sehwag be regarded as India's best opener since Gavaskar?
2. Gavaskar aside, is he India's best opener ever? If not, where does he rank as an opener for India?
my answer would be yes to both questions....but i also say so because i don't think there have been too many other world class openers for india over the years apart from gavaskar....
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
If you think that Tendulkar's Legacy has fallen Since his 100th Test inning then I must say you are in huge minority and if that is the point you are trying to make then IMO it is sheer idiocy and not even worth entertaining.

And this is as honest as I can get here.
Essentially, you're wrong. I won't get into insults.

Tendulkar in the 90s is easily stronger than Tendulkar in the 2000s. Just because most of the year 1999 isn't counted in this discussion doesn't change that. It's not an issue of Tendulkar falling, as if it's as black and white as that. It's about how far he is from what he was in the 1990s. Tendulkar's legacy in large part is built because of that era, not as much after it.

Tendulkar throughout the 2000s has been patchy, defensive and not the best batsman in the world - something he had great claim to in the 1990s. Even whispers of his drop emerged. What is worse is that this era is supposedly easier yet he does much worse. The thing that has made his figures look respectable (for an all-time great of course) are his thrashing of the two minnows of the era. In 2000s, I think Tendulkar averages 46 discounting B&Z.
 
Last edited:

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
my answer would be yes to both questions....but i also say so because i don't think there have been too many other world class openers for india over the years apart from gavaskar....
I kind of thought that was the case, but my knowledge of Indian cricket history isn't as great as it should be, so I didn't feel comfotrable making that assertion.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Essentially, you're wrong. I won't get into insults.

Tendulkar in the 90s is easily stronger than Tendulkar in the 2000s. Just because most of the year 1999 isn't counted in this discussion doesn't change that. It's not an issue of Tendulkar falling, as if it's as black and white as that. It's about how far he is from what he was in the 1990s. Tendulkar's legacy in large part is built because of that era, not as much after it.

Tendulkar throughout the 2000s has been patchy, defensive and not the best batsman in the world - something he had great claim to in the 1990s. Even whispers of his drop emerged. What is worse is that this era is supposedly easier yet he does much worse. The thing that has made his figures look respectable (for an all-time great of course) are his thrashing of the two minnows of the era. In 2000s, I think Tendulkar averages 46 discounting B&Z.
I think generally you're right as to his output this decade compared with last, but he's still able draw on his reserves and produce the great knock. I'd say he's not been, in the 2000s, the player he was in the 90s, but by no means has he been mud either :).
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
I think generally you're right as to his output this decade compared with last, but he's still able draw on his reserves and produce the great knock. I'd say he's not been, in the 2000s, the player he was in the 90s, but by no means has he been mud either :).
I agree, I don't think he has been mud. My general assertion is that Tendulkar hasn't done anything in the 2000s that he didn't do in the 1990s for someone to say that we HAVE to consider what he did in the 2000s in order for him to be an all-time great.

He obviously played enough cricket, for enough years, and was the best batsman of the world at the time. What did he do post 2000 that he hadn't already done in the 1990s? Are we talking about mere aggregate records - i.e. most centuries, most runs? That seems to be about it.

ADD: I am sure he did other things, I am asking which things did he do in the 2000s that he needed to do in order to be better than guys like Amarnath, etc.
 
Last edited:

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think generally you're right as to his output this decade compared with last, but he's still able draw on his reserves and produce the great knock. I'd say he's not been, in the 2000s, the player he was in the 90s, but by no means has he been mud either :).
Yeah, I think you're right. I've got footage of Sachin against the Aussies in 1998 and he was an amazing player. Glorious drives, big-hitting, etc. awesome to watch. He was simply the best going around and by some margin.

The 2000's have brought about a change and he's definitely a different player. But then he's also had back troubles, tennis elbow, etc. We all get older and personally I think it's a measure of just how good he is that he can still score at somewhere near 50 per innings having changed his game so much. If anything, that he's capable of such change ranks him higher in my estimation.

Not many players are as good in their 30's as in their 20's and even genius' like Lara were no exception. Everyone has to change their game eventually as the physicality of their craft starts to catch up with them. So many 'very good' players decline quite quickly and give it away. Bloke like Lara, Tendulkar, Waugh, etc. find another gear, change their whole game (cognitively, a very difficult thing to do, impossible for most people) and still do well. In the case of Waugh, somehow he found a way to be more attacking in his last three years or so (can't forget his 88 in the ING Cup final of 2003 I think it was; what a knock, carrying an injury as usual).

