• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Sehwag - Best Batsman In World Cricket Right Now

jeevan

International 12th Man
Smith averages around about the same in the subcontinent as he does at home.

And yeah, South Africa have no decent spinners so apart from one awesome spell from Steyn - It's fill your boots when playing against them in the subcontinent but extremely difficult when playing them at home.
The rest of the subcontinent isn't as relevant to this discussion because Sehwag plays half of his cricket in India and not all over the subcontinent. Pitches and bowlers are different and it just muddles any point one may have(Subcontinent vs India only makes Ponting look a bit better, but this thread isn't about Ponting for a change).

Smith averages 36 in India, 46 in SA and 50 overall. I.e. significantly underperforms.
 
Last edited:

wfdu_ben91

International 12th Man
Averages in India of top order Australian batsmen from their period of dominance (96-06):
India is in the subcontinent.

Slater 28.6 vs career 43
Taylor 36 vs career 43.5
Langer 29.9 vs career 45.3
Ponting 20.8 vs career 55
Hayden 51.4 vs career 50.7, so 4/5 seriously under perform

(Sorry to rest of the forum to drag out facts once again. But really dont know how to respond to ridiculous assertions stated as fact to prove that some Australian player or another is better).

BTW, wfdu_ben91, you will find that the Australian middle order for this period has done better in India - usually near their career averages.

So, top order batting in India don't seem to have any special systematic advantage if the best team in the world(TM) couldn't cash in.
Yeah, Michael Clarke and Damien Martyn who are good players of spin had success in India. Look at 2001 where basically the top-order made all of the runs and the middle-order crumbled.
 

jeevan

International 12th Man
BTW Sehwag may be the most dangerous batsman in the world today, but I'm not completely sure that he's the best atm.

This thread has seriously gone off track by talking of Australian players. We should be looking at Amla. Or Gambhir. Or Sanga (?). Or even SRT himself at a stretch.

Not everything revolves around Australia any more, but many threads mysteriously meander that way, (actually, not so mysteriously).
 
Last edited:

jeevan

International 12th Man
Yeah, Michael Clarke and Damien Martyn who are good players of spin had success in India. Look at 2001 where basically the top-order made all of the runs and the middle-order crumbled.
Slicing & dicing down to one series? No thanks. Dont mind tedious stats myself, but at some point it becomes ridiculous.

All Australian middle order bats of the period have done around their career averages or better in India - the Waughs, Clarke, Gilchrist, Martyn. Unlike the top order.
 

wfdu_ben91

International 12th Man
Slicing & dicing down to one series? No thanks. Dont mind tedious stats myself, but at some point it becomes ridiculous.

All Australian middle order bats of the period have done around their career averages or better in India - the Waughs, Clarke, Gilchrist, Martyn. Unlike the top order.
Why are you using arguably the best team ever as an example? Of course they are going to perform better then other non-subcontinent teams. Why not use South Africa as an example? The first Test, Amla and Kallis (both were in relatively early and faced the new ball before spin came on) batted and made the bulk of the runs. Then in the 2nd Test, Peterson and Amla made all of the runs before a collaspe by the middle-order where all of the new batsman fell to the spin of Harbhajan and Mishra.

England the last time they toured India were guided on back of Andrew Strauss, who delt with the Indian spinners allot better then other English batsman because he had his eye-in before the spinners came on. The 2nd Test, Pietersen scored big as he came in before the spinners came into the attack.

And FTR, Gilchrist has a horrible record in India and against India. He played one magnificant knock in the first Test of 2001 on an absolute dustbowl and then got a king pair, followed by 1 & 1 in the last Test.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Donald? Ntini? The pitch that Gilchrist scored his double ton on, was quoted by Steve Waugh as a difficult one to bat on, so a typical SA track.
It was quoted by Waugh as that, but in reality it started as a fair featherbed (as most SAfrican decks were 2001/02-2005/06) before getting a bit uneven (and no more than that) as the game went on. Waugh just thought it was difficult because he was awfully out-of-form at the time. Donald, apart from being way over-the-hill by 2001/02, did not even bowl at Gilchrist as he was injured after 15 overs, and Ntini at that point was a poor Test bowler.

Not that any of this is of the slightest relevance, really, but just to correct any misperceptions.
 

wfdu_ben91

International 12th Man
It was quoted by Waugh as that, but in reality it started as a fair featherbed (as most SAfrican decks were 2001/02-2005/06) before getting a bit uneven (and no more than that) as the game went on. Waugh just thought it was difficult because he was awfully out-of-form at the time. Donald, apart from being way over-the-hill by 2001/02, did not even bowl at Gilchrist as he was injured after 15 overs, and Ntini at that point was a poor Test bowler.

Not that any of this is of the slightest relevance, really, but just to correct any misperceptions.
Well in reality, coming someone who played in that match and a relieable, well proven cricketer like Steve Waugh; I'd say that his point of view is very valid. Out of form or not, he isn't an idiot.

And FTR, Between 2001/02 - 2005/06 in South Africa, Pollock averaged 21, Ntini averaged 23, Nel 24 and Kallis averaged 30. These are all lower then their overall career averages. Considering that you said that Pollock was far from his best after 2001/02 and that Ntini averages close to 40 away from home; that statement about SA decks being flat between 01/02 - 05/06 is a load of rubbish.

