Hayden vs Sehwag (+ other tasty treats)

[Ikki]

Hobbs happened to play most of his cricket in an era when 40 was supposed to be the hallmark of greatness and outdid his peers by a huge margin, in terms of both runs as well as averages.

Look at the stats from 1908 - 1925,

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

I think that is a phenomenal achievement.

You're singing to the choir. I said I'd pick Hobbs and Sutcliffe above all openers.

 

[Sir Alex]

You're singing to the choir. I said I'd pick Hobbs and Sutcliffe above all openers.

Am I not allowed to agree with you!?

 

[wfdu_ben91]

1. Sehwag got to play Murali for the first time in Lanka only in 2008. And that attack comprising of Mendis and Murali owned most of India's batsmen except him. Check out the stats if you think am lying. Murali FTR took 21 wickets @ 22, and if you think that is "past the peak" performance, I can only laugh.

2. Isn't it a bit rich to call Sehwag a flat track bully when Sehwag averages 50 away from home as compared to Matt Hayden who averages 41 away from home? We all know Australian pitches have been largely flat and assisting for batsmen for a long time (check out Sehwag's stats in Aus ) Further Sehwag's 200+ scores have been against Pakistan(thrice), South Africa, Sri lanka (twice). Hayden's two 200+ scores came against Zimbabwe and India.

3. I don't care what Sehwag will average outside the subcontinent. India plays 50% of her matches in India, add another 10% for Sri Lanka and 10% for Pakistan and Bangladesh, and that makes 70% of his contributions and if he does incredibly well in the subcontinent, India as a team would benefit more from it than being a dud at home and good in 30% of matches remaining. Further it is not as if Sehwag is a complete dud outside the subcontinent. He averages better than Hayden (60) in Australia, and 51 in West Indies and Zimbabwe. He in all likelihood will better the averages in SA and England in the coming years.

1. Sehwag actually played 3 innings prior to 2008 and averaged only 18 against Murali. Murali was past his best by 2008 - regardless of his success in that series, he wasn't the same bowler he once was - trying to suggest he was is laughable. Mendis was also playing in his first Test series.

2. Sehwag only averages 50+ away from home because he plays the majority of his cricket in the subcontient. Why not have an extended home advantage? Subcontient team vs Subcontient team in the subcontient = runfest - moreso then any other teams facing eachother. Take out Sehwag's average in Pakistan (a country Hayden never got to play in) and Sehwag's away average drops by 6-7 runs.

3. Maybe you should care. it's just as hard for a non-subcontient batsman to have success in the subcontient as it is for a subcontient batsman to have success outside the subcontient. Hayden averaged 50 inside the subcontient and 50 outside the subcontient whilst Sehwag averages 41 outside the subcontient and 60+ inside. Hopefully Pakistan play their home matches in England for the next few years, because if they do then Sehwag won't finish his career with a higher average in South Africa and England then what Hayden did. When Sehwag fails, he fails badly, eg: averaging 9 in South Africa as an opener.

 

[Sir Alex]

Not even Indian pitches are uniform across the country. And you tend you bracket entire subcontinent into one. Haha.

BTW Hayden averaged 46.93 in the subcontinent. Funny how the guy failed to capitalise on so called flat tracks.

 

[Sir Alex]

Oh and BTW Sehwag averages 59.5 in Australia and 53.9 outside Australia as compared against Hayden's in Australia average of 58 and away average of 42.68, by the same comparison you did.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Oh and BTW Sehwag averages 59.5 in Australia and 53.9 outside Australia as compared against Hayden's in Australia average of 58 and away average of 42.68, by the same comparison you did.

Hayden doesn't play 80% of his career in Australia.

Nevertheless, Hayden played and scored runs on result pitches in Australia. Sehwag's played 25 odd less Tests but already played in more then twice as many draws then Hayden.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hayden doesn't play 80% of his career in Australia.

Nevertheless, Hayden played and scored runs on result pitches in Australia. Sehwag's played 25 odd less Tests but already played in more then twice as many draws then Hayden.

Yeah, and that obviously has absolutely nothing to do with the relative strengths of the bowlers they've played with at all.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Yeah, and that obviously has absolutely nothing to do with the relative strengths of the bowlers they've played with at all.

Kumble and Harbhajan no good on days 4 and 5?

Sehwag's second innings stats of 1592 runs @ 31.21 suggests that if there is enough in the pitch to force a second innings that Sehwag generally fails.

 

[Sir Alex]

Hayden doesn't play 80% of his career in Australia.

Nevertheless, Hayden played and scored runs on result pitches in Australia. Sehwag's played 25 odd less Tests but already played in more then twice as many draws then Hayden.

Yeah, and that obviously has absolutely nothing to do with the relative strengths of the bowlers they've played with at all.

Adding to what Prince posted, Sehwag doesn't play even perhaps 10% of his cricket in Australia. Had he played as much cricket as Hayden played (55%), he'd be likely averaging much more, if you figure in the fact that Hayden for most time of his career, had to face lesser bowlers than Sehwag had to face in Australia.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Adding to what Prince posted, Sehwag doesn't play even perhaps 10% of his cricket in Australia. Had he played as much cricket as Hayden played (55%), he'd be likely averaging much more, if you figure in the fact that Hayden for most time of his career, had to face lesser bowlers than Sehwag had to face in Australia.

