Virender Sehwag vs Inzamam-ul-Haq

[honestbharani]

Well, nearly every pitch offers some movement earlier on. Even the ones in India and Pakistan if you believe. There won't be massive deviation off the pitch which would cause issues to someone with a flawed technique like Sehwag.

Also, if you think that Sehwag gets 15-20 innings against that lineup across 2 series, him scoring 2 hundreds against them isn't exactly a hot take. There would be plenty of low scores too, and he may average 35-40 against them, which is pretty good. All assumptions of course, but it is in line with his career reputation. On the other hand, your confidence that he will never get a substantial score is lolworthy.

Come on man... "Based on reports" don't mean anything to you?

 

[subshakerz]

Well, nearly every pitch offers some movement earlier on. Even the ones in India and Pakistan if you believe. There won't be massive deviation off the pitch which would cause issues to someone with a flawed technique like Sehwag.

Also, if you think that Sehwag gets 15-20 innings against that lineup across 2 series, him scoring 2 hundreds against them isn't exactly a hot take. There would be plenty of low scores too, and he may average 35-40 against them, which is pretty good. All assumptions of course, but it is in line with his career reputation. On the other hand, your confidence that he will never get a substantial score is lolworthy.

Jeez you can't just simple disagree, huh?

I look at Sehwag's record against the swinging ball and decide he can't score a ton against the best pace attack ever in their den. No, it's not lolworthy, it's a reasonable opinion that you can reasonably differ from, bro.

 

[subshakerz]

He literally has a ton in WI against peak Ambrose and Walsh.

No way Inzamam would have scored against Marshall and company. Sehwag was awesome, cutting and pulling anything short pitched on any wicket. Inzamam lacked this quality.

 

[Xix2565]

If by reasonable you mean a single possibility among many that could happen if they had faced each other in those conditions, then sure. Otherwise it's pretty uncharitable.

 

[subshakerz]

If by reasonable you mean a single possibility among many that could happen if they had faced each other in those conditions, then sure. Otherwise it's pretty uncharitable.

It is reasonable to anyone not in trigger mode.

 

[Sunil1z]

And Sehwag was a worse walking wicket in Eng NZ and SA. He never faced McGrath in Australia unlike Inzi. The guy was the poster child of flat track bullies, Inzi wasn't that.

Sehwag never faced McGrath in Australia. Do you read properly? I have mentioned twice that he scored 80 in 2 innings against McGrath in Aus ( ICC WXI TEAM) when Inzamam batted like Walsh in the same match . Attaching screenshot for you again so that you can read Inzamam’s binary digit score of 0 and 1 in the same match.

 

[subshakerz]

Sehwag never faced McGrath in Australia. Do you read properly? I have mentioned twice that he scored 80 in 2 innings against McGrath in Aus ( ICC WXI TEAM) when Inzamam batted like Walsh in the same match . Attaching screenshot for you again so that you can read Inzamam’s binary digit score of 0 and 1

That match doesn't count. It was lambasted rightly as a joke. Let's stick to real cricket.

 

[Sunil1z]

That match doesn't count. It was lambasted rightly as a joke. Let's stick to real cricket.

It was a joke because joke cricketers like Inzamam were picked to bat against Australia.

 

[TheGreatest]

He literally has a ton in WI against peak Ambrose , Bishop and Walsh.

That looked to be a dead pitch. Just saw the scorecard even that tailender Nadeem got runs. It wasn't like Trinidad in 1995 or Barbados in 1992 and 1997. Even Sidhu got a 200 on a dead pitch in the first Test of the 1997 series.

 

[subshakerz]

That looked to be a dead pitch. Just saw the scorecard even that tailender Nadeem got runs. It wasn't like Trinidad in 1995 or Barbados in 1992 and 1997. Even Sidhu got a 200 on a dead pitch in the first Test of the 1997 series.

Still counts. He scored tons against Ambrose Walsh in his next series in the Caribbean too.

Not saying he would average 50 in WI against Marshall and co, but I do see him scoring a ton here or there. Much harder for Sehwag to do so as opener with his technique.

He has a ton against McWarne too in Australia which everyone wants to ignore. His problem was consistency.

 

[Sunil1z]

Ridicule Kapil’s batting average of 23 in 80s as ODI batsman. Defend Inzamam average of 30 against Aus and Sa as Test batsman ?

 

[OverratedSanity]

One or two hundreds against attacks that contain great bowlers prove **** all imo. Unless they are genuinely excellent innings in the match context. Lots of mediocre batsmen have had good days against great bowlers. Mathew Sinclair has a 150 vs Donald and Pollock ffs.

If you want to compare players go with the more reliable arguments like sehwag's poor overseas record or inzi's striking difference between 90s and 2000s averages. Not using solitary innings without context as some kind of gotcha .

 

[trundler]

Ridicule Kapil’s batting average of 23 in 80s as ODI batsman. Defend Inzamam average of 30 against Aus and Sa as Test batsman ?

This is abhorrent posting and you should feel bad.

 

[Prince EWS]

Ridicule Kapil’s batting average of 23 in 80s as ODI batsman. Defend Inzamam average of 30 against Aus and Sa as Test batsman ?

Daily reminder that 30 > 23.

 

[honestbharani]

I mean its pretty clear to anyone who is not triggered by facts that Sehwag is the better test batsman.

 

[honestbharani]

This is abhorrent posting and you should feel bad.

You seem #triggered.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I mean its pretty clear to anyone who is not triggered by facts that Sehwag is the better test batsman.

No

Frankly Im surprised the poll is this tight. Inzi is a clearly better batsman.

 

[honestbharani]

No

Frankly Im surprised the poll is this tight. Inzi is a clearly better batsman.

Nah Sehwag is better. Even without considering the opener brownie points. If you include ODIs, its obviously a different story.

 

[Prince EWS]

One or two hundreds against attacks that contain great bowlers prove **** all imo. Unless they are genuinely excellent innings in the match context. Lots of mediocre batsmen have had good days against great bowlers. Mathew Sinclair has a 150 vs Donald and Pollock ffs.

If you want to compare players go with the more reliable arguments like sehwag's poor overseas record or inzi's striking difference between 90s and 2000s averages. Not using solitary innings without context as some kind of gotcha .

The reason solitary innings came up was because people claimed Sehwag was literally incapable of ever scoring a ton against good bowlers in certain conditions. I think that's a pretty insane claim tbh - every dog has his day. I reckon most regular domestic batsmen are capable of a ton against gun bowlers in tough conditions one out of 200 times.

 

[trundler]

You seem #triggered.

I am triggered by you losing your head and acting like a child. This was a decent enough thread before you and Sunilz started with the lolololol Subshakerz posting. It's annoying to see everywhere even though it's pleasing when he ignores the tantrums.