Sehwag retires

[honestbharani]

Seriously dude.. Kalra put that question, Chappelli said he cud have played more defensively and prolonged his career but then he would not have been Sehwag. which you conveniently ignored. Kalra is just a dude who poses questions for a job, I don't think he is a fan of anyone much more than himself. Neither of them said anything about "good attacks" btw. The fact that you write a blatant lie as an attributed quote of Chappell and Kalra and then attribute a quote of Kalra to Chappell in your previous post shows the kind of poster you are...


And I am pretty sure that is the kind of posting the mods wanna avoid in this forum.

 

[aussie]

Seriously dude.. Kalra put that question, Chappelli said he cud have played more defensively and prolonged his career but then he would not have been Sehwag. which you conveniently ignored. Kalra is just a dude who poses questions for a job, I don't think he is a fan of anyone much more than himself. Neither of them said anything about "good attacks" btw. The fact that you write a blatant lie as an attributed quote of Chappell and Kalra and then attribute a quote of Kalra to Chappell in your previous post shows the kind of poster you are...

In bold is basically exactly what I said, so don't get your blood pressure rising.

Kalra comes across to me as any any Indian fan/journalist i've met or know of that is big Sehwag fan. Do you know India's that are not fans of Sehwag, who are not reflecting positively now that he is retiring?

How is me mentioning "good attacks" a lie? You cannot be serious.

Me saying that is just a simple expanding on the general question Kalra asked, talk about gross exaggerations my word

 

[honestbharani]

Neither Chappell or Kalra mentioned "good attacks" Kalra mentioned he could have made bigger scores by adjusting his style and Chappell said if he had done that, he won't have been Sehwag. What you wrote was, and I quote, correctly, unlike you...

In his tribute to Sehwag, Chappell although saying he admires Sehwag for continuing to play one way that brought him successes, acknowledges that his failure to adjust especially at the back of his career when he struggled against good pace attacks probably did cost him a chance to get back into India team after he was dropped.

Chappell said nothing of that sort. Kalra's question was about how Sehwag could have made bigger scores in FC after he was dropped by adjusting his style. Chappell said if he had done that, he won't have been Sehwag. End of.

 

[aussie]

Neither Chappell or Kalra mentioned "good attacks" Kalra mentioned he could have made bigger scores by adjusting his style and Chappell said if he had done that, he won't have been Sehwag. What you wrote was, and I quote, correctly, unlike you...





Chappell said nothing of that sort. Kalra's question was about how Sehwag could have made bigger scores in FC after he was dropped by adjusting his style. Chappell said if he had done that, he won't have been Sehwag. End of.

I just stated the "good attacks" part was me expanding on the general point Karla made - yet you still come and tell me I said Chappell or Kalra mentioned it.

The lack of adaption point regarding his style which Karla mentioned would refer also to his end of his career struggles in tests which lead him being dropped and the lack of attempting to change it in FC cricket to try and get back into IND team.

Some of yall here so touchy on this Sehwag topic on CW its amazing, there is no agenda here just raising the point to reminisce on his style which is - should Sehwag have changed even if he came back more defensive to aid in prolonging his career?

I posed this same point to my Indian journalist friend from cricinfo just now and he agreed.

 

[Burner]

I don't think Sehwag could have changed into being a defensive batsman. Also, I don't think India would have wanted such a Sehwag since there were many batsmen of that ilk going around but not many who played the game like him.

 

[aussie]

I don't think Sehwag could have changed into being a defensive batsman. Also, I don't think India would have wanted such a Sehwag since there were many batsmen of that ilk going around but not many who played the game like him.

Well firstly thank you for your cultured response and actually answering the question.

IMO this is where I think Sehwag missed a chance to probably improve on his legacy by changing, not necessarily into a Cook/Kirsten like defensive opener - but just a little more circumspect when facing quality pace.

If you recall Sehwag was dropped the first time for a year between 2007-2008 after his failures between 2005-2007, which were very similar to end career struggles from 2010 as good bowlers exposed all his technical faults.

