Battle of the Bashers: Sehwag vs Gilchrist

[Prince EWS]

Gilchrist played more series than just the 2005 Ashes.

Yeah that is fair enough, so you have to compare someone who flopped as opener vs someone who did well but batting deep in the order, who would you rate higher?

I do wonder if Sehwag would've done better in seaming conditions if he could've batted in the middle order. I tend to think he would have but probably not by a huge margin.

 

[sunilz]

Murray minted ball way harder than new ball brah

Gilchrist also never faced Anderson/Broad in their prime in England.

 

[subshakerz]

I do wonder if Sehwag would've done better in seaming conditions if he could've batted in the middle order. I tend to think he would have but probably not by a huge margin.

Gilly had a decent technique and I believe would have adapted.

I am of the opinion that Gilchrist in the middle order would be easily averaging 50+ but at a more sane SR of around 60 but given the chance to build more innings without having to start with the tail.

 

[ankitj]

As Indian fan I miss following those Sehwag knocks. Every 30 minutes you check the score and it keeps racing at mad pace. He also tended to score daddy hundreds. Felt so secure in middle of those knocks.

 

[subshakerz]

Gilchrist also never faced Anderson/Broad in their prime in England.

Sehwag did and flopped so it's not a point in his favor.

 

[subshakerz]

So Gilchrist did well against India by averaging 28 against them.

That includes two matchwinning knocks in 2001 and 2004 but fair enough he struggled against India.

 

[subshakerz]

As Indian fan I miss following those Sehwag knocks. Every 30 minutes you check the score and it keeps racing at mad pace. He also tended to score daddy hundreds. Felt so secure in middle of those knocks.

I am a huge Gilly fan and I found him more exciting to watch than even Sehwag. Simply because he took the momentum away so quickly

 

[sunilz]

Sehwag did and flopped so it's not a point in his favor.

Did you even read the point I was responding to ? He brought Murray mint .
So Gilchrist failed in England against a very good attack. Same as Sehwag.
Gilchrist also has a hole in record vs India. So his record is also not well rounded as you thought.

 

[sunilz]

And what is this obsession with well rounded record ? Laxman probably has more well rounded record than Inzamam (Aus/Sa) . I doubt anyone would prefer Laxman over Inzamam.

 

[subshakerz]

Did you even read the point I was responding to ? He brought Murray mint .
So Gilchrist failed in England against a very good attack. Same as Sehwag.
Gilchrist also has a hole in record vs India. So his record is also not well rounded as you thought.

Gilly wasnt a failure in the SC like Sehwag was in swinging conditions though. Granted Sehwag as opener had a harder job but I think Gilly's was a more complete bat.

 

[subshakerz]

And what is this obsession with well rounded record ? Laxman probably has more well rounded record than Inzamam (Aus/Sa) . I doubt anyone would prefer Laxman over Inzamam.

Because for a batsman the first challenge is raw output to establish yourself in a certain weight class, no pun intended in Inzi's case, and then a balanced record to demonstrate all-round ability.

 

[sunilz]

Because for a batsman the first challenge is raw output to establish yourself in a certain weight class, no pun intended in Inzi's case, and then a balanced record to demonstrate all-round ability.

So you rate Laxman over Inzi because he wasn't a failure against 2 best bowling attacks of his time. Yes or No .

 

[subshakerz]

So you rate Laxman over Inzi because he wasn't a failure against 2 best bowling attacks of his time. Yes or No .

No because his raw output in terms of average etc. doesnt put him in Inzi's class to compare. I also pay attention to peer rating and its not like Laxman has a complete record either.

 

[sunilz]

No because his raw output in terms of average etc. doesnt put him in Inzi's class to compare. I also pay attention to peer rating and its not like Laxman has a complete record either.

And no peer rates Gilchrist over Sehwag as a Test bat.

Gilchrist has less 3000 test runs than Sehwag. And you feel their batting output is same.
But Laxman and Inzamam have same runs , but their batting output isn't same.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

SehWAG

 

[subshakerz]

And no peer rates Gilchrist over Sehwag as a Test bat.

Gilchrist has less 3000 test runs than Sehwag. And you feel their batting output is same.
But Laxman and Inzamam have same runs , but their batting output isn't same.

Gilchrist is rated as a wicketkeeper bat. Nobody puts him head to head with Sehwag purely on batting skills.

Gilchrist obviously was hamstrung with batting late in the order to have the same output as Sehwag.

 

[sledger]

Sehwag was always just a slightly better version of Afridi

 

[Fuller Pilch]

And no peer rates Gilchrist over Sehwag as a Test bat.

Gilchrist has less 3000 test runs than Sehwag. And you feel their batting output is same.
But Laxman and Inzamam have same runs , but their batting output isn't same.

Should Inzy's runs be called "runs"? Perhaps walks/slow jogs would be more appropriate.

 

[Prince EWS]

Should Inzy's runs be called "runs"? Perhaps walks/slow jogs would be more appropriate.

He scored most of them in boundaries without even leaving his crease, might as well just call them points.

 

[RiderJake]

Should Inzy's runs be called "runs"? Perhaps walks/slow jogs would be more appropriate.

Will anything change because of the name change?