Sehwag, an all-time Indian great?

[SJS]

Does it really matter if he's a great player?

His job is to open the batting and I have far more respect for the job he does rather than being overly precious about what constitutes a great batsman. They can't all be from the classical mold, at least he gets on with it.

I dislike it immensely when people make excuses for a cricketer's success.

Point.

 

[NUFAN]

I think it's obvious that Sehwag is an all time Indian great.

in 50 years time, will people be talking about Sehwag's 300s, IMO yes. That and the fact that he is up there in the record books for most percentage of team runs for 100s, 150s, 200s means he's an all time great.

 

[weldone]

You get 406 heads or less once every 661874421 times(ie I'm giving you 0 heads all the way to 406 heads). If you wanted to get exactly 406 heads...you would get it once every 2046791790.

Stop talking out fo your ass.

Crime. Crime. Crime...Said something practical (and obvious, from Gaussian Distribution) which proves the First Chance Average Theory useless... ...

By the way, there's no Richard anymore in this thread?

 

[Burgey]

Does it really matter if he's a great player?

His job is to open the batting and I have far more respect for the job he does rather than being overly precious about what constitutes a great batsman. They can't all be from the classical mold, at least he gets on with it.

I dislike it immensely when people make excuses for a cricketer's success.

Only to the extent that the thread asks whether he is one or not .

 

[SJS]

Only to the extent that the thread asks whether he is one or not .

I think there is a history to how the thread started - no ?

 

[aussie]

I think there is a history to how the thread started - no ?

SJS sir, another big reason outside why i feel many (including myself before) have tended to pick Merchant over Sehwag in an Indian All-time XI is because we take the wrong imaginative criteria in selecting a side in trying to base how they would match up againts other All-time XI againts some the legendary fast bowlers and think:

"oh Sehwag would get worked out againts top class bowling you might as well pick someone solid to partner Gavaskar if he has to face Lillee @ Perth, the windies quartet in Barbados of Trueman @ headingley etc.."

When in reality it is never going to happen. An All-time XI is basically like hall-fame selection of the most highly distinguised players in a teams put together in an XI. Thus the criteria of match situation should be used.

 

[pup11]

I am not at all a Sehwag fan, but he has achieved some amazing feats in test cricket (which we all know is the toughest form of the game), his slem-bang approach looks much more suited for Odi's and T20's, but he has been as good as anyone in test cricket for sometime now, he is also one of the most inconsistent test cricketers in the world too, but when he scores he scores really big, with almost a run-a-ball strike rate, so that somehow evens things out.
What really sets Sehwag apart from the rest is his mindset, he hardly complicates his game, if there is a ball to be hit he would hit it and hit it hard, not matter whether he is on 0 or 199, he doesn't have that fear of losing his wicket, he bats like a maverick and more or less the risks he takes come off, its something that works for him, but that doesn't mean it would work for everybody, so in that sense he is unique and whether one likes it or not Sehwag has definitely etched his name among all-time great Indian test cricketers.

 

[SJS]

I am not at all a Sehwag fan, but he has achieved some amazing feats in test cricket (which we all know is the toughest form of the game), his slem-bang approach looks much more suited for Odi's and T20's, but he has been as good as anyone in test cricket for sometime now, he is also one of the most inconsistent test cricketers in the world too, but when he scores he scores really big, with almost a run-a-ball strike rate, so that somehow evens things out.
What really sets Sehwag apart from the rest is his mindset, he hardly complicates his game, if there is a ball to be hit he would hit it and hit it hard, not matter whether he is on 0 or 199, he doesn't have that fear of losing his wicket, he bats like a maverick and more or less the risks he takes come off, its something that works for him, but that doesn't mean it would work for everybody, so in that sense he is unique and whether one likes it or not Sehwag has definitely etched his name among all-time great Indian test cricketers.

I dont disagree with what you are trying to say but would love to know how you define 'inconsistent'.

 

[Precambrian]

And the best part of it is how he has managed to decode the mystery spinner Ajanta Mendis way ahead of the fabled four. That is a testimony to his commitment to his games. Though he might be perceived as a "happy go lucky" guy, he actually is one of the finest brains in cricket right now.

 

[Top_Cat]

And the best part of it is how he has managed to decode the mystery spinner Ajanta Mendis way ahead of the fabled four. That is a testimony to his commitment to his games. Though he might be perceived as a "happy go lucky" guy, he actually is one of the finest brains in cricket right now.

Yeah, this whole brainless slogger impression that people have about him is really very wrong.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, this whole brainless slogger impression that people have about him is really very wrong.

Indeed. You don't score two triple-hundreds by slogging. Sehwag has every shot under the sun, including the slog.

 

[Uppercut]

I dont disagree with what you are trying to say but would love to know how you define 'inconsistent'.

Doesn't he have a record of something like, never going six consecutive matches without a century?

I guess he means the fact that when Sehwag scores big, he scores really big. E.g. Scoring 300 against South Africa then not much for the rest of the series, where more valuable contributions would have been three separate hundreds.

