***Official*** West Indies in India 2013

[JontyPanesar]

I don't know if sehwag's lazy or not, and neither do you. He gave the team almost a decade of brilliance. This is a guy who was one of the biggest reasons for us getting to no. 1 and batted his whole career out of position simply because we wanted an attacking opener. Calling a guy with two triples, average of almost 50, an unheard of strike rate of 80 and an ability to produce match winning innings out of nothing a failure is preposterous.
His decline has made me extremely sad, the guy was a genius and will be remembered as one

Please inform me of where I said he was an outright failure? I specifically clarified that he failed to maintain his spot despite having at least a few years left in his cricketing career, especially for someone described by you as a genius. Sehwag had an outstanding first half to his career. No one can deny him that. And I'm not

He was unwilling to get fit. He was unwilling to adapt. What does that say about him as a player? I think lazy is a fair inference.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Please inform me of where I said he was an outright failure? I specifically clarified that he failed to maintain his spot despite having at least a few years left in his cricketing career, especially for someone described by you as a genius. Sehwag had an outstanding first half to his career. No one can deny him that. And I'm not

He was unwilling to get fit. He was unwilling to adapt. What does that say about him as a player? I think lazy is a fair inference.

Ok fair enough. I may have overreacted but that's only because I him

 

[Arachnodouche]

Please inform me of where I said he was an outright failure? I specifically clarified that he failed to maintain his spot despite having at least a few years left in his cricketing career, especially for someone described by you as a genius. Sehwag had an outstanding first half to his career. No one can deny him that. And I'm not

He was unwilling to get fit. He was unwilling to adapt. What does that say about him as a player? I think lazy is a fair inference.

Some burn long, some don't. We all knew what we were getting with Sehwag, we were happy enough to cheer him on when shot after outrageous shot came off with stunning regularity for a fairly large chunk of his career, knowing full well he was playing the percentages and that he would waste away earlier and far faster than technically sound players like Dravid or Tendulkar. Criticizing him for lack of adaptability is uncharitable IMO.

He's still won us as many Tests off his own impetuosity as any other player (and how many others are there, really...Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar?) in the last ten years.

 

[Woodster]

Sehwag had a style that would always suit his home conditions, where he could hit through the line of the ball on the up without moving feet, and he was very successful in these conditions. He would go big and that's not too easy with his aggressive style, and certainly helped in setting up and winning Test matches by giving his side so much time to bowl the opposition out due to the speed he scored his runs at. His lack of footwork was always going to give him problems abroad, and so it proved. That's not to say he didn't have some success on seaming tracks, but inevitably he revelled in home conditions.

 

[JontyPanesar]

Some burn long, some don't. We all knew what we were getting with Sehwag, we were happy enough to cheer him on when shot after outrageous shot came off with stunning regularity for a fairly large chunk of his career, knowing full well he was playing the percentages and that he would waste away earlier and far faster than technically sound players like Dravid or Tendulkar. Criticizing him for lack of adaptability is uncharitable IMO.

He's still won us as many Tests off his own impetuosity as any other player (and how many others are there, really...Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar?) in the last ten years.

How many innings of putting your team at a consistent disadvantage in terms of low scores and exposure of the middle-order to the new ball is that glorified single-handed match-winning knock worth? 5 innings? 10 innings? 20? 30? When Dravid, Laxman, Sachin didn't pull off the great knock, were they putting their teams at as much of a disadvantage as Sehwag was? Opening is a very specialized role and if you're going to be unorthodox about it, you better be damn good at it. Should selectors have put up with him playing blind aggression during his decline despite it so obviously hurting the team's performance and exposing the middle-order so consistently to the new ball?

I think him having a lean period is fair because you'll keep making the runs that way until it stops coming off, but his prolonged decline was pretty damn long. The writing was on the wall, and yet zero willingness to adapt. People are supposed to be dynamic; we don't have to settle for some zero-sum what goes up must come down with each player. A player should be capable of changing, improving, preparing with experience. The selectors should have been capable of making a call sooner too if he was unwilling to make the requisite changes.

No one's saying he needed to adapt to a textbook technique, but plenty of players with cement feet have devised methods for adjusting their games as they age

 

[smash84]

Never really liked Sehwag's play and always wondered as to how in hell did he get so many runs with such an awful technique. But when it was going his way, he could bloody murder you and then some.

