Sehwag, an all-time Indian great?

[Avada Kedavra]

India has never lost a test in which Vishwanath has scored a century.

India have lost a few matches when Sehwag made a big one.Do we keep him out?Lara has 14 centuries in losses, the most for any player.Would you keep him out of a West Indies all time eleven?When it comes to batsmanship,the result doesn't really matter.Cricket,unlike tennis, is a team game.

 

[Uppercut]

Pfft, horse before the cart methinks. Could also say Vishwanath has never scored a century in a game India lost.

 

[Pratters]

Same goes for Kumble and Agarkar too tbh.

Good one.

 

[Pratters]

India have lost a few matches when Sehwag made a big one.Do we keep him out?Lara has 14 centuries in losses, the most for any player.Would you keep him out of a West Indies all time eleven?When it comes to batsmanship,the result doesn't really matter.Cricket,unlike tennis, is a team game.

If your centuries help your team win or draw games more often than not, you are giving value for your runs.

 

[Avada Kedavra]

If your centuries help your team win or draw games more often than not, you are giving value for your runs.

Lara's 14 centuries that came in losses have no value then? Jokes apart, I understand your point. But what I am saying is that if someone scores a potentially match winning century, and the rest of the team mess up, it is hardly the batsman's fault. As a case in point, Sehwag's 195 in Melbourne and Lara's 600 odd runs in the 2001 series against Sri Lanka.

 

[aussie]

Gavaskar
Sehwag
Dravid (c)
Tendulkar
Hazare
Mankad
Engineer +
Kapil Dev
Khan/Srinath (cant split them)
Prasanna
Gupte

12th man: Viswanath

Mankad on overseas pitches could open instead of Sehwag & Viswanath could come in. While Prasanna would go out also to accomodate Khan & Srinath.

 

[ret]

Mankad on overseas pitches could open instead of Sehwag

Why would you want to replace a guy
- who averages 60 in Australia, 91 in Pakistan, 68 in SL
- who has ten 100s overseas in only 38 tests
- has scores of 195 and 201 in tough conditions like Melbourne and Galle

I am glad you are not a real selector!

 

[Cruxdude]

Why would you want to replace a guy
- who averages 60 in Australia, 91 in Pakistan, 68 in SL
- who has ten 100s overseas in only 38 tests
- has scores of 195 and 201 in tough conditions like Melbourne and Galle

I am glad you are not a real selector!

 

[aussie]

Why would you want to replace a guy
- who averages 60 in Australia, 91 in Pakistan, 68 in SL
- who has ten 100s overseas in only 38 tests
- has scores of 195 and 201 in tough conditions like Melbourne and Galle

I am glad you are not a real selector!

All this dumb Sehwag love, plus all of that stats dont tell the true story. To quote your fellow IND fan.

I prefer Dravid at three, and perhaps it's my bias, but I'd still feel comfortable with Sehwag vs. all time great spinners than Sehwag vs. all time great new ball bowlers.

Given my resvervations againts Sehwag that the entire CW alaready knows. Him opening in a hypotetical All-time match up overseas vs Marshall/Ambrose, Lillle/McGrath, Donald/Procter, Hadlee/Bond, Imran/Wasim & Trueman/Snow = fail.

Viswanth needs to play for balance sake on overseas pitches IMO. So Sehwag ATS in my personal view of what the IND ATXI should look, Sehwag is the man that has to go. You dont have to agree.

 

[ret]

Sure, I guess you know the true story that many people don't! .... As I said I am glad you are not a real selector

 

[Richard]

in that^ kind of a line up, you could even open with Gavaskar and Sehwag, keep Merchant at 3, Tendulkar at 4 and Dravid at 5

Why on Earth would one want to take one batsman away from his best slot in order to put another in a slot he prefers not to bat in?

Merchant is an opener; Sehwag is a middle-order batsman. That's how they should play in any XI they play in together (presuming Gavaskar is also in said XI).

 

[Richard]

Wouldn't have Merchant in my all time XI. Hasn't proven himself enough in the international scene playing only 10-11 tests despite a FC average of 70. It is like choosing a bowler with good FC stats and little or no test experience in your all time XI which I would almost always never do except in rare exceptions like maybe Barry Richards as Richards showed he can bat against quality bowling despite not playing enough tests.

In Merchant's day the distinction between domestic-First-Class and Test was nowhere near so pronounced as it is today. You simply cannot assess a player of the 1930s purely based on Test deeds, IMO.

 

[Richard]

Sure, I guess you know the true story that many people don't! .... As I said I am glad you are not a real selector

In terms of composite-accross-ages teams, there is no such thing as "real" selectors. Because such teams do not and cannot play together.

 

[The Sean]

Why on Earth would one want to take one batsman away from his best slot in order to put another in a slot he prefers not to bat in?

Merchant is an opener; Sehwag is a middle-order batsman. That's how they should play in any XI they play in together (presuming Gavaskar is also in said XI).

Sehwag has played 113 of his 123 Test innings as an opening batsman. He may prefer to consider himself a middle-order player but he's a Test opener.

 

[Richard]

Sehwag only ever begun to open - under any circumstances - in the long-form game in 2002. I know his Test career has come almost in its entirity since then, but he remains a middle-order batsman, and even prefers to bat there. Merchant on the other hand was never anything but an opener UIMM.

He has mostly opened in Tests; that's distinct from being "an opener".

 

[bagapath]

Sehwag only ever begun to open - under any circumstances - in the long-form game in 2002. I know his Test career has come almost in its entirity since then, but he remains a middle-order batsman, and even prefers to bat there. Merchant on the other hand was never anything but an opener UIMM.

He has mostly opened in Tests; that's distinct from being "an opener".

just because he started in the middle order doesnt mean he is a middle order batsman. and because he wants to bat in middle order, i dont know when said that but never mind, doesnt mean he is a middle order bat. he is a middle order bat only if he bats between nos 3 to 7 for most of his career.

sehwag's 113 innings as an opener are supposed to mean something. 2 triple centuries and 3 other 250+ scores included. that is more than the number of times herbert sutcliffe played as an opener.

sehwag is an opener. let him be a wanna be middle order bat. i dont care. 5000+ runs out of 6000 runs in one position means he belongs there.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Richard, if you went to law school and then drove a bus for the rest of your working life, does that make you a lawyer or a bus driver?

 

[Richard]

just because he started in the middle order doesnt mean he is a middle order batsman. and because he wants to bat in middle order, i dont know when said that but never mind, doesnt mean he is a middle order bat. he is a middle order bat only if he bats between nos 3 to 7 for most of his career.

sehwag's 113 innings as an opener are supposed to mean something. 2 triple centuries and 3 other 250+ scores included. that is more than the number of times herbert sutcliffe played as an opener.

sehwag is an opener. let him be a wanna be middle order bat. i dont care. 5000+ runs out of 6000 runs in one position means he belongs there.

I'm quite happy to assess Sehwag, see the runs he's scored as an opener (and how precisely it is that they've come) and put him in the middle-order. I'm very confident anything he can do as an opener he could do better in the middle-order.

In my book he is a middle-order batsman, because Test cricket is not the only level of cricket that exists.

 

[Richard]

Richard, if you went to law school and then drove a bus for the rest of your working life, does that make you a lawyer or a bus driver?

Since when did going to law school make anyone a lawyer?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Since when did going to law school make anyone a lawyer?

Okay, make that clearing the bar.