Re-Vote for # 2 Opener 1986-2006 (Previous Poll Tied)

[luffy]

Not anymore tied again!!

 

[JBH001]

Considering that Anwar played just 6 tests more than Sehwag already has, could you outline exactly what he has achieved that Sehwag has yet to ?

I wondered if someone would pick up on that as I typed it - but decided to go ahead with it as Anwars career spanned 10 - 11 years or so at test level, whilst Sehwag has been around on the test scene for about 5 years or so. I figure that longevity does matter, as it means that you do get to face a larger number of bowlers, along with a diversity and variety of environmental and pitch conditions. This is especially so when you consider that pitches have been flatter post 2001.
Of course, some of what I say would be weighted against me by the fact that some of the discrepancy in test matches played is due to injuries Anwar suffered - but perhaps not so much if you consider that there were less test matches played at the time as well.

I did have a cursory look at the players though, and almost changed my mind to Sehwag! LOL! But on a second and deeper look I decided to go with my gut and favour Anwar.

Why? Hmmmm...difficult to explain in brief but here goes:

Anwar played 91 innings and scored 11 Centuries and 25 Half Centuries.
Sehwag has played 81 innings with 12 C and 12 HC.

Sehwag's conversion rate is excellent, outstanding in fact whilst Anwar's is merely good.
However Anwar is more consistent, in that he tends to reach 50 every 2.5 innings or so whilst Sehwag reaches the mark every 3.25 innings or so.

Sehwag however, once in tends to go on and on and on as evinced by his 300, and 2 double hundreds, and high hundred scores. Anwar however has never reached 200. And many of his scores are in the lower to mid hundred range. This is counterbalanced though by the realisation that Anwar then, tends to make more runs that even while not resulting in a 50, still give Pak a good start. Say a good 30 - 45 which though not outstanding does tend to see off the new ball and give the middle order a bit of a platform to work with. Sehwag on the other hand, inbetween his massive scores has a larger complement of low scores. This is even more pertinent when you consider that they have the same number of ducks, albeit that Anwar has played 10 more innings.

Finally I had a brief look at the opposition when each batsman scored their hundreds.

(I - at least for this little discussion - consider a good attack as one with at least 2 - 3 good bowlers, or 1 great bowler and a good bowler and by this, I am specifically referring to pace bowlers first as they are the bowlers openers are predominantly concerned about, and spinners second. Though again there is a degree of subjectivity attached to this regarding judgement of 'good bowler' - but I hope my assessment is sound. We must also make allowance for bowlers who got better and/or faded - for example facing SA in 2001 was more or less facing Pollock as Ntini had not matured, while facing facing SA in 2006 is more or less facing Ntini - and I suppose Nel - as Pollock declines)

This was quite interesting, as - by and large - neither of them could say that they scored large numbers of hundreds against real quality (by this an attack composed of great and good bowlers) attacks. If I recall right Sehwag has done it only once, in India at Chennai against McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and Kasper. The majority of his other hundreds have been scored against nothing attacks or attacks with only one great or good bowler, backed up by perhaps competent, mediocre, or just poor bowlers.

Anwar though not having scored a hundred against a real quality attack (viz. similar to the Aussie attack above) has made more hundreds against good and very good attacks. Therefore hundreds against SA in SA (Pollock/Donald/De Villiers) and Australia (McGrath/Fleming/MacGill) in Pak and Australia in Australia (McGrath/Fleming/Warne).

Also, the higher proportion of 50's for Anwar again means that he has probably scored more meaningful runs against good attacks on probably more diverse pitches than has Sehwag.
(though this is something I did not look at)

We also need to consider that Sehwag has only passed 50 4 times in the second innings, none of which he converted into a hundred. Anwar has a better record in that respect having scored 4 hundreds in the second innings of a test match. Again his higher proportion of 50s means that he has probably scored more worthwhile runs in the second innings than has Sehwag.

One aspect is clear, Anwar is the more consistent batsman, whilst Sehwag has the happy knack of filling up the barn when the sun shines. However, this issue of consistency comes down to the kind of opener we want, do we want an opener who whilst perhaps not making big smashing hundreds will make consistent good scores and give the team a good start against the new ball? Or do we want an opener who will make a really big score, but then have a string of really low scores? This comes down to a matter of opinion and subjective judgement, but as for me I would prefer in an opener someone who makes (say in the course of a Test Series) a hundred and a couple of 50s, rather than one who makes a big hundred and then not much else.

