SehwagVsGilchrist

[Pratters]

Thats the way it is done if the rates of multiplication or increase of both items being compared are the same. It doesn't work when thats not the case. These are graphs that plot as curves rather than straight lines, and cannot be interpreted by using linear equations.

It can be done the way I said. We will have to agree to disagree as you dont seem to agree with me on this.

 

[Precambrian]

Meh, they're both the same.

Gilchrist's batting benefitted from playing in a strong lineup while Sehwag's benefits from flat pitches, short boundaries and bigger bats.

Take your pick.

Lol the troll strolls!

Hi Ben. Hopefully you can keep your stupid racist abuses out of here.

BTW, check out the ground stats since 2000, and get back to us. Gilly is the one who has made his buns on flat Aussie pitches against substandard bowling.

 

[Precambrian]

It’s because of Tendulkar that Sehwag plays in an outrageous manner. With Tendulkar at the other end or the thought of him coming in next, allows Dhoni and Gary Kirsten to tell Sehwag 'hey you go for it, don’t hold back, you have got the green light’. Then the blood starts to pump, there is no stopping the guy.

Marry me Martin.

 

[Precambrian]

Gilchrist, in both Tests and ODIs.

Let's not forget that for a fairly big portion, over half (I think), of his career Gilchrist was averaging almost 60 in Test cricket with that phenomenal strike rate. ODIs, it's not even that close at the moment. If Sehwag continues playing like he has been and ends up with a better average, than maybe.

Because Gilly debuted at his peak? Gilly averaged above 60 for a brief period. Had he debuted 4-5 years before, he'd be averagin in the low 40s or high 30 imho. Make no mistake, Gilly is the best ever WK batsman. But purely as a batsman, he is a notch below Sehwag.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Similar principle with Gilchrist though. With the strength of the batting order beneath him, Gilchrist didn't fail if he made a 25 off 20, and set a platform where Ponting/Martyn/Hayden could then bat through the innings and get themselves set, because Australia are already ahead of six an over. If Gilchrist continued to go, that was a bonus.

With Tendulkar at the other end, you have a similar situation for India. With less responsibilty comes a greater freedom and more relaxed mindset, and I think that the resettling of the Indian order (especially the no.3 in ODIs) has helped Sehwag define his role better.

 

[Precambrian]

Sure.

But forgetting the over-hype that you talk about with Gilly...

At this stage of Sehwag's career... if you objectively put Gilly's ODI record/performances against Sehwag's... Gilly wins. Right?

You forget that Gilly made his mark when he was red hot at his peak. Once that was over (2005 Ashes), it was a steady climbdown in test cricket.

 

[Jono]

You forget that Gilly made his mark when he was red hot at his peak. Once that was over (2005 Ashes), it was a steady climbdown in test cricket.

I'm not talking about test cricket man.

 

[Precambrian]

Ok cool.

Even in ODIs, Sehwag is imho a notch above Gilly. Yes, he has not played those knocks in a WC Final. But there ends the flaw in the record. I

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Lol the troll strolls!

Hi Ben. Hopefully you can keep your stupid racist abuses out of here.

BTW, check out the ground stats since 2000, and get back to us. Gilly is the one who has made his buns on flat Aussie pitches against substandard bowling.

Maybe you should go check out the ground stats and realise that only 3 subcontient batsman average over 50 outside the subcontient and Sehwag isn't one of them. Subcontient bullies don't qualify as world-class batsman.

Hardest place to bat in world cricket is South Africa and Gilchrist averages 65 compared to Sehwag's 26! If you count Sehwag's stats in South Africa as an opener only then his played 5 innings, scored 49 runs at an average of 9.33!

Come back when you're older and try again, kiddo.

 

[Jono]

Maybe you should go check out the ground stats and realise that only 3 subcontient batsman average over 50 outside the subcontient and Sehwag isn't one of them. Subcontient bullies don't qualify as world-class batsman.

Are you saying Sehwag isn't world class?

If so, you're an idiot.

 

[Jono]

Maybe you should go check out the ground stats and realise that only 3 subcontient batsman average over 50 outside the subcontient and Sehwag isn't one of them. Subcontient bullies don't qualify as world-class batsman.