This should not be used as a knock against Tendulkar because lesser players can't do it.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah, I think you're right. I've got footage of Sachin against the Aussies in 1998 and he was an amazing player. Glorious drives, big-hitting, etc. awesome to watch. He was simply the best going around and by some margin.

The 2000's have brought about a change and he's definitely a different player. But then he's also had back troubles, tennis elbow, etc. We all get older and personally I think it's a measure of just how good he is that he can still score at somewhere near 50 per innings having changed his game so much. If anything, that he's capable of such change ranks him higher in my estimation.

Not many players are as good in their 30's as in their 20's and even genius' like Lara were no exception. Everyone has to change their game eventually as the physicality of their craft starts to catch up with them. So many 'very good' players decline quite quickly and give it away. Bloke like Lara, Tendulkar, Waugh, etc. find another gear, change their whole game (cognitively, a very difficult thing to do, impossible for most people) and still do well. In the case of Waugh, somehow he found a way to be more attacking in his last three years or so (can't forget his 88 in the ING Cup final of 2003 I think it was; what a knock, carrying an injury as usual).

This should not be used as a knock against Tendulkar because lesser players can't do it.
Pretty much what I was about to write.

The fact he's still been prolific, and done it in a different way (more accumulative rather than sparkling, if you like) is another measure of his greatness.

To that end, I think this decade his game has developed to accommodate different strengths to those of the 90s. So his contribution this decade is still very significant IMO.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
After TC's post, I thought I'd go through some of the better batsmen with longish careers and see how they average after turning 30, with and without the "minnows".

Code:
               [COLOR="DarkRed"][B]With B&Z[/B]           [B]Without B&Z[/B][/COLOR]
[COLOR="Green"][B]Ponting[/B][/COLOR]     [B]67.67[/B](36 tests)     [B]66.62[/B](34 tests)
[COLOR="Green"][B]Lara[/B][/COLOR]        [B]53.66[/B](68 tests)     [B]53.03[/B](64 tests)
[COLOR="Green"][B]Dravid[/B][/COLOR]      [B]54.86[/B](55 tests)     [B]52.98[/B](49 tests)
[COLOR="Green"][B]Waugh[/B][/COLOR]       [B]54.05[/B](92 tests)     [B]50.34[/B](87 tests)
[COLOR="Green"][B]Kallis[/B][/COLOR]      [B]52.95[/B](28 tests)     [B]53.97[/B](26 tests)
[COLOR="Green"][B]Tendulkar[/B][/COLOR]   [B]47.59[/B](44 tests)     [B]41.11[/B](40 tests)
 
Last edited:

Top_Cat

Request Your Custom Title Now!
After TC's post, I thought I'd go through some of the better batsmen with longish careers and see how they average after turning 30, with and without the "minnows".

Code:
               [COLOR="DarkRed"][B]With B&Z[/B]           [B]Without B&Z[/B][/COLOR]
[COLOR="Green"][B]Ponting[/B][/COLOR]     [B]67.67[/B](36 tests)     [B]66.62[/B](34 tests)
[COLOR="Green"][B]Lara[/B][/COLOR]        [B]53.66[/B](68 tests)     [B]53.03[/B](64 tests)
[COLOR="Green"][B]Dravid[/B][/COLOR]      [B]54.86[/B](55 tests)     [B]52.98[/B](49 tests)
[COLOR="Green"][B]Waugh[/B][/COLOR]       [B]54.05[/B](92 tests)     [B]50.34[/B](87 tests)
[COLOR="Green"][B]Kallis[/B][/COLOR]      [B]52.95[/B](28 tests)     [B]53.97[/B](26 tests)
[COLOR="Green"][B]Tendulkar[/B][/COLOR]   [B]47.59[/B](44 tests)     [B]41.11[/B](40 tests)
Yeah but you gotta remember they all made their debuts past 21 so had less than 10 years of Test cricket by 30. Tendulkar had at least 13 years of Test cricket by the time he was 30 so wear and tear injuries were starting to set in, probably exaccerbated by the fact his early career was still on a developing body which, I believe, at least partly explains why his slump seemed to go on for longer than others and he's only just starting to come out of it (I've had tennis elbow for a few weeks before so I can only imagine what it'd be like having it for months like he did). In cricketing and physical terms, Sachin was more like 33 or 34 when he was numerically 30 years of age and I notice all of those players had sub-par numbers at about that age. Kallis is now at that age and his recent numbers have been pretty average (averaging about 30 over the last year or so). Ponting's about that age and has begun having back troubles which curtailed his numbers against SL and India at home (especially in ODI's), Lara had a slump in his early 30's, Waugh's hammies caused a slow down at that age, etc.