Second, taken for all in all Anwar has scored his runs against better attacks on - in all likelihood - more testing pitches, and this has to count for something, especially in an opening batsman. Sehwag, like all batsman post 2001 has had a comparatively easier time.

Third, as I said, there is too much of a sameness with Hayden. Anwar and Hayden, or Sehwag and Anwar, would complement each other beautifully, but Sehwag and Hayden? I think not.

For all these reasons, I think Anwar is the better batsman and opener (at least at the present time) and should get the vote ahead of Sehwag. Besides I like watching Anwar more than Sehwag!

 

[NZTailender]

I wondered if someone would pick up on that as I typed it - but decided to go ahead with it as Anwars career spanned 10 - 11 years or so at test level, whilst Sehwag has been around on the test scene for about 5 years or so. I figure that longevity does matter, as it means that you do get to face a larger number of bowlers, along with a diversity and variety of environmental and pitch conditions. This is especially so when you consider that pitches have been flatter post 2001.
Of course, some of what I say would be weighted against me by the fact that some of the discrepancy in test matches played is due to injuries Anwar suffered - but perhaps not so much if you consider that there were less test matches played at the time as well.

I did have a cursory look at the players though, and almost changed my mind to Sehwag! LOL! But on a second and deeper look I decided to go with my gut and favour Anwar.

Why? Hmmmm...difficult to explain in brief but here goes:

Anwar played 91 innings and scored 11 Centuries and 25 Half Centuries.
Sehwag has played 81 innings with 12 C and 12 HC.

Sehwag's conversion rate is excellent, outstanding in fact whilst Anwar's is merely good.
However Anwar is more consistent, in that he tends to reach 50 every 2.5 innings or so whilst Sehwag reaches the mark every 3.25 innings or so.

Sehwag however, once in tends to go on and on and on as evinced by his 300, and 2 double hundreds, and high hundred scores. Anwar however has never reached 200. And many of his scores are in the lower to mid hundred range. This is counterbalanced though by the realisation that Anwar then, tends to make more runs that while not resulting in a 50, still give Pak a good start. Say a good 30 - 45 which though not outstanding does tend to see off the new ball and give the middle order a bit of a platform to work with. Sehwag on the other hand, inbetween his massive scores has a larger complement of low scores. This is even more pertinent when you consider that they have the same number of ducks, albeit that Anwar has played 10 more innings.

Finally I had a brief look at the opposition when each batsman scored their hundreds.

(I - at least for this little discussion - consider a good attack as one with at least 2 - 3 good bowlers, or 1 great bowler and a good bowler and by this, I am specifically referring to pace bowlers first as they are the bowlers openers are predominantly concerned about, and spinners second. Though again there is a degree of subjectivity attached to this regarding judgement of 'good bowler' - but I hope my assessment is sound. We must also make allowance for bowlers who got better and/or faded - for example facing SA in 2001 was more or less facing Pollock as Ntini had not matured, while facing facing SA in 2006 is more or less facing Ntini - and I suppose Nel - as Pollock declines)

This was quite interesting, as - by and large - neither of them could say that they scored large numbers of hundreds against real quality (by this an attack composed of great and good bowlers) attacks. If I recall right Sehwag has done it only once, in India at Chennai against McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and Kasper. The majority of his other hundreds have been scored against nothing attacks or attacks with only one great or good bowler, backed up by perhaps competent, mediocre, or just poor bowlers.

Anwar though not having scored a hundred against a real quality attack (viz. similar to the Aussie attack above) has made more hundreds against good and very good attacks. Therefore hundreds against SA in SA (Pollock/Donald/De Villiers) and Australia (McGrath/Fleming/MacGill) in Pak and Australia in Australia (McGrath/Fleming/Warne).

Also, the higher proportion of 50's for Anwar again means that he has probably scored more meaningful runs against good attacks on probably more diverse pitches than has Sehwag.
(though this is something I did not look at)

We also need to consider that Sehwag has only passed 50 4 times in the second innings, none of which he converted into a hundred. Anwar has a better record in that respect having scored 4 hundreds in the second innings of a test match. Again his higher proportion of 50s means that he has probably scored more worthwhile runs in the second innings than has Sehwag.