 

[JontyPanesar]

Sehwag had a style that would always suit his home conditions, where he could hit through the line of the ball on the up without moving feet, and he was very successful in these conditions. He would go big and that's not too easy with his aggressive style, and certainly helped in setting up and winning Test matches by giving his side so much time to bowl the opposition out due to the speed he scored his runs at. His lack of footwork was always going to give him problems abroad, and so it proved. That's not to say he didn't have some success on seaming tracks, but inevitably he revelled in home conditions.

What you say mainly reminds me of the Chennai test. And full credit to him for it. But his decline was far too long and far too obvious. Some sort of adjustment had to be made. Either by him or the selectors. That he kept getting chance after chance but never bothered to change says something not so flattering about how he went about his cricket

 

[Jono]

I'm sure I've alienated all other Indian fans on this forum by pouring a gallon of haterade on Sehwag....but I'm not trying to troll here.

He's never been too popular a player here even among Indian fans tbh. Definitely not as popular as Rahul and Laxman. Your initial posts read as if Sehwag's whole career was a failure, which you clarified you did not mean.

Sehwag's decline, just like Laxman's and Dravid and Tendulkar's, was not pretty. His just looked worse because when he's **** he looks really ****. That is all.

 

[Jono]

What you say mainly reminds me of the Chennai test. And full credit to him for it. But his decline was far too long and far too obvious. Some sort of adjustment had to be made. Either by him or the selectors. That he kept getting chance after chance but never bothered to change says something not so flattering about how he went about his cricket

Sehwag to this day still reckons he is a middle order player.

He's just a dumb **** who could hit a ball, and hit a ball well. You are over analysing him and his decline way too much. He never loved the game THAT much, he was never interested in records. All that happened is he became unfit and lost his eye. The first no doubt had to do with him losing interest in the game.

He probably should have retired like he said he would when he said earlier in his career he'd retire after 100 tests. But the selectors eventually caught on that he was done. You can't just change your game 100% and be good. If he changed his game I'd have wanted him dropped even more actually.

 

[Prince EWS]

Sehwag's decline, just like Laxman's and Dravid and Tendulkar's, was not pretty. His just looked worse because when he's **** he looks really ****. That is all.

He also declined much earlier though. That's a legitimate criticism, or at the very least something to mark him down for when compared to the others. They extended their worth and value as players by being useful for longer (much longer in Dravid's case).

 

[JontyPanesar]

He's never been too popular a player here even among Indian fans tbh. Definitely not as popular as Rahul and Laxman. Your initial posts read as if Sehwag's whole career was a failure, which you clarified you did not mean.

Sehwag's decline, just like Laxman's and Dravid and Tendulkar's, was not pretty. His just looked worse because when he's **** he looks really ****. That is all.

Dravid and Laxman fell to father time, plain and simple. And even then, they tried to grit it out to some success. Tendulkar the same though that's a different sort of ugly.

Sehwag still has years left in him. That's what makes his case far more noteworthy. I'm not a purist when it comes to technique; heck, I love Chanders' heterodox methods. In fact, Sehwag could have become a very effective 'ugly' player imo, not too dissimilar to Biff and Katto. But that still required some changes and sacrifices Sehwag was unwilling to make, despite retaining the opening slot for so long.

 

[Jono]

He also declined much earlier though. That's a legitimately criticism, or at the very least something to mark him down for when compared to the others. They extended their worth and value as players by being useful for longer (much longer in Dravid's case).

No doubt, but that was predictable wasn't it? Because his game was always limited.

There is a reason why Sachin, Dravid and Kallis were scoring tons when they are/were 37-38 and why other players fall away way sooner.

I just do not believe Sehwag could have addressed his decline much. He'd have been even more hopeless. He was doomed to suck post 34-35 to be honest. Gilly, who albeit had a better technique relied on his eye a lot too, also fell away quickly.

 

[Jono]

In fact, Sehwag could have become a very effective 'ugly' player imo, not too dissimilar to Biff and Katto. But that still required some changes and sacrifices Sehwag was unwilling to make, despite retaining the opening slot for so long.

Well this is where we are at polar opposites and will never agree.

In my view Sehwag could never have been a Katich and Lehmann. I don't know what aspect of his game makes you even think that.