Also Kaz, you didn't put Viv's numbers down in the list above post-30. They were worse than Sachin's. Does that make all those players better than him? I personally don't think so.
 
Last edited:

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Essentially, you're wrong. I won't get into insults.

Tendulkar in the 90s is easily stronger than Tendulkar in the 2000s. Just because most of the year 1999 isn't counted in this discussion doesn't change that. It's not an issue of Tendulkar falling, as if it's as black and white as that. It's about how far he is from what he was in the 1990s. Tendulkar's legacy in large part is built because of that era, not as much after it.
I am not wrong. Almost every Player is stronger at his peak than he is at the end of his career. Tendulkar's legacy is built because of his ability to perform in averse situations and not only at his peak. Gavaskar had 20 100s by his 50th test, only 14 in next 75. But are you going to tell me that His Legacy would have been better If he had retired after 50 tests than it was after his eventual retirement ?

In 2002, @ Headingly , Tendulkar put up an amazing display of batting both defensive and attacking. On the second Day, He and Sourav massacred The English attack.

In 2003, when the whole team was struggling, He almost single handedly took Indian team to World Cup Semis.

IIn 2004, @ Sydney - Tendulkar showed an amazing display of patience and a total different shade of himself as a batsman

He really struggled between 2005-2007, mainly because of Injury and also partly due to all the politics in the team but in the recent Australia series he came back with one of his best performances in a series. Not only in tests but also in ODIs he helped India win the tri-series after a gap of 20 some years.

This is just from the top of my mind, I am sure there have been many more performances in the post 1999 era.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
So he is KAZ. No wonder he is back to his usual tricks of making provoking statements and twisting stats and all that.

I did suspect and thought of mentioning that this guy posted like Kaz, but held back. And he has the audacity to accuse people of dishonesty.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
So he is KAZ. No wonder he is back to his usual tricks of making provoking statements and twisting stats and all that.

I did suspect and thought of mentioning that this guy posted like Kaz, but held back. And he has the audacity to accuse people of dishonesty.
Sanz, is there a level you won't stoop to?

I changed my ID for personal reasons - it wouldn't have been allowed by CW otherwise.

I made provoking statements? The irony.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Tendulkar throughout the 2000s has been patchy, defensive and not the best batsman in the world - something he had great claim to in the 1990s.
And who claimed that he is the best in the world in 2000s ? Besides the picture of 2000s that you are trying to paint is incredibly dishonest twist of stat as usual.

Tendulkar in his post 100th inning i.e. between 1999-2004 (6 Years) averaged 61 (which is higher than his so called Legacy period)
.
Tendulkar between 2000-2004 averaged - 58.5, Again higher.

Now you can get on your selective mode and start your usual business of insulting legends of the game by creating the web of statistical spins and lies.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Yeah but you gotta remember they all made their debuts past 21 so had less than 10 years of Test cricket by 30. Tendulkar had at least 13 years of Test cricket by the time he was 30 so wear and tear injuries were starting to set in, probably exaccerbated by the fact his early career was still on a developing body which, I believe, at least partly explains why his slump seemed to go on for longer than others and he's only just starting to come out of it (I've had tennis elbow for a few weeks before so I can only imagine what it'd be like having it for months like he did). In cricketing and physical terms, Sachin was more like 33 or 34 when he was numerically 30 years of age and I notice all of those players had sub-par numbers at about that age. Kallis is now at that age and his recent numbers have been pretty average (averaging about 30 over the last year or so). Ponting's about that age and has begun having back troubles which curtailed his numbers against SL and India at home (especially in ODI's), Lara had a slump in his early 30's, Waugh's hammies caused a slow down at that age, etc.