One aspect is clear, Anwar is the more consistent batsman, whilst Sehwag has the happy knack of filling up the barn when the sun shines. However, this issue of consistency comes down to the kind of opener we want, do we want an opener who whilst perhaps not making big smashing hundreds will make consistent good scores and give the team a good start against the new ball? Or do we want an opener who will make a really big score, but then have a string of really low scores? This comes down to a matter of opinion and subjective judgement, but as for me I would prefer in an opener someone who makes (say in the course of a Test Series) a hundred and a couple of 50s, rather than one who makes a big hundred and then not much else.

Second, taken for all in all Anwar has scored his runs against better attacks on - in all likelihood - more testing pitches, and this has to count for something, especially in an opening batsman. Sehwag, like all batsman post 2001 has had a comparatively easier time.

Third, as I said, there is too much of a sameness with Hayden. Anwar and Hayden, or Sehwag and Anwar, would complement each other beautifully, but Sehwag and Hayden? I think not.

For all these reasons, I think Anwar is the better batsman and opener (at least at the present time) and should get the vote ahead of Sehwag. Besides I like watching Anwar more than Sehwag!

Great post.

 

[luffy]

I wondered if someone would pick up on that as I typed it - but decided to go ahead with it as Anwars career spanned 10 - 11 years or so at test level, whilst Sehwag has been around on the test scene for about 5 years or so. I figure that longevity does matter, as it means that you do get to face a larger number of bowlers, along with a diversity and variety of environmental and pitch conditions. This is especially so when you consider that pitches have been flatter post 2001.
Of course, some of what I say would be weighted against me by the fact that some of the discrepancy in test matches played is due to injuries Anwar suffered - but perhaps not so much if you consider that there were less test matches played at the time as well.

I did have a cursory look at the players though, and almost changed my mind to Sehwag! LOL! But on a second and deeper look I decided to go with my gut and favour Anwar.

Why? Hmmmm...difficult to explain in brief but here goes:

Anwar played 91 innings and scored 11 Centuries and 25 Half Centuries.
Sehwag has played 81 innings with 12 C and 12 HC.

Sehwag's conversion rate is excellent, outstanding in fact whilst Anwar's is merely good.
However Anwar is more consistent, in that he tends to reach 50 every 2.5 innings or so whilst Sehwag reaches the mark every 3.25 innings or so.

Sehwag however, once in tends to go on and on and on as evinced by his 300, and 2 double hundreds, and high hundred scores. Anwar however has never reached 200. And many of his scores are in the lower to mid hundred range. This is counterbalanced though by the realisation that Anwar then, tends to make more runs that even while not resulting in a 50, still give Pak a good start. Say a good 30 - 45 which though not outstanding does tend to see off the new ball and give the middle order a bit of a platform to work with. Sehwag on the other hand, inbetween his massive scores has a larger complement of low scores. This is even more pertinent when you consider that they have the same number of ducks, albeit that Anwar has played 10 more innings.

Finally I had a brief look at the opposition when each batsman scored their hundreds.

(I - at least for this little discussion - consider a good attack as one with at least 2 - 3 good bowlers, or 1 great bowler and a good bowler and by this, I am specifically referring to pace bowlers first as they are the bowlers openers are predominantly concerned about, and spinners second. Though again there is a degree of subjectivity attached to this regarding judgement of 'good bowler' - but I hope my assessment is sound. We must also make allowance for bowlers who got better and/or faded - for example facing SA in 2001 was more or less facing Pollock as Ntini had not matured, while facing facing SA in 2006 is more or less facing Ntini - and I suppose Nel - as Pollock declines)

This was quite interesting, as - by and large - neither of them could say that they scored large numbers of hundreds against real quality (by this an attack composed of great and good bowlers) attacks. If I recall right Sehwag has done it only once, in India at Chennai against McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and Kasper. The majority of his other hundreds have been scored against nothing attacks or attacks with only one great or good bowler, backed up by perhaps competent, mediocre, or just poor bowlers.

Anwar though not having scored a hundred against a real quality attack (viz. similar to the Aussie attack above) has made more hundreds against good and very good attacks. Therefore hundreds against SA in SA (Pollock/Donald/De Villiers) and Australia (McGrath/Fleming/MacGill) in Pak and Australia in Australia (McGrath/Fleming/Warne).

Also, the higher proportion of 50's for Anwar again means that he has probably scored more meaningful runs against good attacks on probably more diverse pitches than has Sehwag.
(though this is something I did not look at)

We also need to consider that Sehwag has only passed 50 4 times in the second innings, none of which he converted into a hundred. Anwar has a better record in that respect having scored 4 hundreds in the second innings of a test match. Again his higher proportion of 50s means that he has probably scored more worthwhile runs in the second innings than has Sehwag.