Hardest place to bat in world cricket is South Africa and Gilchrist averages 65 compared to Sehwag's 26! If you count Sehwag's stats in South Africa as an opener only then his played 5 innings, scored 49 runs at an average of 9.33!

Come back when you're older and try again, kiddo.

Gilchrist averages 34.11 in the sub-continent

For a place so easy to bat... not exactly great is it?

 

[SJS]

Maybe you should go check out the ground stats and realise that only 3 subcontient batsman average over 50 outside the subcontient and Sehwag isn't one of them. Subcontient bullies don't qualify as world-class batsman.

Hardest place to bat in world cricket is South Africa and Gilchrist averages 65 compared to Sehwag's 26! If you count Sehwag's stats in South Africa as an opener only then his played 5 innings, scored 49 runs at an average of 9.33!

Come back when you're older and try again, kiddo.

I think Gilchrist is a fabulous batsman but I dont think using the South Africa stats will conclusively prove anything. Yes the wickets in South Africa are bouncier and more bowler friendly but if there are wickets anywhere in the world that are similar in overall natue to theirs, it is in Australia. It is much more difficult for people from slow, low wickets like in India to adjust in South Africa than those from Australia.

Again, I am not running down Gilchrist;s record in South Africa but pointing out the finer detail of that statistical comparison.

Most Indian batsmen have poor records in South Africa.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I'm not defending either player because I don't think either batsman is all that great because their batting is too beneficial from a variety of advantages that contributes to their success.

For example, I don't think either of them would've averaged over 50 if they played for the West Indies or New Zealand. As far as batting goes, I'd rate Gilchrist & Sehwag along side someone like Chris Gayle, in terms of batting ability alone.

 

[silentstriker]

That's very harsh. Both are much better than Gayle by almost any objective estimation IMO.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

That's very harsh. Both are much better than Gayle by almost any objective estimation IMO.

Why is that so harsh? Gayle has a triple hundred to his name against South Africa on a really flat pitch like Sehwag does and much like Gayle, Sehwag stands flatfooted and slogs. Watch them bat, their foot movement is almost identical.

Had Gilly played in a weaker team, he'd probably still be the best allround wicketkeeper-batsman but I doubt he would've been as successful with the bat.

 

[silentstriker]

They both average a full ten points higher for one. Say what you want about statistics, but thats a damn significant number comparing people in the same era. Just because you use little footwork, doesn't make all people without footwork on equal footing. Ganga looks great just like Lara did, but that doesn't make them both equivalent.

And I think both Gilly and Sehwag have a higher S/R than Gayle to boot.

 

[Debris]

THe pressures of test cricket are totally different and no matter how competitive SS cricket is still it can not provide the same level of intensity as test cricket provides.

So you want to make sure your statement is completely hypothetical, then.

 

[Debris]

Two moderate batsmen with the ability to score a bit faster than average. Neither of them are near the top of the list on batting alone.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

They both average a full ten points higher for one. Say what you want about statistics, but thats a damn significant number comparing people in the same era. Just because you use little footwork, doesn't make all people without footwork on equal footing. Ganga looks great just like Lara did, but that doesn't make them both equivalent.

And I think both Gilly and Sehwag have a higher S/R than Gayle to boot.

Maybe that's because Gayle plays in a significantly weaker team? If you take out their Test statistics from their First-Class stats then they average similar. Strike-rate is also expected to be lower when playing in a weaker team.

Ganga was a failure while Gayle has a very respectable Test average of 40. Ganga only averages 36 in first-class cricket aswell? Ganga was nothing like Lara. It's nothing near comparing Gayle to Sehwag and Gilly.

Gayle could very well average over 50 in a better team and on flat, slower pitches. The same as Sehwag & Gilly could only average 40 if they played in a weaker team. If Gayle didn't have the same potential as Gilly and Sehwag then why did he hit a triple-ton against South Africa?

 

[silentstriker]

Who cares about a solitary score? Steve Waugh never even scored a double, is he less talented than Gayle?