Also Kaz, you didn't put Viv's numbers down in the list above post-30. They were worse than Sachin's. Does that make all those players better than him? I personally don't think so.
I agree that Tendulkar suffers because he started earlier but then you have someone like Waugh who had also 10 years before his 30th birthday and continued well long into his 39th and did much much better than Tendulkar. The others are yet to be seen to an extent, maybe 1-2 years will give a better picture with regards to the Pontings but really, someone like him is so far ahead (having played almost as many Tests as Tendulkar) that he'll still have done better.

The reason I didn't put Viv or any one else from other eras is because I thought I'd keep it to those that played largely with him and against mostly the same opposition.

Here are his figures:


I wouldn't say they are worse than Sachin's.



Viv is more consistent throughout against opponents whilst Sachin beefs his overall average up on a few opponents and on some very flat tracks. The reason I didn't judge other players from other eras is, for example, where Richards plays on more attacking pitches and where averages are relatively lower.

In the end, do I say a player is worse or better because of such a fact? Not necessarily, it depends really on the player and the surrounding circumstances. But there is no denying that, whilst Sachin may have not been that bad, he was no one near what he was in the 90s. If Sachin was a 10/10 in the 90s he was a 6.5/10 in the 2000s for mine.
 
Last edited:

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Changing it so that Sachin was "30" when he was 27, it looks like this:

Code:
               [COLOR="DarkRed"][B]With B&Z[/B]           [B]Without B&Z[/B][/COLOR]
[COLOR="Green"][B]Ponting[/B][/COLOR]     [B]67.67[/B](36 tests)     [B]66.62[/B](34 tests)
[COLOR="Green"][B]Lara[/B][/COLOR]        [B]53.66[/B](68 tests)     [B]53.03[/B](64 tests)
[COLOR="Green"][B]Dravid[/B][/COLOR]      [B]54.86[/B](55 tests)     [B]52.98[/B](49 tests)
[COLOR="Green"][B]Waugh[/B][/COLOR]       [B]54.05[/B](92 tests)     [B]50.34[/B](87 tests)
[COLOR="Green"][B]Kallis[/B][/COLOR]      [B]52.95[/B](28 tests)     [B]53.97[/B](26 tests)
[COLOR="Green"][B]Tendulkar[/B][/COLOR]   [B]53.89[/B](73 tests)     [B]46.35[/B](62 tests)
 
Last edited:

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Don't know if he's an all time Indian great, but Sehwag belongs in the argument, as these 12 pages show.

Not a criticism of posters here, but sometimes when we look at players, we factor in how easy on the eye they are, rather than their pure effectiveness. To me as an Australian supporter, Sehwag is a man to be feared because of both his output and his rate of scoring. Given he opens (and was really made into an opener iirc) he's done a remarkably effective job for India. His style isn't as visually pleasing as the likes of Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman, who are more classical players to watch, but he gets the job done. Like Hayden, who's a more brutal player than a classical stylist, I think Sehwag's reputation suffers because of the way he plays.

Without wanting to take the discussion OT, I'd like to ask some posters who have followed Indian cricket for longer than I've taken an interest in it:

1. Would Sehwag be regarded as India's best opener since Gavaskar?
2. Gavaskar aside, is he India's best opener ever? If not, where does he rank as an opener for India?
To answer the two questions first. YES and probably YES.

He is without doubt the best opener since Gavaskar. Of course, one would have to concede that it isn't a position for we have a long queue of contenders. For the period before Gavaskar, the queue was equally short as Indian cricket was always starved of quality openers. Just like we have, for so long, just one genuine opener in Gavaskar since 1970, we have just one before and that is the redoubtable Mr Vijay Merchant.

His first class record is phenomenal and needs recounting.

13470 runs in just 150 Matches (only 234 innings) at an average, overtaken only by Bradman, of 71.64, with a top score of 359*.

45 centuries - that is 3 centuries in every 100 matches - Gavaskar has 23.3 and Sachin has 26.1. Bradman had 50 :)

He played ten Test matches spread over four series and 18 years ! With the exception of the first one against the visiting Englishmen in 1933 at home, he did pretty well. Its worthwhile having a look at how Merchant's career in synopsis and how he fared against world class opposition.

Before I do that let me inform of two relatively less known facts.
1. His name wasn't Merchant but Thackersey
2. He was never an opener and did not EVER open in any class of the game for many years including his first test series - that is three of the ten Tests he played !​

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deconstructing
Vijay Madhavji Thackersey

a.k.a. Vijay Merchant

Early years :

Merchant made his first class debut at 18 playing for the Hindus against the Muslims in the semifinals of the Pentangular in November 1929.