No he didn't.

An injured Gillespie? Brad Williams? Nathan Bracken? Brett Lee in the worst form of his career? Nice try, but no. Sehwag wasn't even good enough to make the first Test the last time India toured Australia.

 

[gwo]

Can I note that the point of this thread was to ridicule FCA?

Thanks

 

[Sir Alex]

Kumble and Harbhajan no good on days 4 and 5?

Sehwag's second innings stats of 1592 runs @ 31.21 suggests that if there is enough in the pitch to force a second innings that Sehwag generally fails.

Hayden's batting avg of 41 in won matches in subcontinent shows how much "effective" he has been in the subcontinent.

 

[Sir Alex]

No he didn't.

An injured Gillespie? Brad Williams? Nathan Bracken? Brett Lee in the worst form of his career? Nice try, but no. Sehwag wasn't even good enough to make the first Test the last time India toured Australia.

So you mean Johnson, MacGill, Tait, Stuart Clark etc are ****tier than the likes of Irfan Pathan, Blignaut, Price, Gripper, Maharoof, Fernando, Rear Pain Singh etc??

 

[wfdu_ben91]

So you mean Johnson, Siddle, MacGill, Tait, Stuart Clark etc are ****tier than the likes of Irfan Pathan, Blignaut, Price, Gripper, Maharoof, Fernando and the likes

Johnson and Tait were rubbish when Sehwag faced them? No one in Australia wanted Johnson in the side and he was averaging 35 with the pill whilst Tait was on the brink of exhaustion and retired from Test cricket after the Perth Test. Stuart Clark has always bowled poorly at Adelaide - probably because it's the flattest pitch in Australia. I don't think Sehwag faced Siddle in Australia. What about Bond? Pollock? Streak? Flintoff? Ntini? Vaas?

 

[Sir Alex]

Johnson and Tait were rubbish when Sehwag faced them? No one in Australia wanted Johnson in the side and he was averaging 35 with the pill whilst Tait was on the brink of exhaustion and retired from Test cricket after the Perth Test. Stuart Clark has always bowled poorly at Adelaide - probably because it's the flattest pitch in Australia. I don't think Sehwag faced Siddle in Australia. What about Bond? Pollock? Streak? Flintoff? Ntini? Vaas?

Relative, I asked whether Johnson and Tait were even more rubbish than the bowlers I quoted? If you think they were, you are questioning the status of Australia as the no.1 team back then.

I can produce a thousand excuses like exhaustion (lol did he complain about that when he was picked?), out of form (in hindsight, almost 99% bowlers who toured Aus during that period can hide behind that excuse), Coming from or going into injury/retirement blah etc too.

BTW, against Bond, Pollock, Ntini, Hayden did much worse than his career avg in Australia.

 

[Prince EWS]

Sehwag due to his bowling IMO.

 

[Sir Alex]

BTW Hayden averaged 19.5 in matches involving Dale Steyn and 41.77 in matches inv Murali (ignoring the ICC World XI match), whereas Sehwag averages 62 vs Steyn and 70 against Murali.

Before the "subcontinent flat track" crap is brought out, Steyn averages 20 in SC, and Murali is a spinner who thrives in it.

 

[Jarquis]

Sehwag due to his bowling IMO.

Yeah, I love how the pitches are flat as anything but everyone conveniently ignores the fact a part timer can average 25 with the pill on them

 

[Himannv]

Sehwag is the best batsman in the world, and so is Mathew Hayden!!

 

[wfdu_ben91]

BTW Hayden averaged 19.5 in matches involving Dale Steyn and 41.77 in matches inv Murali (ignoring the ICC World XI match), whereas Sehwag averages 62 vs Steyn and 70 against Murali.

Before the "subcontinent flat track" crap is brought out, Steyn averages 20 in SC, and Murali is a spinner who thrives in it.

That's pretty hypocritical of you to ignore the ICC World XI match considering that you're trying to say that Hayden faced weak bowling in Australia but yet you want to exclude possibly the best attack? Also the fact that that was a low-scoring match and Hayden was head and shoulders above any other batsman in that match - which also featured the best batsman in the world at that particular time.

Hayden averaged 47 against Murali in Sri Lanka when Murali was at his peak - Sehwag only prospered when Murali was in the twilight of his career - similar to Steyn's success against Hayden. Look at Sehwag's record against Bond and Asif.

Relative, I asked whether Johnson and Tait were even more rubbish than the bowlers I quoted? If you think they were, you are questioning the status of Australia as the no.1 team back then.

I can produce a thousand excuses like exhaustion (lol did he complain about that when he was picked?), out of form (in hindsight, almost 99% bowlers who toured Aus during that period can hide behind that excuse), Coming from or going into injury/retirement blah etc too.

BTW, against Bond, Pollock, Ntini, Hayden did much worse than his career avg in Australia.

Hayden averaged 49 against Bond, 50+ against Pollock and 45 against Ntini.