Sehwag - Best Batsman In World Cricket Right Now

[wfdu_ben91]

Two most arrogant men in cricket?

Pietersen putting Yuvraj in his place, tbh.

 

[Jono]

Well duh, KP is 20 times the batsmen Yuvraj is. If not more.

My point is their whole rivalry is just a massive clash of egos.

 

[jeevan]

Using Australia because (a) they were so clearly better than everyone else in 96-06 and more consistent too b) more balanced than any one else, i.e. their top order was equal to their middle order in excellence.

For any other team relative individual excellence comes in and teams also went up and down, and I'm trying to eliminate systematic factors that might be falsely claimed to benefit Sehwag.

So, certainly not going to use Amla as an e.g. because (as mentioned in a previous post) if someone were to say that he was the best batsman in the world right now - I wouldn't have much of an argument about it. ( He's most certainly batted better in India than any Australian batsman of this period, itop or middle, so sn't much to discuss.)

Alviro Petersen had a ton in one innings and a 20 in the other. Not much to go by either way. Kallis is a middle order bat. His excellence doesn't prove that things are easier for top order players.

 

[silentstriker]

Well duh, KP is 20 times the batsmen Yuvraj is. If not more.

My point is their whole rivalry is just a massive clash of egos.

Haha, "Concentrate on your batting, you'll play a bit more."

 

[Richard]

Nah, the pitches in 2005/06 Aus vs SA were definately as much of a factor as the overhead conditions. The only real difference between the two teams in the first 2 Tests were Hayden & Ponting's batting and it was no easier for Australia's batsman as the ball was moving around and it was incredibly difficult to score. Both Andrew Symonds and Justin Langer were cleaned up by vicious bouncers in that series; so it wasn't just the overhead conditions.

Langer was cleaned-up for the same reason he often was - he took his eye off the ball. Symonds I actually don't remember being hit but he's hardly much of a batsman anyway so he probably played it poorly as well. Being cleaned-up by short balls is almost invariably the result of bad batting, not anything to do with the pitch. The reason Hayden and Ponting made the difference is because batting was easy while they were out there on a couple of occasions and was mostly difficult while the SAfricans were batting - the conditions overwhelmingly favoured Australia that series.

 

[Streetwise]

Langer was cleaned-up for the same reason he often was - he took his eye off the ball. Symonds I actually don't remember being hit but he's hardly much of a batsman anyway so he probably played it poorly as well. Being cleaned-up by short balls is almost invariably the result of bad batting, not anything to do with the pitch. The reason Hayden and Ponting made the difference is because batting was easy while they were out there on a couple of occasions and was mostly difficult while the SAfricans were batting - the conditions overwhelmingly favoured Australia that series.

I think Ponting and Hayden just made it look easy, thats why they are such fine batsmen.

 

[Richard]

Hayden isn't, he can only make it look easy when there isn't anything in the deck\ball for bowlers, as I've said a good few times.

 

[Streetwise]

Hayden isn't, he can only make it look easy when there isn't anything in the deck\ball for bowlers, as I've said a good few times.

You can put it on your headstone but it dosent change the fact that Hayden was a batting great.

 

[jeevan]

You can put it on your headstone but it dosent change the fact that Hayden was a batting great.

There are several posters who question Sehwag's greatness. Very reasonable, then, to apply the same sort of metrics to Hayden.

Sehwag does have a few more games to go where needs to maintain some sort of form, but he's done practically all the things Hayden has, and then a few more that Hayden has not.

 

[Streetwise]

There are several posters who question Sehwag's greatness. Very reasonable, then, to apply the same sort of metrics to Hayden.

Sehwag does have a few more games to go where needs to maintain some sort of form, but he's done practically all the things Hayden has, and then a few more that Hayden has not.

Nothing in Sehwags career impacts on Haydens, dosent matter what people say about Sehwag it does not change what Hayden achieved. Every player will have someone who cant stand them and tries to undermine everything they do, its just the way it is. Not everyone can put aside their personal biases and dislikes when rating players.

 

[irfan]

Would love to see how Sehwag and Gambhir go in SAfrica - defining series for the both of em. Reckon Gambhir will pass with flying colours but Viru mite struggle

 

[wfdu_ben91]

Hayden isn't, he can only make it look easy when there isn't anything in the deck\ball for bowlers, as I've said a good few times.

Not true. The ball was doing a bit off the pitch and in the air through that series; represented by the fact that Hayden made acouple of low scores, but once he got his eye in, he did make runs in tough conditions during that series. His 94 in the First Test, especially was on a minefield, where all others struggled bar him and Punter.

Langer got cleaned up, but it surely wouldn't of happened if it was on a featherbed like you're suggesting; not so much that he'd need to retire hurt either. It was questionable if Langer was ever going to play again because of that blow.

