Sehwag, an all-time Indian great?

[weldone]

Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Sehwag didn't become all time greats after 100 innings, neither does Sehwag.

True...

'All Time Great' is a subjective question...I consider him to be the 2nd best Indian test opening batsman ever after Gavaskar...If that is a good enough consideration to classify him as an all-time great, then he's; otherwise not...

 

[biased indian]

Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Sehwag didn't become all time greats after 100 innings, neither does Sehwag.

Am i the only one little confused ...think the first sehwag is dravid !!!!!!

 

[Jakester1288]

I would never call him a great, however I would call him a good player. I mean, greats can do things he can't. He just slogs and hopes for the best. However, he actually knows when to slow down, like he has showed against Mendis and Muralidaran in the current Test Match, where he totally owned them.

 

[weldone]

Am i the only one little confused ...think the first sehwag is dravid !!!!!!

Yes you are the only one who is a little confused...Because the others know for sure that it's Dravid and not Sehwag ....C'mmon i'm joking mate

 

[Spinksy]

H is an excellent player indeed, but isn't an 'indian all time great' in my opinion, he will never be as good as the likes of Sachin Tankuldar, Rahul Dravid and Sunil Gavaskar in my opinion. I believe what makes an 'all time great' is the fact that they are unique on there own, they have shots that no other batsman will take the risk of trying. What also makes a great player is a great personallity which Sachin Tandulkar had wereas Virendar Sehwag didn't

 

[sanga1337]

H is an excellent player indeed, but isn't an 'indian all time great' in my opinion, he will never be as good as the likes of Sachin Tankuldar, Rahul Dravid and Sunil Gavaskar in my opinion. I believe what makes an 'all time great' is the fact that they are unique on there own, they have shots that no other batsman will take the risk of trying. What also makes a great player is a great personallity which Sachin Tandulkar had wereas Virendar Sehwag didn't

Pretty sure sehwag should be perfect for your criteria then

 

[Jakester1288]

H is an excellent player indeed, but isn't an 'indian all time great' in my opinion, he will never be as good as the likes of Sachin Tankuldar, Rahul Dravid and Sunil Gavaskar in my opinion. I believe what makes an 'all time great' is the fact that they are unique on there own, they have shots that no other batsman will take the risk of trying. What also makes a great player is a great personallity which Sachin Tandulkar had wereas Virendar Sehwag didn't

Using "in my opinion" twice in the one sentence is seriously dire. Btw, it's Sachin Tendulkar and Virender Sehwag.

 

[Spinksy]

Using "in my opinion" twice in the one sentence is seriously dire. Btw, it's Sachin Tendulkar and Virender Sehwag.

It's called a lapse of concentration, so there was no need for you to called me dire. It seems that you missuse that word a lot Jakester1288 and I would like you to stop. You need to think about things before posting, especially before you start to call people dire.

 

[pasag]

Guys keep it on MSN.

 

[Craig]

Richard should tell us what his FCA (First Chance Average) is.

Anyway no of course he is, something about consistentcy also applies.

 

[zaremba]

An excellent player.

I'm surprised that there seem to be some who are keen to play down his extraordinary achievements. As has been explained elsewhere, it's ridiculous to claim that Sehwag's consistent success over an extended period can be put down to "luck" as opposed to ability.

As to whether he's a "great" player, well that's always a fairly sterile debate. Apart from anything else, people are rarely prepared to give that accolade to players when they're at their peak, preferring to wait until their careers are over (or nearly over) by which time their greatness has passed.

 

[SJS]

The word great is so frequently abused, it doesn't seem to matter any more in what context it is used. If we were to use it properly, you wouldn't use it for Sehwag but nor would you use it for so many others too.

Having said that, and semantics apart, Sehwag is one of the leading Indian players till date, thats the point. If India hasn't had two great Test openers in its history what can anyone do about it

We also haven't had a great fast bowler for that matter, that does not stop us from including two pacers in an all time Test XI.

The question really should be, is Sehwag one of the two, (or three, or four) best Indian openers of all times. Great or not is hyperbole and in the context of modern cricketing-vocabulary, highly subjective.

 

[Ikki]

Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Sehwag didn't become all time greats after 100 innings, neither does Sehwag.

The irony is they probably were all-time Indian greats at the time. Sorry, this might be offensive, but India does not have strong competition in it's all-time side. Sehwag, even now, is an all-time great Indian batsman.