  • He batted at number 6 and scored 9 runs.
  • He was retained in the side for the finals but this time batted at number 8 and scored 12.

THe Hindus seem to have had enough of him and did not include him again in their powerful side till five years later by which time he had played three Test matches ! But we overtake ourselves.

The next time Merchant got an opportunity to play in First class cricket was three years later in the Moin-ud-Dowlah tournament in December 1932. He scored 157 against the not so strong Aligarh University (Past and Present) and then faded away.

Code:
[B]Match        	Order	Runs[/B]
Qtr- Finals	4	157
Semi-finals	4	5
The Final	6	1
No more first clas cricket for Mr Merchant, the scion of one of India's richest families and then one year later Jardine brought MCC to India.

MCC in India 1933-34
MCC had already played six first class games befpre they faced Bombay at Bombay Gymkhana Grounds. They had won four of them with no batsman standing upto them (only two fifties in four games, except for the players from Punjab. In two games (against Southern Punjab and Patiala) they were good enough to lose just 17 wickets in two games. Wazir Ali and young Amarnath scored a century and a fifty each. Clearly the balance of Indian cricket was different from what it was portrayed by the powerful men who controlled it in Mumbai and the West. It was in this background that Mumbai took the field against Bombay on 8th December 1933.

Bombay v Marylebone Cricket Club
Bombay Gymkhana, 8 Dec 1933

Bombay, winning the toss, decided to bat first. Before the pace of Nichols and Clarke, they lost their first four wickets for 8 runs. In walked 22 year old Vijay Merchant (still Vijay Tackersey - real name) to join Champak Mehta. They took the score to 58 before Verity caught Champak off his own bowling and then MCC proceeded to run through the side.

Young Vijay stood at one end, defending dourly, with the defense that was to become the hallmark of his batting in the years to come. He scored just 19 of the 79 runs that were scored while he was at the crease but he never left it - remaining unbeaten.

In the second innings, Bombay, almost 400 runs behind, promoted Vijay to number four and he came in at 57 for 2. He played another defensive marathon as Bombay played 92 overs to score just 191 but more importantly, lost just five wickets. Vijay was again not out for 67.​

Not someone you want to compare with Sehwag :)

This may not have been earth shattering stuff but it was enough to get Merchant a call into the Indian side for the first Test that was to be played just five days later at the very same Bombay Gymkhana grounds.

India v England (1st Test) :
Bombay Gymkhana, 15 Dec 1933

Batting first, India were bowled out for 219. The openers, Wazir Ali and Navle, scored 36 and 13. Amarnath, making his debut and batting at one drop, scored a composed 38 to top score. Merchant batted at six and scored 23. Its not known how slow he played but India got their runs in 91.2 overs - slow going even for those days.

In the second innings, more than 200 runs behind on the first, India did marginally better getting 258 in 91 overs. Amarnath played an incandescent knock of 118 in just over three hours with 84 of those runs in boundaries. A star was born. Clearly, but for him the Indian innings would have looked much more laboured. Vijay again batting at number six scored 30.

England won by 9 wickets. Amarnath and Nissar (five for 90 in 33.5 overs in the first innings) were the outstanding performers. Vijay hadn't shattered the earth but had done enough to stay in a weak batting side and surely showed some promise.​

Before the second Test an Indian XI played MCC and if they wanted him to play the second Test, one would have thought it appropriate for young Vijay to play that game- particularly since it was played at Eden Gardens, the venue of the second Test. Five Englishmen played for the 'Indian' XI and the pointless match was drawn. Con Johnston (69 not out) and Humphrey Ward (77 not out) were the batting stars for an Indian XI !!

India v England (2nd Test)
Eden Gardens, 5th January 1934

This time England won the toss, batted and put on over 400.

India had a new set of openers (sounds familiar) although Wazir Ali was in the playing XI, Jeoomal and keeper Dilawar Hussain. The latter top scored with 59. Merchant was next with 54 - again at number six, the position he was to hold through the entire series.

With a follow on available for a lead of 150, MCC put India in again. India decided, the first innings top scorer had done his bit of opening and sent Syed Mushtaq Ali to partner Jeoomal. Jeoomal got 43 and his first innings partner, now at number 7, was top scorer once again with 57. Vijay Merchant scored 17.

