SehwagVsGilchrist

[Ikki]

I don't give a crap about ODIs, but in Tests, I would say Sehwag is the better pure batsman. Gilchrist obviously is much more likely to be in an all time side as he is so good at batting and a very good keeper too.

Debatable. Gilchrist's record purely as a batsman is up there with the best. Very complete record, with only India as his weakness. In fact, against everybody bar India he averages 54.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

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

That's because he batted at number 5, in a more bowler-friendly era. Sehwag and Gayle are openers that bat on flatter pitches.

But regardless of which, if Gayle can match Sehwag's famous feat (both were on flat pitches) of scoring a triple-ton then it proves that they are as good as eachother and that if anything then that Sehwag benefits from playing on flatter tracks and in a better team.

 

[silentstriker]

Debatable. Gilchrist's record purely as a batsman is up there with the best. Very complete record, with only India as his weakness. In fact, against everybody bar India he averages 54.

Well yea, it's debatable. But I'd have Sehwag over Gilly as a pure Test batsman.

 

[Ikki]

Gilchrist averages 34.11 in the sub-continent

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

He only does poorly in India, TBH. Not the "subcontinent" in general.

 

[Ikki]

Well yea, it's debatable. But I'd have Sehwag over Gilly as a pure Test batsman.

I wouldn't, at least I won't until Sehwag retires.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

I wouldn't, at least I won't until Sehwag retires.

And if Sehwag experiences a similar decline (which is really likely, given they both rely on a great eye) to Gilchrist then Sehwag's average could drop from 50 to the mid 40's, much like Gilly's dropped from the mid-high 50's to the mid-high 40's towards the end of his career.

 

[Ikki]

And if Sehwag experiences a similar decline (which is really likely, given they both rely on a great eye) to Gilchrist then Sehwag's average could drop from 50 to the mid 40's, much like Gilly's dropped from the mid-high 50's to the mid-high 40's towards the end of his career.

That's kind of my point. We are judging Gilchrist's record as a finished career. If we judge Gilchrist by his peak and Sehwag by his peak now I don't think it'd be close.

 

[SJS]

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.

This is a very interesting point - how batsman adjust to alien conditions. Of course the wickets have changed nature over a period of time but generally there is a 'classification' which holds at least in relative terms. Again some odd ground wil buck the overall local trend.

• AUSTRALIA has bouncy hard tracks. Over time the bounce has become less devastating and a bit 'spongy' but it is definitely bouncier and pacier than, say the sub continental tracks. Lateral movement by pacers is less pronounced and its getting worse (for bowlers) in this respect.

• ENGLAND has a weather that is more conducive to movement in the air and the overall humidity and underfoot conditions also support lateral movement. However the tracks are not 'pacy'

• SOUTH AFRICA has tracks with bounce as well as lateral movement. You will also get movement in the air for some length of time. This makes these amongst the most bowler friendly tracks in the world. It is easy to see that the Australian and English conditions are similar to it in one of the two major aspects - Australia for bounce and England for the lateral movement.

• SOUTH ASIA (Sri Lanka and the Sub-continent) has wickets that are slow and may provide some turn later in the game. Mostly these tracks lack the bounce and lateral movement that even their own pacers relish when they tour England or Australia or South Africa. Thus these wickets are in a category by themselves and except for the help for top class spinners these are the bowlers death beds.

Now we need to see how batsmen fare in conditions alien to where they have learnt their cricket.

Here are the top Test batsmen of South Asia and their averages in South Africa and overall. The drop in average varies from 15 to 29 runs per innings !!

[B]Test Player	Overall	S.Africa[/B]	(+/-)

Tendulkar	54.6	39.8	-15
Rahul Dravid	52.3	33.6	-19
Viru Sehwag	51.1	26.4	-25
Inzemam Haq	49.6	31.8	-18
Md. Yousuf	55.5	26.1	-29
Younis Khan	51.8	33.9	-18
Sangakarra	55	39.2	-16
Jayasuriya	40.1	15.2	-25
Jayawardene	55.2	31.4	-24

It is amazing how deep the rot is. But it is understandable.

• The conditions at home for these players encourage front foot play off almost all types of bowling due to the lack of bounce.
• Driving through the line even for good length deliveries is not punished (particularly against pacers) due to the lack of lateral movement.
• In South Africa both these are exposed and hence the results.

Now lets look at those whose conditions are similar. Here are the leading modern day Test batsmen from Australia and their corresponding figures.

[B]Player	Overall	S.Africa	(+/-)[/B]

Ponting	56.7	61.1	4
S Waugh	51.1	50.3	-1
Gillly 	47.6	65.4	18
M Waugh	41.8	43.6	2
Martyn	46.4	41.2	-5
Hayden	50.7	34.5	-16

By and large they fair well in South Africa. Gilchrist is outstanding while Hayden is the only one who really suffers. That is explained by Hayden's preference for the front foot play and a modest backfoot defense or good square of the wicket strokes off the back foot, particularly on the off side.

Besides conditions, the general high quality of pacers at home helps but actually that is a by product of wickets that encourage such bowling.

.... to be continued

 

[Ikki]

Gayle better than Gilchrist or Sehwag? Hmm.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Gayle better than Gilchrist or Sehwag? Hmm.

Not better but certainly closer then what many may think.