 

[nightprowler10]

The irony is they probably were all-time Indian greats at the time. Sorry, this might be offensive, but India does not have strong competition in it's all-time side. Sehwag, even now, is an all-time great Indian batsman.

You make it seem like Sehwag could easily walk into an Indian all time XI, when you couldn't be farther from the truth. He'd struggle to make the second XI itbt.

 

[SJS]

You make it seem like Sehwag could easily walk into an Indian all time XI, when you couldn't be farther from the truth. He'd struggle to make the second XI itbt.

Well that should surely make this Indian second XI worth knowing more of.

 

[grecian]

This "poor catching" stuff, is bizarre, I thought it was worse in other decades, tbh. Fieldings improved in all ways, imho. The pitches not deteriorating like they used to, is the entire reason for the slightly higher averages of this decade.

Anywhoo, not yet, but he's only youngish, could have another 10 years in the game

 

[nightprowler10]

Well that should surely make this Indian second XI worth knowing more of.

I honestly was going to put Farrokh Engineer and Vinoo Mankad in the second XI, but looking at their records I'm not so sure. I obviously don't know as much about Indian cricket as others, but based on what little I have read and heard I'd pick Merchant and Gavaskar for the first XI and was set to pick Engineer and Mankad for second. Having trouble deciding if Sehwag in fact does deserve a spot in the second XI. Would love for you to enlighten me a bit more on these players.

 

[Top_Cat]

You make it seem like Sehwag could easily walk into an Indian all time XI, when you couldn't be farther from the truth. He'd struggle to make the second XI itbt.

Why? Aside from Gavaskar, who's been a better opening bat for India?

As has been said, he's not a great of the game but there's a serious lack of competition for spots at the top of the order. For that reason he'd make an Indian all-time XI, in my view. Also think the comments that he's just a slogger aren't really warranted. He may be a bit of a flat-track bully but even on flat pitches, you don't have a 50+ Test average without having a fairly good technique to go with it, especially opening. His is fine, he plays straight enough and hits very cleanly through the line.

 

[nightprowler10]

Never said he was a slogger, the man is obviously capable of huge knocks, and as he has proved in this test, at difficult times. I just reacted to ikki's comment that India does not have strong competition in it's all-time side, and the comment clearly was not meant in regards to openers only.

 

[SJS]

I honestly was going to put Farrokh Engineer and Vinoo Mankad in the second XI, but looking at their records I'm not so sure. I obviously don't know as much about Indian cricket as others, but based on what little I have read and heard I'd pick Merchant and Gavaskar for the first XI and was set to pick Engineer and Mankad for second. Having trouble deciding if Sehwag in fact does deserve a spot in the second XI. Would love for you to enlighten me a bit more on these players.

See mate.

I can understand some people not including Sehwag in the all time XI for one reason - he is unconventional. He does not fit the mould of a good opening batsman as Hobbs and Gavaskar and Hutton do. At least I can see where that logic is coming from. I have myself debated Sehwag's status on the same grounds for so long but I am finding the logic faltering in the face of mounting weight of his performances.

His career is still to go some distance but one cant deny his undoubted talent and his conversion of it into runs.

I do agree that by all counts Merchant appears to be a fabulous player and a champion opening batsman. Its just that his having played so few Tests (just ten) must find some resistance.

Even in those ten Tests he averaged 47.7. Not bad at all but it is not 72.6 like Barry Richards, or 65.7 like Charlie Dempster (10 Tests), or 60.97 like Pollock (from 23 Tests), or 60.83 like George Headley from 22 and yet so few people include all of them in their all time world XI's.

I give the averages of these players because I suspect that the reason for Merchants popularity with younger fans is not his great technical proficiency but the mystique attached to his being second only to Bradman in his first class batting average.

People wont admit it but its true that if Merchant had not averaged 71.64 in FC Cricket, many younger persons would not have cared for his Test average or his real merits as an opener which are much more valuable than his Test averages or his first class averages.

How can anyone have an issue with Merchant being an all time Indian team opener. He was, by all accounts exceptional. I just feel that Sehwag too has a strong case now and his so called technical deficiencies argument does not stand on great legs. And with the passage of time, the argument is becoming weaker.

After his comeback to the Test team this year, he has been amazing. We have to see how he goes on from here.