 

[honestbharani]

Sehwag had a technique that was excellent for home conditions but one, with a bit more application, would also suit him overseas. He was doing that to whatever extent he can even as recently as 2008.. I think the doom started around 2009 with that tour to NZ where it was patently obvious he just wanted to score/biff 50-60 quickly and then get out. There was a minor adjustment he would make to his own game overseas in his early years which he just totally refused to do around 2009. That was when he started this phase of totally useless abroad but imperious at home... Before that, while he was about 95% of what he was at home after that, he was about 300% better overseas.. So I think it is quite ok to criticize what SEhwag became around 2009 and later while maintaining what a genius he was before that and even for a while after, but only at home..

 

[kyear2]

To receive recognition from your peers in one thing, to receive congratulations from greats out side of your sport like Hamilton and Federer (my two fav athletes by some distance btw) shows how much he has meant to world sport and how far his appeal spreads.

 

[kyear2]

With regard to the W.I team the future is not as bleak as it seems. Most of our problems stem from the top. We have to start taking our first class cricket seriously and let the players know that if they want to play Test cricket you have to show up for our local season. With a team this bad, no ones place should be safe. No one.
The next area of issue is the selectors, to maintain Sammy as captain would be a road to disaster. If Sammy plays we have to either sacrifice a front line batsman or bowler. For a team in flux that is more than we can endure. The selectors also don't seem to understand the game at all and some of their selections are baffling. After a decent A series tour Kirk Edwards didn't even get a look (part of a strategy by Sammy to ensure he can't impress and take his job) and Miguel Cummins and Kraigg Brathwaite were not even taken on tour. Jason Holder is another one who deserves a look.

Suffice to say Sammy, Gayle, Ramdin, Best should no play for the West Indies again, though Best does try his heart out, he just isn't good enough for Test cricket. Bravo and Powell needs to prove them selves as well, potential can only take you so far.

The bowlers have different problems, Kemar and Ravi needs to get in better shape and maintain their level of fitness. Not sure why Cottrel was even chosen for selection for the tour over Cummins in particular. Unlike most I have no problem with Permaul being dropped as he was bowling an ODI length and also believe that SUnil Narine is not a Test bowler.

A team of
Brathwaite
Powell
Edwards
Bravo
Samuels
Chanderpaul
Walton
Rampaul
Roach
Shillingford
Cummins

would certainly be a handful for N.Z and opposition in the near future and have provided a much greater challenge for India. Unfortunately between Injury and lack of a spine by our selectors it wouldn't happen.

 

[Teja.]

Sehwag to have the best legacy by far. Yuvi's battles have made him much tougher, much less lazy. Bhajji just went downhill, a slow decline, not a sudden one. As long as Umesh Yadav is fit to play, Zak should not make it back.

Sehwag by right should have as big/bigger legacy as Laxman. Mid-2010, when he was scoring tons with ridiculous consistency, people were 50-50 about whether he was an all-time great ffs. It's insane what a revisionist bitch public opinion can be about someone who brought in the results merely because he had glaring technical deficiencies.

Sehwag was a batsman who for a significant part of his career - despite being in the same team as the best all-round batsman of his generation among other ****s who were alright batsman - the best and most valuable batsman in both sides for 2/3 of the games he played (The subcontinent). I'll take that over being able to hold your ground well in all parts of the world.

He shouldn't be somebody who should be a contender for AT XIs, even though Chappelli would let you think otherwise, however there's no doubt that he was better than all but the absolute best batsmen over his career.

 

[Cruxdude]

Regarding Zaheer getting back in to the team or not. I think he should be in the squad for the SA series. While Bhuvi has been very impressive since debut, I would like to see him do more with the old ball. Zaheer and Shami reversing the ball together would be so good to watch.

 

[JontyPanesar]

Well this is where we are at polar opposites and will never agree.

In my view Sehwag could never have been a Katich and Lehmann. I don't know what aspect of his game makes you even think that.

Biff, not Boof. And the lack of footwork is what I think ties them together. Sehwag always had the least footwork of all, but cutting out the drive and learning to work the ball legside more regularly would have been worthwhile imho

 

[Daemon]

Maybe he didn't want to change because he enjoyed playing the way he does and lives for those match winning knocks of his. Who knows.