 

[Evermind]

Very poorly written article.Goes all over the place and makes some really stupid comparisons.

A common feature of almost all non-English cricket journalism/writing. Even taking into account the fact that Crowe is not professional writer, it's still crap.

England may have a mediocre team but damn do they write well.

 

[ret]

In Tests, they both play different roles with Sehwag opening and Gilchrist coming down the order. In tests, with only batting a consideration, I would pick Sehwag

In ODIs, it's close with Gilly ahead as of now, but I guess Sehwag will have a better record by the time he plays as many ODIs as Gilly has

so overall Sehwag

 

[ret]

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91 View Post

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!

Those stats don't tell the full story as when Sehwag toured SA as an opener, he was probably in the worst phase of his career .... and many were calling for his head

The first time, he toured there, it was his debut series and made a good impression batting lower down. in fact he got a 100 on his test debut

 

[Redbacks]

I do not know why WC finals should decide who is better between players who have played 383 and 370 international matches each.

Gilchrist has played three World Cup finals and Sehwag just one. A function of the strength of the sides they represent I suppose.

Not just the final, but I think the WC is the one time teams take ODI's seriously for the entire tournament rather than playing youngsters or rotating bowlers.

 

[Pratters]

Not just the final, but I think the WC is the one time teams take ODI's seriously for the entire tournament rather than playing youngsters or rotating bowlers.

WC is also a stage where you encounters minnows a lot bloating your stats to a bit.

 

[Redbacks]

WC is also a stage where you encounters minnows a lot bloating your stats to a bit.

Ah yes, brings back memories of Ganguly's 3 hundreds in SA were against weaker teams.

Both Gilly and Sehwag have the ability to smash good bowlers off their games. He derailed the Indian attack along with Hayden in the 03 final, his strength was setting the momentum, anything after 30 runs was a bonus, by then most opposition plans were out the window, similar to Sehwag again I guess.

 

[ret]

most ppl do realize the importance of performing well in the WC but what being discussed, i guess, is that that Gilly has had the opportunity to play more finals than Sehwag which is more because of the teams they play for. So saying that Gilly is better just because he has had the opportunity to play more finals and thus perform in them is a non-starter .... like someone said that in the final that Sehwag has played, he has performed remarkably well. in fact if it had rained at some point in that game, Ind may have won the game based on D/L. It was Sehwag who got Ind in to that position .... Just like that performance by Sehwag doesn't show that he is better than Gilly, Gilly's performances in finals because he has had the opportunity to play more doesn't show that he is better than Sehwag, which is what the point is

 

[Uppercut]

This is a very interesting point - how batsman adjust to alien conditions. Of course the wickets have changed nature over a period of time but generally there is a 'classification' which holds at least in relative terms. Again some odd ground wil buck the overall local trend.

• AUSTRALIA has bouncy hard tracks. Over time the bounce has become less devastating and a bit 'spongy' but it is definitely bouncier and pacier than, say the sub continental tracks. Lateral movement by pacers is less pronounced and its getting worse (for bowlers) in this respect.

• ENGLAND has a weather that is more conducive to movement in the air and the overall humidity and underfoot conditions also support lateral movement. However the tracks are not 'pacy'

• SOUTH AFRICA has tracks with bounce as well as lateral movement. You will also get movement in the air for some length of time. This makes these amongst the most bowler friendly tracks in the world. It is easy to see that the Australian and English conditions are similar to it in one of the two major aspects - Australia for bounce and England for the lateral movement.

• SOUTH ASIA (Sri Lanka and the Sub-continent) has wickets that are slow and may provide some turn later in the game. Mostly these tracks lack the bounce and lateral movement that even their own pacers relish when they tour England or Australia or South Africa. Thus these wickets are in a category by themselves and except for the help for top class spinners these are the bowlers death beds.

I have a small issue with grouping South Asia pitches all together. Sri Lankan pitches are much less likely to be flat than Indian or Pakistani ones, as shown in this analysis:

The "flat sub-continental pitches" idea is a funny one. I'm not entirely sure where it comes from. Here's a breakdown of the overall average for each country over the past 20 years:

South Africa- 28.88
West Indies- 29.94
New Zealand- 30.39
Sri Lanka- 30.77
Pakistan- 31.79
Australia- 31.84
England- 31.95
India- 32.29

IIRC, Pakistani pitches appeared significantly more batsman-friendly when minnows were removed, but Sri Lankan ones stayed the same.

 

[Redbacks]

most ppl do realize the importance of performing well in the WC but what being discussed, i guess, is that that Gilly has had the opportunity to play more finals than Sehwag which is more because of the teams they play for. So saying that Gilly is better just because he has had the opportunity to play more finals and thus perform in them is a non-starter .... like someone said that in the final that Sehwag has played, he has performed remarkably well. in fact if it had rained at some point in that game, Ind may have won the game based on D/L. It was Sehwag who got Ind in to that position .... Just like that performance by Sehwag doesn't show that he is better than Gilly, Gilly's performances in finals because he has had the opportunity to play more doesn't show that he is better than Sehwag, which is what the point is

charity runs Lehmann was bowling to try and get the 25 overs in, game was well over!

 

[ret]

charity runs Lehmann was bowling to try and get the 25 overs in, game was well over!

If that was charity then it was not as generous as the charity by Indian bowlers :P