Sehwag vs Smith

[ret]

assuming that both of them are at the top of the game, which one would you pick to open in your test team?

below is the comparision of their record:

Tests:
Sehwag 54, Smith 63

Runs:
Sehwag 4441, Smith 5146

Avg:
Sehwag 50.46, Smith 48.54

HS
Sehwag 309, Smith 277

100s:
Sehwag 13, Smith 14

A break down of their 100s:

Sehwag: 105 in SA, 106 in Eng, 147 in Ind [WI], 130 in Ind [NZ], 195 in Aus, 309 in Pak, 155 in Ind [Aus], 164 in Ind [SA], 173 in Ind [Pak], 201 in Ind [Pak], 254 in Pak, 180 in WI, 151 in Aus

Smith: 200 in SA [BD], 151 in SA [Pak], 277 in Eng, 259 in Eng, 132 in SA [WI], 139 in SA [WI], 125 in NZ, 121 in SA [Zim], 148 in WI, 104 in WI, 126 in WI, 133 in Pak, 147 in SA [WI], 232 in BD

if we were to remove 100s against WI, BD & Zim then:
Sehwag 11 / Smith 5


I would prefer Sehwag .... I like the way he is aggressive at the top, which puts a lot of pressure on the bowlers and helps other batsmen, his ability to score big ones on any surface and against any attack is truly remarkable, esp his 100s against Aus

 

[Googenheim]

Sehwag in tests, Smith in ODIs.

 

[Richard]

I have little doubt that Graeme Smith has it in him to be a far more accomplished Test opening batsman than Virender Sehwag. Whether he will indeed do so, however, we can but wait and see.

In their careers to date, both are somewhat flat-track (and in Sehwag's case butterfinger-fielder) bullies. With Sehwag, I see no reason to believe this shouldn't continue; with Smith I do, but it hasn't changed in 6 years now, so maybe it's expecting a bit to expect it to change after that.

Smith is obviously overwhelmingly the better ODI batsman, incidentally.

 

[ret]

I have little doubt that Graeme Smith has it in him to be a far more accomplished Test opening batsman than Virender Sehwag. Whether he will indeed do so, however, we can but wait and see.

In their careers to date, both are somewhat flat-track (and in Sehwag's case butterfinger-fielder) bullies. With Sehwag, I see no reason to believe this shouldn't continue; with Smith I do, but it hasn't changed in 6 years now, so maybe it's expecting a bit to expect it to change after that.

Smith is obviously overwhelmingly the better ODI batsman, incidentally.

haha, you would hardly call Aus and SA as butterfinger fielding sides .... Sehwag has 5 100s against them

on the other hand, Smith has some 9 100s against BD, WI and Zim, along with 2 against Pak, which is not a gr8 fielding side .... so 11 of his 14 100s are against weak bowling or fielding sides

 

[Richard]

haha, you would hardly call Aus and SA as butterfinger fielding sides .... Sehwag has 5 100s against them

In 2 out of his 3 centuries against Australia Sehwag was indeed dropped, on 47 and in single-figures (I think - might possibly have been on 10-odd?) and his only century as an opener against South Africa came on the flattest pitch you could wish to see.

on the other hand, Smith has some 9 100s against BD, WI and Zim, along with 2 against Pak, which is not a gr8 fielding side .... so 11 of his 14 100s are against weak bowling or fielding sides

Of Smith's 11 centuries against Test-class teams, 6 have indeed come against West Indies, and apparently both against Pakistan did indeed involve let-offs. However, his century against New Zealand was chanceless, and so was 1 of the 2 against England.

 

[ret]

tbh, i don't remember the details of dropped chances now but it would be interesting to know what constitutes a drop chance .... a full blooded shot that a fielder got his hands too or a simple regulation catch that was not taken

and then one can even argue abt close LBWs not given and so on

 

[Woodster]

In 2 out of his 3 centuries against Australia Sehwag was indeed dropped, on 47 and in single-figures (I think - might possibly have been on 10-odd?) and his only century as an opener against South Africa came on the flattest pitch you could wish to see.

Of Smith's 11 centuries against Test-class teams, 6 have indeed come against West Indies. However, UIMM neither of his 2 centuries against Pakistan involved dropped catches. Nor did his century against New Zealand, and 1 of the 2 against England did.

Think you'll find Smith survived numerous lbw shouts in his second hundred against Pakistan, and was dropped in the slips during his first hundred, when only on 54.