His career seemed over then.


When he return in the 2008 Adelaide test vs Australia his 151 where he played Lee/Clark at their best very well - was the most circumspect hundred of his career. That showed if he wasn't so set in his ways which Chappell praised - he could have made that change.

But then immediately after that he made that shot gun 319 vs S Africa he was back to his old ways until 2010 - then when he faced a multitude in the final days he never tried to play like Adelaide 2008 & just kept getting out the same way over & over.

 

[Black_Warrior]

This is something that I have realized over the years. When a career ends, you just have to accept the player for who they are and what they have achieved, with all their weaknesses and blemishes.

Sehwag obviously had major technical deficiencies, and in the later part of his career was unable to upgrade or minimise his weaknesses when opposition worked him out. Having said that though, 8.5 k runs at 49 is hardly a career to complain about. I think Sehwag should be a proud man, celebrate his career achievements and he is one of the few players in the world who will leave behind a lasting legacy for the way he played. Opening in a test match and what you can do as an opener has forever been changed by Sehwag (with all his major technical issues).

 

[aussie]

Not sure yet if Sehwag's opening style has created a mindset change that significant in the way teams looks at picking their openers in the way Akram/Warne/Gilchrist - influenced what teams look for when they pick left-arm quicks, leg-spinners or keepers due to their extra batting ability.

You have David Warner who style is like Sehwag, McCullum very much so the few times since he opened during his current career batting peak & Dilshan. Otherwise most teams still accept a traditional style of seeing off the new-ball and attacking later from their openers.

 

[Dan]

Mostly because those teams don't have openers good enough to do that, really.

 

[aussie]

Mostly because those teams don't have openers good enough to do that, really.

Don't agree, but I won't say why because my answer will go against moderators request of not saying certain things in a player's tribute thread.

 

[cnerd123]

Mostly because those teams don't have openers good enough to do that, really.

Also a lot of teams dont have home pitches that encourage going after the new ball as much as Indian pitches did during Sehwag's career. It's unllikely we'll see such an opener come out of countries like England, New Zealand and South Africa and if wont simply be because of a lack of talent.

 

[Contra]

Also a lot of teams dont have home pitches that encourage going after the new ball as much as Indian pitches did during Sehwag's career. It's unllikely we'll see such an opener come out of countries like England, New Zealand and South Africa and if wont simply be because of a lack of talent.

Which doesn't explain the lack of other Indian (or even subcontinental) openers that had the strike rate Sehwag had. Surely if it was so easy to score fast on Indian pitches you'd have other batsmen doing that consistently too eh?

As for the people that are arguing that Sehwag should have been more circumspect fail to realize that if Sehwag had decided to play himself in he would not have changed the games the way he did. I'll be the first to admit that Sehwag could have tried to pull himself back a little because I do believe he was good enough to do that, and that he let himself buy into his own hype to a degree. But had he done that then we would not have had those massive doubles and triples at the SR's he scored at. So you essentially have to pick between potentially higher scores outside the SC to ultra high scoring rates inside it, and considering where Sehwag played most of his cricket I'd take the latter anyday. Surely it would have been nice to see Sehwag score a few more centuries outside the SC during the second half of his career, but no way in hell would I trade 319, 201, 299, 165, 83 etc etc at ridiculous SR's for some nice looking 100 off 150 or something in England just so some people can say "oh look he scored some runs in England".

 

[aussie]

Also a lot of teams dont have home pitches that encourage going after the new ball as much as Indian pitches did during Sehwag's career. It's unllikely we'll see such an opener come out of countries like England, New Zealand and South Africa and if wont simply be because of a lack of talent.

Uh i just mentioned McCullum, when he opens it just like Sehwag. Hales has the potential to be like that for ENG when he eventually plays tests during the upcoming South Africa tour & those two obviously grew up in countries where the ball does a lot.

Currently SA have no opener like that, but I won't put it past them producing one.

