Mathew Hayden vs Virender Sehwag

[Raz0r6ack]

If both were playing in today's era Hayden would still average 50 because Australian wickets are still mostly flat. Labuchagne's last few years have been similar to Hayden 2001-04. Both put up huge numbers at home.

Sehwag probably wouldn't be opening. The lack of opportunity to make huge double and triple hundreds, as well as harder home pitches to bat on would see a noticeable drop in his average. No Tests in Pakistan would also hurt his average.

I'd imagine Sehwag averaging low 40s overall playing a similar counterattack role as Rishabh Pant does. Likely batting at 5 behind Kohli. He would do better outside the subcontinent then what he did as an opener but not as good at home.

 

[CricketFan90s]

If both were playing in today's era Hayden would still average 50 because Australian wickets are still mostly flat. Labuchagne's last few years have been similar to Hayden 2001-04. Both put up huge numbers at home.

Sehwag probably wouldn't be opening. The lack of opportunity to make huge double and triple hundreds, as well as harder home pitches to bat on would see a noticeable drop in his average. No Tests in Pakistan would also hurt his average.

I'd imagine Sehwag averaging low 40s overall playing a similar counterattack role as Rishabh Pant does. Likely batting at 5 behind Kohli. He would do better outside the subcontinent then what he did as an opener but not as good at home.

Both are flat track bullies. However most entertaining.

 

[Sunil1z]

If both were playing in today's era Hayden would still average 50 because Australian wickets are still mostly flat. Labuchagne's last few years have been similar to Hayden 2001-04. Both put up huge numbers at home.

Sehwag probably wouldn't be opening. The lack of opportunity to make huge double and triple hundreds, as well as harder home pitches to bat on would see a noticeable drop in his average. No Tests in Pakistan would also hurt his average.

I'd imagine Sehwag averaging low 40s overall playing a similar counterattack role as Rishabh Pant does. Likely batting at 5 behind Kohli. He would do better outside the subcontinent then what he did as an opener but not as good at home.

Are you saying Sehwag is worse than Rohit ?Because Rohit is averaging 70 at home as opener

 

[Socerer 01]

If both were playing in today's era Hayden would still average 50 because Australian wickets are still mostly flat. Labuchagne's last few years have been similar to Hayden 2001-04. Both put up huge numbers at home.

Sehwag probably wouldn't be opening. The lack of opportunity to make huge double and triple hundreds, as well as harder home pitches to bat on would see a noticeable drop in his average. No Tests in Pakistan would also hurt his average.

I'd imagine Sehwag averaging low 40s overall playing a similar counterattack role as Rishabh Pant does. Likely batting at 5 behind Kohli. He would do better outside the subcontinent then what he did as an opener but not as good at home.

huh? the only dude to not only read but dominate a rampant Mendis for century isn’t struggling to demolish the current era spinners irrespective of how the pitches fare. people really undersell how murderously good Sehwag was against spin

 

[Raz0r6ack]

Are you saying Sehwag is worse than Rohit ?Because Rohit is averaging 70 at home as opener

Sehwag averaged 54 in easier home conditions. He also averaged only 30 in the second innings when it was a bit tougher to bat like it is in the first innings in modern Indian conditions with DRS.

Sharma is more technically apt for tougher pitches then Sehwag is. Sehwag definitely way better on 2000s pitches then Sharma.

huh? the only dude to not only read but dominate a rampant Mendis for century isn’t struggling to demolish the current era spinners irrespective of how the pitches fare. people really undersell how murderously good Sehwag was against spin

How the pitches fare changes the whole game when it comes to spinners. Especially with the DRS factor and India didn't like playing Tests with DRS during Sehwag's career.

 

[Socerer 01]

I agree that Rohit’s technique is better but

Sehwag averaged 54 in easier home conditions. He also averaged only 30 in the second innings when it was a bit tougher to bat like it is in the first innings in modern Indian conditions with DRS.

Sharma is more technically apt for tougher pitches then Sehwag is. Sehwag definitely way better on 2000s pitches then Sharma.


How the pitches fare changes the whole game when it comes to spinners. Especially with the DRS factor and India didn't like playing Tests with DRS during Sehwag's career.

only two other batsmen struck double figures in the innings I’m talking about. Sehwag scored a double century then

you’re really underestimating Sehwag against spin and how mediocre lot of current spinners are. Mayank Agarwal has his own technique problems and even he averages 69 at home

 

[_00_deathscar]

Sehwag also went BIGGGG once he got in. Pant isn’t like that - usually gets out in the 90s.