 

[Richard]

tbh, i don't remember the details of dropped chances now but it would be interesting to know what constitutes a drop chance .... a full blooded shot that a fielder got his hands too or a simple regulation catch that was not taken

If it's hands and if it's not a fielder absurdly close, it should indeed be caught. It is, in fact, regulation. Not an absolute sitter, but if a batsman middles a ball straight to a fielder at standard extra-cover\mid-off\mid-wicket\whatever, it most certainly should be caught.

If it hits the fingertips of a fielder it's obviously not catchable.

and then one can even argue abt close LBWs not given and so on

Same thing.

 

[ret]

points like dropped chances, close LBW calls, etc are part of the game .... it's rarely that we will find someone playing a big innings w/o a chance .... if you try to bring in dropped chances against Sehwag then someone can bring in other factors like LBWs, runouts, missed stumping, etc against Smith

for some even getting out to a no-ball constitues a chance to a batsman lol. i have seen some ppl telling 'oh, if only that was not a no-ball, he would have been out'. ofc this is not the right way to look at it but some ppl do consider that a factor too, so the point is why not focus on the end result of the inning and there is a reason why ppl say that luck favors the brave

 

[Richard]

points like dropped chances, close LBW calls, etc are part of the game .... it's rarely that we will find someone playing a big innings w/o a chance .... if you try to bring in dropped chances against Sehwag then someone can bring in other factors like LBWs, runouts, missed stumping, etc against Smith

for some even getting out to a no-ball constitues a chance to a batsman lol. i have seen some ppl telling 'oh, if only that was not a no-ball, he would have been out'. ofc this is not the right way to look at it but some ppl do consider that a factor too, so the point is why not focus on the end result of the inning and there is a reason why ppl say that luck favors the brave

They're all the same thing. A let-off is a let-off regardless of whether it's a dropped catch, missed stumping, botched easy (not direct-hit-requiring) run-out, bad Umpiring decison (whether caught or lbw), no-ball, whatever. They're part of the game, yes (unfortunately) but they're certainly not part of good batting.

And it's not rare at all that batsmen score big innings without a chance. Not remotely rare. Some batsmen get more good fortune than others, and it's only sensible to assess this when you're trying to look at whose achievements are more notable.

 

[ret]

They're all the same thing. A let-off is a let-off regardless of whether it's a dropped catch, missed stumping, botched easy (not direct-hit-requiring) run-out, bad Umpiring decison (whether caught or lbw), no-ball, whatever. They're part of the game, yes (unfortunately) but they're certainly not part of good batting.

And it's not rare at all that batsmen score big innings without a chance. Not remotely rare. Some batsmen get more good fortune than others, and it's only sensible to assess this when you're trying to look at whose achievements are more notable.

But then it's difficult to find a reliable record of at what point during the inning a batsman got chances .... now someone would say, he got dropped on 90, while for some the same chance could imply a boundry saved rather than a dropped chance. same with other forms of getting out

And then focusing on one mode of dismissal i.e. catches while igoring other modes doesn't make a strong point

Since there is no reliable record that documents chances that a player got during an innings, discussions become subjective

So until we have some reliable record on how many chances a batsman got during an inning, there is little point in discussing that .... the unreliability of the accounts of chances that a player gets also takes merit out of this point

 

[Richard]

But then it's difficult to find a reliable record of at what point during the inning a batsman got chances .... now someone would say, he got dropped on 90, while for some the same chance could imply a boundry saved rather than a dropped chance. same with other forms of getting out

It's really not very difficult. Anyone perporting that something was a dropped catch which clipped the fielder's fingertips and saved 2 runs obviously doesn't really know what they're talking about. A chance is just that: something the fielder had a chance to catch. If you understand the basics of the game of cricket, you can tell whether someone should or should not have caught something.

And then focusing on one mode of dismissal i.e. catches while igoring other modes doesn't make a strong point

Exactly, which is why neither I nor anyone else has ever done that. They're all the same thing, for about the 4th time.

Since there is no reliable record that documents chances that a player got during an innings, discussions become subjective

Subjectivity being, really, what is involved in judging how well a batsman has done. There's always going to be loads of it.

So until we have some reliable record on how many chances a batsman got during an inning, there is little point in discussing that .... the unreliability of the accounts of chances that a player gets also takes merit out of this point

There's little unreliability, really - it's not that difficult to work-out what should and should not have been caught. Only contrarions would try to make it difficult.