One aspect is clear, Anwar is the more consistent batsman, whilst Sehwag has the happy knack of filling up the barn when the sun shines. However, this issue of consistency comes down to the kind of opener we want, do we want an opener who whilst perhaps not making big smashing hundreds will make consistent good scores and give the team a good start against the new ball? Or do we want an opener who will make a really big score, but then have a string of really low scores? This comes down to a matter of opinion and subjective judgement, but as for me I would prefer in an opener someone who makes (say in the course of a Test Series) a hundred and a couple of 50s, rather than one who makes a big hundred and then not much else.

Second, taken for all in all Anwar has scored his runs against better attacks on - in all likelihood - more testing pitches, and this has to count for something, especially in an opening batsman. Sehwag, like all batsman post 2001 has had a comparatively easier time.

Third, as I said, there is too much of a sameness with Hayden. Anwar and Hayden, or Sehwag and Anwar, would complement each other beautifully, but Sehwag and Hayden? I think not.

For all these reasons, I think Anwar is the better batsman and opener (at least at the present time) and should get the vote ahead of Sehwag. Besides I like watching Anwar more than Sehwag!

Sometimes people just write too much

 

[StumpMic]

I would have liked to see Jayasuriya included in this poll. I think he's the best opener with a career (not just opening) avg of 41 in 105 matches and over 6700 runs, 14 tons and 30 fifties.

Overall Career stats

If somebody can point to his stats as an opener...

 

[aussie tragic]

I would have liked to see Jayasuriya included in this poll. I think he's the best opener with a career (not just opening) avg of 41 in 105 matches and over 6700 runs, 14 tons and 30 fifties.

Overall Career stats

If somebody can point to his stats as an opener...

Jayasuriya was in the original Poll, where he received 2 votes (Anwar and Sehwag tied with the most votes, hence this re-vote)

btw, as opener Jayasuriaya scored 5752 runs @ 42.60

 

[aussie tragic]

Only 11 hours left untill Poll closure and the vote is still tied.

Makes me wish I hadn't voted yet so that I could come in a couple of minutes before Poll closure and break any tie

 

[marc71178]

Erm if you hadn't voted yet it wouldn't currently be a tie!

 

[aussie tragic]

Erm if you hadn't voted yet it wouldn't currently be a tie!

Doh!.....okay, I'm assuming there will be more votes before Poll closure

 

[aussie tragic]

Okay, less than 7 hours left, can someone please break the tie

Oh yeah, hopefully with Sehwag...

 

[Fusion]

Okay, less than 7 hours left, can someone please break the tie

Oh yeah, hopefully with Sehwag...

What happens if it remains a tie?

 

[Turbinator]

What happens if it remains a tie?

sehwag will win automatically

 

[aussie tragic]

What happens if it remains a tie?

I propose that it goes to Anwar on the basis that he has recieved the most votes over the three Polls (he was second in the # 1 Opener Poll behind Hayden)

However, let's hope it doesn't come to that?

 

[Fusion]

sehwag will win automatically

I propose that it goes to Anwar on the basis that he has recieved the most votes over the three Polls (he was second in the # 1 Opener Poll behind Hayden)

However, let's hope it doesn't come to that?

Well as of now, Anwar leads by one. But I'm sure that will change soon, going by history!

 

[adharcric]

What happens if it remains a tie?

Why not have a three-way poll with Hayden included as well and give everyone the choice of two openers?
It's not a great idea, but this situation is pretty desperate.

 

[marc71178]

I suggest count-back has to be used - if one has beaten the other twice already it's wrong that if they tie the other goes through...

 

[cameeel]

Another Tie....

 

[JBH001]

Polls closed and looks like a tie.

30 - 30.

LOL!



I don't mean to back my boy but what aussie tragic said is spot on - seeing as Anwar was rated second in the original poll (for the number #1 opener), he should by rights go through.

But I guess it is upto Bagapath and Aussie.

What say you thread starters? It is your call...

 

[Turbinator]

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

anwar was had more votes for the FIRST opener not the SECOND.......this is about the second i suggest u grant sehwag the veto. kik anwar........plus i am tellign u hayden will side screen problems with anwar's beard.

 

[R_D]

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

anwar was had more votes for the FIRST opener not the SECOND.......this is about the second i suggest u grant sehwag the veto. kik anwar........plus i am tellign u hayden will side screen problems with anwar's beard.

of course it has nothing to do with the fact that he's indian rite ?