SehwagVsGilchrist

[Son Of Coco]

Yes but Sehwag has scored a triple hundred and Haydun has not yet but he retired.

Hayden scored 300+ against one of the best teams on the planet my friend:

Cricinfo - 1st Test: Australia v Zimbabwe at Perth, Oct 9-13, 2003

 

[Precambrian]

Unbelievable is your stupidity in bringing out a totally irrelevant wickets comparison for analysing Sehwag's batting!

 

[Evermind]

Hayden scored 300+ against one of the best teams on the planet my friend:

Cricinfo - 1st Test: Australia v Zimbabwe at Perth, Oct 9-13, 2003

I'm on a roll trolling stfu_ben91, please don't ruin it.

 

[JBH001]

Wouldnt you also have to factor in Sehwag's better overall record (home and away) and his better SR too?

 

[Top_Cat]

You, out. We don't like yer kind 'round here.

 

[JBH001]

Me T_C? Just stoking the embers!

(But still 51 at home, 50 away vs 62 at home and 41 away plus a SR of 78 to a SR of 60. Just saying, is all.)

 

[Evermind]

Me T_C? Just stoking the embers!

(But still 51 at home, 50 away vs 62 at home and 41 away plus a SR of 78 to a SR of 60. Just saying, is all.)

Please only comment if you are in favour of Hayden thanks.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

This thread is an embarrassment to the cricketing knowledge of the entire forum. Virender Sehwag doesn't even deserve the honour of being mentioned in the same breathe as Matthew Hayden, let alone be compared to him. Sehwag isn't even 2nd best opener of the modern era, Graeme Smith is and Matthew Hayden is miles ahead of both of them.

Has Virender Sehwag EVER been ranked the BEST batsman in the ENTIRE world? Never, not even once. Graeme Smith hasn't either. Hayden was ranked the BEST batsman in the world for the majority of 2002-2004, ahead of the likes of Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara, Dravid and Kallis. Hayden was the 2nd fastest to reach 20 Test Hundreds in least amount of matches played (behind only Bradman) and is the quickest to reach 30 Test Hundreds in the history of the game. Hundreds is what makes a player great and Hayden is much more prolific then Sehwag, despite Sehwag playing on slowish wickets, which favour Opening batsman.

You want to compare Sehwag with another Opening Batsman then compare him with Chris Gayle. I mean afterall, they both just stand flat-footed and slog. What's to say that if Gayle wouldn't average over 50 if he played in a stronger team and on pitches that consistantly produces a combination of over 1,000 runs in the first 2 innings of a Test Match? Gayle does have a triple-hundred to his name, remember?

Anyone who rates Sehwag close to Hayden doesn't know what they're talking about. End of story. For furthermore refernece, contact Ikki because he is destroying everyone else in this thread.

 

[Son Of Coco]

I'm on a roll trolling stfu_ben91, please don't ruin it.

Haha, I thought you were mucking around given the post that followed the one I quoted.

My apologies for interrupting! As you were.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Unbelievable is your stupidity in bringing out a totally irrelevant wickets comparison for analysing Sehwag's batting!

Who are you talking to?

 

[silentstriker]

Last eleven hundreds have all been over 150 for Sehwag.

 

[Precambrian]

Who are you talking to?

Ikki

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Ikki

Give up, kid. You're getting killed and your poor arguementing skills are being exposed as much as Sehwag's opening batting skills in South African.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Give up, kid. You're getting killed and your poor arguementing skills are being exposed as much as Sehwag's opening batting skills in South African.

Alright, enough is enough.

If you wish to keep on posting around here, Ben, you'll rid yourself of the following ideas:

a) our forum members here are illiterate
b) that not posting admits defeat
c) that you manage to judge who is "winning", "losing" or "getting killed" in a debate

So far, you've stepped on more toes than I wish to mention. Pull your head in, or you'll have a very short term here at CW.

 

[andyc]

That's why we you.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Alright, enough is enough.

If you wish to keep on posting around here, Ben, you'll rid yourself of the following ideas:

a) our forum members here are illiterate
b) that not posting admits defeat
c) that you manage to judge who is "winning", "losing" or "getting killed" in a debate

So far, you've stepped on more toes than I wish to mention. Pull your head in, or you'll have a very short term here at CW.

Funny, how when it's the other way round, nothing gets said and how when I get constantly attacked for no reason, without being provoked by Evermind, Pratters and Precambrian that you lot just let it slide.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Funny, how when it's the other way round, nothing gets said and how when I get constantly attacked for no reason, without being provoked by Evermind, Pratters and Precambrian that you lot just let it slide.

Funnily enough, it's often after you've done one of the three things that I've mentioned above. Now, if by doing that, you're going to cause arguments and make things personal. If you continue to do that, you can post elsewhere.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Funnily enough, it's often after you've done one of the three things that I've mentioned above. Now, if by doing that, you're going to cause arguments and make things personal. If you continue to do that, you can post elsewhere.

No, it's not. I've been argueing with someone else and then one of those 3 have taken a cheap shot at me for no reason and I've reported the posts and you've done nothing. It's not just this thread, but if you are going to allow them to constantly bait me without consequences then by all rights, I should be allowed to retelliate.

 

[vic_orthdox]

This conversation finishes here. You've been warned about your behaviour. Either take it on board, or post on another board.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

This conversation finishes here. You've been warned about your behaviour. Either take it on board, or post on another board.

No, I want an explanation as to why others can away with similar things but yet I get warned for them.