Does Virender Sehwag deserve to be called an ALL TIME GREAT?

[Furball]

Sehwag is great at what he does, but that doesn't make him a great batsman.

 

[Shri]

Yes it does.

 

[Jayzamann]

Hughes scored 2 centuries against Steyn and Co in South Africa. That doesn't mean he is an awesome batsman in swinging/seaming conditions against a quality attack.

Just 1 innings doesn't mean anything.

But two innings...

Hughes ATG WAFG

 

[kyear2]

Sehwag is great at what he does, but that doesn't make him a great batsman.

+1
All batsmen have weaknesses, his are just too glaring to over look. Does anyone here see him being sussessful in the 80's or againts a Marshall, Lillee or Hadlee on pitches with even the slightest hint of life, and please stop the Viv and Bradman comparrisons, he definately isn't I.V.A. and wouldn't even comment on the second.
Great yes, ATG ?, not with his flaws.
And PEWS, with that midset is why India cannon win tests away from home.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I don't give a **** about tennis, ****.

And as I've told you before - to me being a good cricketer isn't about achieving a magical skill level or checking imaginary boxes and standards that judges hold you to; it's about being the biggest asset to your cricket side (or, to remove balance issues, a cross-section of theoretical cricket sides) that you possibly can. You're going to play half your games at home so if you want to make up for being a little poorer away by being even extra godly at home then more power to you, IMO. I appreciate people will disagree because they love breaking down career samples that are already dubious in size in terms of forming an accurate judgement into even smaller samples heavily prone to cyclical form factors, development rates and plain old variance, but there you have it. Home and away records need to be taken into account if someone has played an disproportionate amount of games either at home or away - for example playing 75% of your games at home will usually inflate one's record as playing at home is easier - but beyond that, meh. In the end, only about one every eighteen series or so a modern batsman plays is going to be in South Africa, unless they play for South Africa. It's not as important to a side as it's made out.

And here lies the problem with that argument. If a player is not helping his team win an important series in England or South Africa or Australia which ultimately is contributing to his team losing points in the Ranking system, then he is not being the asset to his team that you think he is. I had made the same point about Jayawardene. That being the most senior player and one of the best batsmen in the team, if he is not contributing to Sri Lanka winning a series in South Africa or in England, then he is not helping his team become the number 1 team in the world because to be the number 1 for a reasonable period of time, you have to win both at home and away..then is he really the most important asset to his team?

 

[ankitj]

I don't give a **** about tennis, ****.

And as I've told you before - to me being a good cricketer isn't about achieving a magical skill level or checking imaginary boxes and standards that judges hold you to; it's about being the biggest asset to your cricket side (or, to remove balance issues, a cross-section of theoretical cricket sides) that you possibly can. You're going to play half your games at home so if you want to make up for being a little poorer away by being even extra godly at home then more power to you, IMO. I appreciate people will disagree because they love breaking down career samples that are already dubious in size in terms of forming an accurate judgement into even smaller samples heavily prone to cyclical form factors, development rates and plain old variance, but there you have it. Home and away records need to be taken into account if someone has played an disproportionate amount of games either at home or away - for example playing 75% of your games at home will usually inflate one's record as playing at home is easier - but beyond that, meh. In the end, only about one every eighteen series or so a modern batsman plays is going to be in South Africa, unless they play for South Africa. It's not as important to a side as it's made out.

Don't agree with you entirely but to some extent appreciate the general point you are making. Even Bradman had well documented weakness on sticky wickets, but he more than makes up for that with his monstrous run scoring in all other conditions, and none of us dispute his status as an all time great.

 

[Spark]

To an extent PEWS is right but I do think you have to consider the fact that he opens. If Sehwag's averaging 20-odd, at his strike rate that means he's constantly exposing the middle order to the new ball. In that case, the average masks just how detrimental to the team it is, and in that case his inability against seam/swing becomes a major issue.

 

[benchmark00]

I don't give a **** about tennis, ****.

POTY. l

 

[ankitj]

POTY. l

That in Hindi means **** or human excreta.

 

[benchmark00]

That in Hindi means **** or human excreta.

Who says I haven't been learning a bit of Hindi in my spare time?

 

[Shri]

Who says I haven't been learning a bit of Hindi in my spare time?

Mavis Murphy.

buuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnnnnnnnnnnnn

 

[benchmark00]

Mavis Murphy.

buuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnnnnnnnnnnnn

Going to report you in five months ****.

 

[smash84]

Who says I haven't been learning a bit of Hindi in my spare time?