 

[roseboy64]

Thought this was about Devon Smith at first and wondered what ret was smoking.

 

[ret]

It's really not very difficult. Anyone perporting that something was a dropped catch which clipped the fielder's fingertips and saved 2 runs obviously doesn't really know what they're talking about. A chance is just that: something the fielder had a chance to catch. If you understand the basics of the game of cricket, you can tell whether someone should or should not have caught something.

Exactly, which is why neither I nor anyone else has ever done that. They're all the same thing, for about the 4th time.

Subjectivity being, really, what is involved in judging how well a batsman has done. There's always going to be loads of it.

There's little unreliability, really - it's not that difficult to work-out what should and should not have been caught. Only contrarions would try to make it difficult.

i hv heard some commentators say that cliped his fingers so that technically is a chance, no matter how difficult .... so I guess, whats constitutes a chance is subjective


Nah, i m not taking abt just the catches but the unrealiable record on how many chances a batsman gets during an inning like dropped catches, run out, close LBW calls, etc .... and what make the point on focusing on catches meritless is the fact that other factors of getting out are totally ignored .... so why is that you only focus on catches when there are so many factors that can get you out

Unless, we measure all the ways of getting out and that too with the backing of reliable and documented record then only we can ponder over bringing this point in

 

[Richard]

i hv heard some commentators say that cliped his fingers so that technically is a chance, no matter how difficult .... so I guess, whats constitutes a chance is subjective

Yes, and these commentators don't have a clue what they're talking about. Wish they'd actually think what they're saying rather than talking in cliches for once.

Nah, i m not taking abt just the catches but the unrealiable record on how many chances a batsman gets during an inning like dropped catches, run out, close LBW calls, etc .... and what make the point on focusing on catches meritless is the fact that other factors of getting out are totally ignored .... so why is that you only focus on catches when there are so many factors that can get you out

Unless, we measure all the ways of getting out and that too with the backing of reliable and documented record then only we can ponder over bringing this point in

I don't only focus on catches. A let-off is the same regardless of what style it takes. So is a completed dismissal.

 

[ret]

Yes, and these commentators don't have a clue what they're talking about. Wish they'd actually think what they're saying rather than talking in cliches for once.

I don't only focus on catches. A let-off is the same regardless of what style it takes. So is a completed dismissal.

yeah, but you did talk abt catches in your original post and ignored the fact that someone like Smith could have got close LBW shouts, missed stumping, a run-out life, ....

back to the topic, Sehwag is better

 

[Richard]

yeah, but you did talk abt catches in your original post and ignored the fact that someone like Smith could have got close LBW shouts, missed stumping, a run-out life, ....

I might not have mentioned it in that particular post, but that's only because I can't immediately think of any case where Smith has had such a thing and profited hugely. Had he done so (and should anyone else ever do so), I'd have mentioned it.

 

[ret]

I might not have mentioned it in that particular post, but that's only because I can't immediately think of any case where Smith has had such a thing and profited hugely. Had he done so (and should anyone else ever do so), I'd have mentioned it.

thats why I said that we need reliable records

 

[Richard]

The records we do have are reliable, there's nothing which says a batsman has to have a missed stumping in a career TBH. Just because Smith has never had someone miss a run-out chance off him in his career doesn't mean the records are unreliable.

 

[ret]

The records we do have are reliable, there's nothing which says a batsman has to have a missed stumping in a career TBH. Just because Smith has never had someone miss a run-out chance off him in his career doesn't mean the records are unreliable.

agree but still how do we account for LBW calls and then how can we ignore the fact that Smith could have had those against him but no one remembers them!!!!

then on missed catches too, there are various possibilities that i spoke abt. what may constitute as a chance to some, may not be for other

thats why I wouldn't bring this issue in as I don't remember the chances each batsman got and nor do i have the record that says X was dropped when on 1, survived a close LBW call when on 11, survived stumping on 111 .... so how i m going to refute an argument when someone says X was dropped on 10, when i don't remember that!!! and there is a possiblity of that someone not remembering a chance that Y got

also most such arguments can be refuted by saying that you are only out in the way what the scoreboard says .... thats why such arguments don't hold merit in my book .... ofc i could argue on the missed chances but to me that doesn't bring any value to the discussion as shown by my posts here