 

[honestbharani]

I just stated the "good attacks" part was me expanding on the general point Karla made - yet you still come and tell me I said Chappell or Kalra mentioned it.

If you understand English, it is exactly what you posted. And you are admitting that you just made an assumption of what Kalra meant and quoted it on Chappell. Where do I even begin? Its obvious why you can't see basic facts and keep arguing with them. For the last time here, no one mentioned anything about struggling against good attacks.

][/B]The lack of adaption point regarding his style which Karla mentioned would refer also to his end of his career struggles in tests which lead him being dropped and the lack of attempting to change it in FC cricket to try and get back into IND team.

Try "adaptation" . Kalra simply wanted to discuss if Sehwag could have been more successful batting more normally in Indian FC and staged a comeback.

][/B]Some of yall here so touchy on this Sehwag topic on CW its amazing, there is no agenda here just raising the point to reminisce on his style which is - should Sehwag have changed even if he came back more defensive to aid in prolonging his career?

I posed this same point to my Indian journalist friend from cricinfo just now and he agreed.

If you had posted that question alone, instead of rubbish like attributing something no one said to Chappell, then I would have taken you more seriously. And on that question, a big NO. Sehwag is SehWAG coz of the way he plays the game. No one ever had the guts and mental strength to do what he does. He acknowledges that he wont bat as long as some of the more technically correct batsmen do and maximizes his chances of scoring runs by batting his way. And he was good enough to do it in test cricket all over the world and average more than 50. If anything, I would say he got very lazy mentally at his peak circa 2009 and stopped even trying to get his eye in in rough condiitons. Its not like he did not have the technique to do well in those conditions. It is just that he refused to concentrate that hard and hence his record ended up the way it has.

 

[cnerd123]

Which doesn't explain the lack of other Indian (or even subcontinental) openers that had the strike rate Sehwag had. Surely if it was so easy to score fast on Indian pitches you'd have other batsmen doing that consistently too eh?

Quite a lot of Subcontinental openers score at high strike rates relative to the rest of the world - Anwar, Dhawan, Jayasuriya, Srikkanth are some names off the top of my head.

I was just adding onto Dan's point on why openers of other countries dont have such an aggressive mindset.

Sehwag's record is a tribute to his genius; But it's unlikely a hyper-aggressive opener like him will emerge from countries where going after the new ball isnt a legitimate tactic.

The next Sehwag would emerge from conditions that aren't new-ball friendly.

 

[aussie]

Which doesn't explain the lack of other Indian (or even subcontinental) openers that had the strike rate Sehwag had. Surely if it was so easy to score fast on Indian pitches you'd have other batsmen doing that consistently too eh?

As for the people that are arguing that Sehwag should have been more circumspect fail to realize that if Sehwag had decided to play himself in he would not have changed the games the way he did. I'll be the first to admit that Sehwag could have tried to pull himself back a little because I do believe he was good enough to do that, and that he let himself buy into his own hype to a degree. But had he done that then we would not have had those massive doubles and triples at the SR's he scored at. So you essentially have to pick between potentially higher scores outside the SC to ultra high scoring rates inside it, and considering where Sehwag played most of his cricket I'd take the latter anyday. Surely it would have been nice to see Sehwag score a few more centuries outside the SC during the second half of his career, but no way in hell would I trade 319, 201, 299, 165, 83 etc etc at ridiculous SR's for some nice looking 100 off 150 or something in England just so some people can say "oh look he scored some runs in England".

Don't agree with everything, but I like how you explained your point - which was all I was hoping posters would do to the question I put forward.

Its interesting what you say in bold for example, because for a AUS fan perspective I would use Matthew Hayden as a case point. He was a bit Sehwag-esque also from Mumbai 2001 to Cairns 2004 with how he bullies and smashed attacks.

When he got the Ashes 05, he was one of the key batsman who ENG quicks technical owned, but he had to eradicate the "Bully Hayden" mantra after 4 tests and failing a produce a circumspect innings with that career saving 5th Oval test hundreds.