Based on the same principle you used to compare KP to Sanga. You were so worried of performance against the best. :laugh:
Different circumstance. I was comparing how players went against the best team whilst he comparing how the best team went in a certain condition.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Well in reality, coming someone who played in that match and a relieable, well proven cricketer like Steve Waugh; I'd say that his point of view is very valid. Out of form or not, he isn't an idiot.
Not if it flies in the face of how the ball actually behaved. There was next to no seam in that wicket all Test; the odd ball scuttled along the ground on day three but on the first couple of days it was very true in bounce. Waugh only found the deck difficult to bat on because he was out-of-nick. All the other Australians found it very easy, assisted by the SAfricans' diabolical catching.
And FTR, Between 2001/02 - 2005/06 in South Africa, Pollock averaged 21, Ntini averaged 23, Nel 24 and Kallis averaged 30. These are all lower then their overall career averages. Considering that you said that Pollock was far from his best after 2001/02 and that Ntini averages close to 40 away from home; that statement about SA decks being flat between 01/02 - 05/06 is a load of rubbish.
Not really - Nel can take a flat deck out of the equation and did, several times, so his case proves nothing whatsoever; Pollock actually averaged 24.11 in the time in question, and returned particularly impressive figures in just 5 Tests out of 19; Ntini in 9 out of 24. And of course quoting figures to attempt to show how a pitch played is illiterate, really, because that depends on the quality of the bowler and the quality of batsmanship as well as the deck. A really good bowler can take the deck out of the equation, and if the batting is poor even moderate bowling on a flat deck can return good figures.

Broadly speaking, in the 25 serious Tests (1 of which was made unofficial) in South Africa from 2001/02 to 2005/06, there were 21 pitches which could be described as offering nothing very much to seam, and 4 which could be said to offer something to seam. Those 4 BTW were the First and Third Tests of the last series of the period against New Zealand, and the two against Sri Lanka in 2002/03. All the rest were pretty lifeless.
 

wfdu_ben91

International 12th Man
Not if it flies in the face of how the ball actually behaved. There was next to no seam in that wicket all Test; the odd ball scuttled along the ground on day three but on the first couple of days it was very true in bounce. Waugh only found the deck difficult to bat on because he was out-of-nick. All the other Australians found it very easy, assisted by the SAfricans' diabolical catching.

Not really - Nel can take a flat deck out of the equation and did, several times, so his case proves nothing whatsoever; Pollock actually averaged 24.11 in the time in question, and returned particularly impressive figures in just 5 Tests out of 19; Ntini in 9 out of 24. And of course quoting figures to attempt to show how a pitch played is illiterate, really, because that depends on the quality of the bowler and the quality of batsmanship as well as the deck. A really good bowler can take the deck out of the equation, and if the batting is poor even moderate bowling on a flat deck can return good figures.

Broadly speaking, in the 25 serious Tests (1 of which was made unofficial) in South Africa from 2001/02 to 2005/06, there were 21 pitches which could be described as offering nothing very much to seam, and 4 which could be said to offer something to seam. Those 4 BTW were the First and Third Tests of the last series of the period against New Zealand, and the two against Sri Lanka in 2002/03. All the rest were pretty lifeless.
Nice analysis, but I don't really see any difference between the pitches in South Africa over the past 5 years and the 5 years before that. Every Test of Australia's tour of South Africa in 2005/06 was very bowler friendly from my recollections and England's tour of South Africa 2004/05 offered a bit aswell.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
There was a World of difference. There have indeed been some games in the 2001/02-2005/06 period where there's been the odd spell of bowler-friendliness (almost all of them in the series between SA and Aus in 2005/06 occurred when Aus were bowling) but by-and-large that owed to variable overhead conditions rather than the decks. When England were over there in 2004/05 the only occasions where conditions could be said to be seam-friendly were some points in the Wanderers Test and the first session or so of the Kingsmead one. The rest of the time there was nothing, though the Port Elizabeth Test had a bit in it for spin.

From 1992/93 to 2000/01 in South Africa seam-friendly decks were in a majority over flat ones, and you virtually never saw a spin-friendly Test pitch. Since 2006/07, also, there've been a decent number once more.
 

wfdu_ben91

International 12th Man
There was a World of difference. There have indeed been some games in the 2001/02-2005/06 period where there's been the odd spell of bowler-friendliness (almost all of them in the series between SA and Aus in 2005/06 occurred when Aus were bowling) but by-and-large that owed to variable overhead conditions rather than the decks. When England were over there in 2004/05 the only occasions where conditions could be said to be seam-friendly were some points in the Wanderers Test and the first session or so of the Kingsmead one. The rest of the time there was nothing, though the Port Elizabeth Test had a bit in it for spin.

From 1992/93 to 2000/01 in South Africa seam-friendly decks were in a majority over flat ones, and you virtually never saw a spin-friendly Test pitch. Since 2006/07, also, there've been a decent number once more.
Nah, the pitches in 2005/06 Aus vs SA were definately as much of a factor as the overhead conditions. The only real difference between the two teams in the first 2 Tests were Hayden & Ponting's batting and it was no easier for Australia's batsman as the ball was moving around and it was incredibly difficult to score. Both Andrew Symonds and Justin Langer were cleaned up by vicious bouncers in that series; so it wasn't just the overhead conditions.
 

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
2006 is the same as 2009?


Cool, I'm 20 again :D

Love when CW refuses to believe players improve. Happens with Hayden and Sehwag a lot.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
2006 is the same as 2009?


Cool, I'm 20 again :D

Love when CW refuses to believe players improve. Happens with Hayden and Sehwag a lot.
Yeh, it's as if the players themselves stay constant while everyone else/conditions get better or worse/tougher or easier,
 

Top