Symonds was cleaned up by a bouncer that decked back off of the pitch and hit him flush in the mouth; cracking the grill and busting his lip open - requiring stitches. He couldn't even remove his zink cream for days because of it.

There are several posters who question Sehwag's greatness. Very reasonable, then, to apply the same sort of metrics to Hayden.

Sehwag does have a few more games to go where needs to maintain some sort of form, but he's done practically all the things Hayden has, and then a few more that Hayden has not.

No, the difference between Sehwag and Hayden is that Hayden has made runs in favourable seaming and spinning conditions whilst Sehwag has only done the latter.

I doubt Sehwag will ever go through an extended run of form like Hayden did between 2001-2004 where he was literally unstoppable and almost scoring a 100 after every second match he played. At that point in time, Steve Waugh was comparing Hayden to Bradman.

 

[Shri]

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

Close enough. Lets see if this purple patch extends for a few more years.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

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

Close enough. Lets see if this purple patch extends for a few more years.

That's as bout as close as Andrew Strauss to Sachin Tendulkar.

 

[Shri]

That's as bout as close as Andrew Strauss to Sachin Tendulkar.

A difference of 7 points in average, and he has another year to play to equal Hayden's playing time in your criteria. Just shows how stupid it is to compare a player who is still playing to a player who has retired. Both our posts have not proved anything.

 

[jeevan]

Nothing in Sehwags career impacts on Haydens, dosent matter what people say about Sehwag it does not change what Hayden achieved. Every player will have someone who cant stand them and tries to undermine everything they do, its just the way it is. Not everyone can put aside their personal biases and dislikes when rating players.

This is fair enough. I myself have no particular opinion on Hayden beyond that it seems he had some flaws but that did not, in the end - get in the way of winning (or saving) his side matches and accumulating an impressive record for himself.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Hayden isn't, he can only make it look easy when there isn't anything in the deck\ball for bowlers, as I've said a good few times.

I think this is the first time you and I have agreed entirely.

I enjoyed watching Hayden, he was able to bully the opposition, but if the attack or the pitch had anything to it he could be made to look silly.

 

[Richard]

Not true. The ball was doing a bit off the pitch and in the air through that series; represented by the fact that Hayden made acouple of low scores, but once he got his eye in, he did make runs in tough conditions during that series. His 94 in the First Test, especially was on a minefield, where all others struggled bar him and Punter.

That pitch was really only a minefield for South Africa's first-innings; there was something in it for real quality seamers all match, but the SAfricans wasted it by dropping catches in the Hayden-Ponting partnership.

Langer got cleaned up, but it surely wouldn't of happened if it was on a featherbed like you're suggesting; not so much that he'd need to retire hurt either. It was questionable if Langer was ever going to play again because of that blow.

It's possible to get a bad blow regardless of what the deck's playing like; all that matters is where you get hit. That blow was worse than most of the countless hundreds of blows Langer took through his career (and briefly career-threatening) because it hit him below the helmet. He took his eye off the ball and turned the unprotected part of his head towards the ball - much as I sympathise with him for the blow, it was his fault he took it, because he played the ball badly.

Symonds was cleaned up by a bouncer that decked back off of the pitch and hit him flush in the mouth; cracking the grill and busting his lip open - requiring stitches. He couldn't even remove his zink cream for days because of it.

I see.

 

[Richard]

You can put it on your headstone but it dosent change the fact that Hayden was a batting great.

What's a batting great is a MOO; it's my opinion that he wasn't, it's the opinion of some that he was. There is no is or isn't about it.

 

[wfdu_ben91]

That pitch was really only a minefield for South Africa's first-innings; there was something in it for real quality seamers all match, but the SAfricans wasted it by dropping catches in the Hayden-Ponting partnership.

It was a minefield all match in both innings for both teams. It was difficult during all of Australia's innings and the ball was doing a bit off the pitch and through the air all the way through Hayden's innings, right til the time when he got out. The South African bowlers bowled exceptionally well, with no reward until after the partnership was broken. The pitch just doesn't convienately get flat when one specific batsman is at the crease. There was 1 score of 350+ in that series (369), which suggests that batting was very difficult and if you saw the series; it was.

It's possible to get a bad blow regardless of what the deck's playing like; all that matters is where you get hit. That blow was worse than most of the countless hundreds of blows Langer took through his career (and briefly career-threatening) because it hit him below the helmet. He took his eye off the ball and turned the unprotected part of his head towards the ball - much as I sympathise with him for the blow, it was his fault he took it, because he played the ball badly.

Yeah, and if the pitch does something then it almost makes it inevitably impossible to avoid. Similar to like, if the ball had've rolled across the carpet - he wouldn't of been able to play it.