The four day match was drawn.​
Again Vijay had done enough to remain in the side. but no sign of his being an opener. One could never say anything about that though - as in later years. Anyone could be asked to open the innings, except the stars who preferred the comfort of the middle order - typical :)

Five more first class games followed the second Test. Ms Johnston and Ward got four innings each but none for young Vijay Thackerey. Its interesting to see how many times some players like Nayudu and Amarnath got games against the visitors. Maybe it was more important to be in the payroll of some Maharaja or the other, who hired top cricketers, hired Europeans or at least lavished big purses and gifts on them, owned their own grounds and ste out the red carpets for the visitors. There were matches against the against the Maharaja of Patiala XI, Maharajkumar of Vizianagram XI and Nawab Moin-ud-Dowlah XI. The Viceroy XI and the Europeans side meant fewer opportunities for Indians.

Then came the next Test at Chepauk, Madras, now MAC, Chennai.

India v England (3rd Test)
Chepauk, 10 Feb 1934

England again won the toss and batted first. This time it was the turn of Amar Singh (without his legendary bowling partner Nissar) to do the damage. He took 7 for 86 bowling 44.4 overs ! England managed 335.

Dilawar Hussain was back with Jeoomal (who retired hurt) but this time it didn't work for either and Vijay Tackerey's 26 was the top score in a poor 145. The Young Prince of Patiala was next with 24.

England batted again and left India 451 to get starting in the afternoon of the 3rd day.

India did better than the first innings but not by much. To start with they again brought in Mushtaq Ali to open, this time with Dilawar - it must have been exasperating to be an Indian opener as it has been all through its 70 odd years history. The Prince of Patiala, leading scorers of the first inings, put on 84 for the 6th wicket of which the young prince scored an enterprising 60 - the top score. Vijay got 28.

India suffered their biggest defeat of the three Test series.​

Vijay Thackersey had played his first Test Series. Had not yet become an opener (in any form of the game. Had scored 178 runs at 29.7 with one fifty (54 in Calcutta). But he always got starts and always showed a desire to stay at the wicket. His run of scores is in a remarkably tight range - 23 & 30, 54 & 17, 26 & 28. At best a hard working youngster, not a Tendulkar or a Gavaskar by any stretch of imagination, not at this stage at least

Before the MCC left India, they played one final match, this time again at Bombay Gymkhana, probably the reason why Vijay Thackersey again found him in a side game - this time for an Indian XI.

Indian XI v Marylebone Cricket Club
Bombay Gymkhana, 4th March 1934

This time Merchant batted at number four and top scored in the first innings with an unbeaten 89, out of 238. In the second innings he was again unbeaten, this time with 18. Clearly this man would not give away his wicket in a hurry.​

But he wasn't an opener and not, yet, a man who scored big hundreds either. That was still to come.

- to be continued
 
Last edited:

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Don't know if he's an all time Indian great, but Sehwag belongs in the argument, as these 12 pages show.

Not a criticism of posters here, but sometimes when we look at players, we factor in how easy on the eye they are, rather than their pure effectiveness. To me as an Australian supporter, Sehwag is a man to be feared because of both his output and his rate of scoring. Given he opens (and was really made into an opener iirc) he's done a remarkably effective job for India. His style isn't as visually pleasing as the likes of Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman, who are more classical players to watch, but he gets the job done. Like Hayden, who's a more brutal player than a classical stylist, I think Sehwag's reputation suffers because of the way he plays.

Without wanting to take the discussion OT, I'd like to ask some posters who have followed Indian cricket for longer than I've taken an interest in it:

1. Would Sehwag be regarded as India's best opener since Gavaskar?
2. Gavaskar aside, is he India's best opener ever? If not, where does he rank as an opener for India?
In my time of watching and following Indian cricket, he is the best opener I have seen from India.


To answer your questions, to the best of my knowledge..


1. Yes, he is EASILY the best since Gavaskar, but then again, that is not saying a lot, given the quality of the other guys tried out...

2. I would rate him #2 but I am not really as much a student of the game's history as some of the others here are. They may be better placed to give a more definitive answer to that.



*looks at SJS*
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
I'd consider Sehwag in a bit of a Stan McCabe fashion. He's played some of the best innings that you wish to see, but I don't know if his output has quite been consistent enough to be classified as an "all time great".
 

Top