 

[honestbharani]

And the best part of it is how he has managed to decode the mystery spinner Ajanta Mendis way ahead of the fabled four. That is a testimony to his commitment to his games. Though he might be perceived as a "happy go lucky" guy, he actually is one of the finest brains in cricket right now.

Yeah, this whole brainless slogger impression that people have about him is really very wrong.

Indeed. People get fooled too often by his "I am just playing my normal game, I dont think when I am batting."



It is true that he probably doesn't complicate matters much when batting and simply tries to play each ball on its merit but he does think long and hard about his game outside of the field... You cannot explain the work he has put in in terms of getting fit and starting to take so many singles and twos and making sure runs are coming even if his boundaries are dried up... Just look at the way he has consciously tried to bring out the pull and the hook and the flick a lot more now. For quite a while before he was dropped, he was an offside bully. He would basically hit anything outside off but if you bowl slightly short, on the body and rising, he could do nothing and will get out more often than not.


Now, I am not saying he has drastically gotten better but he has made a conscious effort to play more shots on the on side. So many times earlier, he wouldn't even hit long hops on the leg side.. Waiting for his favourite outside the off delivery to get that boundary. But that is not happening now. He is more than happy to bring out his flicks and pulls and hooks (sometimes costing his wicket) and the difference is there for all to see. Captains can no longer pack the offside covers area and wait for him to make the mistake.. He is not getting better at playing those shots but simply by playing those shots, he is making those captains think and think defensive. Then he starts to tip and run and that means the captains have no way to contain him unless they get him out.


I know he has always been an aggressive batsman but he is so much more of a rounded aggressive batsman now, in that he can score quickly regardless of the field placings and the length and line of the bowler.



That is why I disagree with anyone who says he should not have been dropped. He totally deserved to be dropped (whether we had any better options is another question). It was only because he was dropped that he got the idea that he was not fulfilling his potential. He has come back leaner, stronger, hungrier and with a much better plan B than earlier. HIs better returns in the second innings being another proof of the pudding...

 

[jeevan]

I dont disagree with what you are trying to say but would love to know how you define 'inconsistent'.

Since this came up a lot, just spreadsheeted out a comparison with Dravid for consistency and there is some merit to it, but not as much as is made out.

Score Sehwag Dravid
0 9% 3%
1-9 17% 20%
10-29 25% 22%
30-49 21% 19%
50-99 14% 24%
100-199 10% 9%
>200 5% 3%

I would bottom-line it out as saying that once every 14 innings, a consistent player will pay off more than Sehwag.
That's the price you pay for the much better strike rate and the big scores.

 

[NFFC]

Sehwag is a very good batsman, but as it has been pointed out his technique isn't brilliant and he's played on a lot of belting flat pitches. For me he isn't great yet, but if he can score runs all around the world on different pitches in the next few years he could become great. But he needs to keep scoring big runs.

 

[Uppercut]

I find it very facetious when people say "his technique isn't very good". A "good technique" is a technique with which you can score runs. A "bad technique" is one with which you can't score many runs. Sehwag scores plenty of runs, therefore his technique is good. If his technique has any glaring weaknesses, why doesn't anyone bother to get him out often enough to stop him averaging 53?

"Poor technique" is often an assertion made by people about a player they don't like watching, a sort of attempt to explain why a player isn't that great despite them scoring a lot of runs. Other players i've heard it said about include Mike Hussey and Shiv Chanderpaul.

 

[Precambrian]

Sehwag is a very good batsman, but as it has been pointed out his technique isn't brilliant and he's played on a lot of belting flat pitches. For me he isn't great yet, but if he can score runs all around the world on different pitches in the next few years he could become great. But he needs to keep scoring big runs.

Huh? You mean the recent Galle was a road? Or your definition of a non-flat pitch is a green one?

 

[SJS]

Since this came up a lot, just spreadsheeted out a comparison with Dravid for consistency and there is some merit to it, but not as much as is made out.

Score Sehwag Dravid
0 9% 3%
1-9 17% 20%
10-29 25% 22%
30-49 21% 19%
50-99 14% 24%
100-199 10% 9%
>200 5% 3%

I would bottom-line it out as saying that once every 14 innings, a consistent player will pay off more than Sehwag.
That's the price you pay for the much better strike rate and the big scores.

So Dravid's level of consistency is the 'bare minimum' accceptable from a Test cricketer, anyone who falls below that is inconsistent ?

Want me to list the cricketers who will fail that criteria of yours ?

 

[gettingbetter]

"Poor technique" is often an assertion made by people about a player they don't like watching, a sort of attempt to explain why a player isn't that great despite them scoring a lot of runs. Other players i've heard it said about include Mike Hussey and Shiv Chanderpaul.

Well said. People say that Darren Ganga has a textbook technique...

 

[Dasa]

So Dravid's level of consistency is the 'bare minimum' accceptable from a Test cricketer, anyone who falls below that is inconsistent ?

Jeevan didn't say that.