All his hundreds from that point until retirement was similar to Oval 05 effort & bully Hayden was no more as he started batting like the Hayden who in some aspects used to bat that way all the time on seaming Brisbane wicket due the hey-day of test match like AUS domestic cricket in the 1990s. The transformation enhanced his legacy & a similar acceptance of change for Sehwag to bat more like his Adelaide 2008 self IMO would have done the same for him.

 

[Contra]

Quite a lot of Subcontinental openers score at high strike rates relative to the rest of the world - Anwar, Dhawan, Jayasuriya, Srikkanth are some names off the top of my head.

Sehwag's record is a tribute to his genius; I'm just saying that it's unlikely a hyper-aggressive opener like him will emerge from countries where going after the new ball isnt a legitimate tactic. That isnt to belittle what he did, just noting that the next Sehwag would need to emerge from conditions that aren't new ball friendly.

Yeah I agree, just that even all those names aren't nearly as close to Sehwag's SR which is what made him so much different, Even the likes of Gayle and Hayden don't come close to his SR.

Warner is the closest but he's from the next gen and even he scores at 74.

Sehwag's test SR was better than most players ODI SRs lmfao.

 

[honestbharani]

Which doesn't explain the lack of other Indian (or even subcontinental) openers that had the strike rate Sehwag had. Surely if it was so easy to score fast on Indian pitches you'd have other batsmen doing that consistently too eh?

As for the people that are arguing that Sehwag should have been more circumspect fail to realize that if Sehwag had decided to play himself in he would not have changed the games the way he did. I'll be the first to admit that Sehwag could have tried to pull himself back a little because I do believe he was good enough to do that, and that he let himself buy into his own hype to a degree. But had he done that then we would not have had those massive doubles and triples at the SR's he scored at. So you essentially have to pick between potentially higher scores outside the SC to ultra high scoring rates inside it, and considering where Sehwag played most of his cricket I'd take the latter anyday. Surely it would have been nice to see Sehwag score a few more centuries outside the SC during the second half of his career, but no way in hell would I trade 319, 201, 299, 165, 83 etc etc at ridiculous SR's for some nice looking 100 off 150 or something in England just so some people can say "oh look he scored some runs in England".

Its not that. I feel he got lazy mentally and never even tried to get himself in around 2009, esp. in NZ in the tests when he was looking in prime form. Always got himself out. Remember just after his comeback in 2008, he always gave himself a bit of time at the start of the innings and then started to bat aggressively. Remember, for Sehwag, even normal batting getting his eye in meant a SR in excess of 70 odd.

 

[cnerd123]

Edited my post for clarity

 

[Contra]

Don't agree with everything, but I like how you explained your point - which was all I was hoping posters would do to the question I put forward.

Its interesting what you say in bold for example, because for a AUS fan perspective I would use Matthew Hayden as a case point. He was a bit Sehwag-esque also from Mumbai 2001 to Cairns 2004 with how he bullies and smashed attacks.

When he got the Ashes 05, he was one of the key batsman who ENG quicks technical owned, but he had to eradicate the "Bully Hayden" mantra after 4 tests and failing a produce a circumspect innings with that career saving 5th Oval test hundreds.

All his hundreds from that point until retirement was similar to Oval 05 effort & bully Hayden was no more as he started batting like the Hayden who in some aspects used to bat that way all the time on seaming Brisbane wicket due the hey-day of test match like AUS domestic cricket in the 1990s. The transformation enhanced his legacy & a similar acceptance of change for Sehwag to bat more like his Adelaide 2008 self IMO would have done the same for him.

Nah, Hayden doesn't come close to the level of domination Sehwag was capable of, between 2008-2010 Sehwag struck at 91, that's right 91. Sehwag's definition of "bullying" was totally different lol. Also there would not have been any "enhanced legacy" if you take away some of Sehwag's record totals form the odd 100 in SA or something like that. No one would accept that trade off, at least no Indian fan would.