 

[CodeOfWisden]

Sehwag is the GOAT spin basher, no one comes close.

 

[ataraxia]

Pant is so so good isn't he. Has a good chance to become better than Gilchrist IMO – hopefully he recovers from the crash well.

 

[Prince EWS]

Pant is so so good isn't he. Has a good chance to become better than Gilchrist IMO – hopefully he recovers from the crash well.

If he recovers completely I reckon he's odds on to become a better batsman than Gilchrist, but even though his keeping improved quite a bit in the short period I still don't think it'll ever be Gilchrist level.

 

[Raz0r6ack]

I agree that Rohit’s technique is better but



only two other batsmen struck double figures in the innings I’m talking about. Sehwag scored a double century then

you’re really underestimating Sehwag against spin and how mediocre lot of current spinners are. Mayank Agarwal has his own technique problems and even he averages 69 at home

Yeah and that's one innings. You have that plus his 155 vs. Australia. After that there's plenty of evidence of Sehwag failing in the second innings against lesser bowlers then Murali and Warne when the pitch is tougher for batting.

Brian Lara hit 277 in Sydney (plus 182 and 226 in Adelaide) but only averaged 42 in Australia overall across 19 Tests. One or two big scores doesn't guarantee an average of 50.

 

[Calm_profit]

Sehwag is the GOAT spin basher, no one comes close.

Sidhu I believe comes close

 

[OverratedSanity]

The best Sidhu could do was bash 50-60 runs at the top. Sehwag and Sachin consistently made huge scores against good spinners. Honestly embarrassing that people continue to peddle the Sidhu myth. He was good but nowhere near "greatest of all time against spin" level.

 

[ataraxia]

If he recovers completely I reckon he's odds on to become a better batsman than Gilchrist, but even though his keeping improved quite a bit in the short period I still don't think it'll ever be Gilchrist level.

Pant will likely end up with a huge longevity advantage, which is all that really matters tbh

 

[subshakerz]

The best Sidhu could do was bash 50-60 runs at the top. Sehwag and Sachin consistently made huge scores against good spinners. Honestly embarrassing that people continue to peddle the Sidhu myth. He was good but nowhere near "greatest of all time against spin" level.

Sidhu is one of the best but the reason you pointed out is why he shouldnt be at the top.

 

[Senile Sentry]

If he recovers completely I reckon he's odds on to become a better batsman than Gilchrist, but even though his keeping improved quite a bit in the short period I still don't think it'll ever be Gilchrist level.

Clearly didn't watch him since 2021 Eng series I presume?he's world class now.

 

[Prince EWS]

Clearly didn't watch him since 2021 Eng series I presume?he's world class now.

Nah **** this **** off.

Little more toxic type of posting than "you don't agree with me, therefore you don't watch cricket"

I even specifically noted he'd improved a lot. In my mind he's gone from "maybe he should just play as a bat" to "perfectly fine" - but he's nowhere near Gilchrist level with the gloves at this stage.

 

[Senile Sentry]

Nah **** this **** off.

Little more toxic type of posting than "you don't agree with me, therefore you don't watch cricket"

I even specifically noted he'd improved a lot. In my mind he's gone from "maybe he should just play as a bat" to "perfectly fine" - but he's nowhere near Gilchrist level with the gloves at this stage.

Hence my remark. I find his glove.work, especially standing upto the stumps nothing short of sterling these days.

Gilly kept most of his career in Australia which is regarded as among easiest places to keep. Totally contrasting with the demands of keeping in the Subcontinent.

For another thread this though.

 

[Coronis]

If he recovers completely I reckon he's odds on to become a better batsman than Gilchrist, but even though his keeping improved quite a bit in the short period I still don't think it'll ever be Gilchrist level.

I’ll take that bet.

Hence my remark. I find his glove.work, especially standing upto the stumps nothing short of sterling these days.

Gilly kept most of his career in Australia which is regarded as among easiest places to keep. Totally contrasting with the demands of keeping in the Subcontinent.

For another thread this though.

Has Pant ever stumped a bloke at 135+ though?