Why is Sehwag so good: My analysis

[social]

Gilchrist vs Sehwag

Middle order vs Opener

All-rounder vs specialist

Apples vs oranges

Gilly bats against bowlers who arent at their freshest and Sehwag visa versa

However, in India it's easier to bat at the top of the order than down the list

More appropriate to compare Sehwag to Dravid or Langer etc.

 

[C_C]

we are comparing batting mate...
no question that Gilly is a much better CRICKETER than Sehwag is.

and its a ridiculous claim that it is 'easier' to bat up the order in IND or anywhere else..
thats why i guess IND has a middle order chock full of classic batsmen but apart from Gavaskar,Sidhu and Sehwag, they havnt produced any other quality opener in the last 35 years!

 

[social]

we are comparing batting mate...
no question that Gilly is a much better CRICKETER than Sehwag is.

and its a ridiculous claim that it is 'easier' to bat up the order in IND or anywhere else..
thats why i guess IND has a middle order chock full of classic batsmen but apart from Gavaskar,Sidhu and Sehwag, they havnt produced any other quality opener in the last 35 years!

Gee, I wonder why that is - perhaps their brought up on a diet of spin. Do ya think?

95%of Indian wickets are slow with no bounce or seam. The new ball comes onto the bat and makes stroke-play easier. Maybe that's why even a great fast bowler like Dev barely averaged below 30 depite taking 400 test wickets.

 

[C_C]

which only shows how ludicrous it is for you to claim that opening in IND is easier than batting at #7...

 

[social]

which only shows how ludicrous it is for you to claim that opening in IND is easier than batting at #7...

If it's harder for opening bowlers in India than almost anywhere else how can it be harder for opening batsmen as well?

That makes sense.

 

[Arjun]

If it's harder for opening bowlers in India than almost anywhere else how can it be harder for opening batsmen as well?

That makes sense.

Not these days- the curators make minefields for pitches.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

which only shows how ludicrous it is for you to claim that opening in IND is easier than batting at #7...

Sorry, where exactly do you disagree? If you open in Australia, you face the difficulty of facing pace bowlers with a new ball in conditions which offer them assistance... fast, bouncy pitches, seam movement and swing. If you bat down the order it is just as easy to score in the conditions with an old ball, and it does less off the wicket, not to mention the bowlers being tired. In India you face pace bowlers on slow, low pitches with minimal seam movement, and it is significantly easier to score when the ball is new and comes on to the bat. The old ball becomes much more difficult to get away with the pace taken off it on a low bouncing pitch, particularly when spinners will bowl the majority of the overs.

It's pretty clear why opening in India is easier in comparison to batting in the middle order in India than opening elsewhere is compared to batting in the middle order elsewhere.

 

[social]

Sorry, where exactly do you disagree? If you open in Australia, you face the difficulty of facing pace bowlers with a new ball in conditions which offer them assistance... fast, bouncy pitches, seam movement and swing. If you bat down the order it is just as easy to score in the conditions with an old ball, and it does less off the wicket, not to mention the bowlers being tired. In India you face pace bowlers on slow, low pitches with minimal seam movement, and it is significantly easier to score when the ball is new and comes on to the bat. The old ball becomes much more difficult to get away with the pace taken off it on a low bouncing pitch, particularly when spinners will bowl the majority of the overs.

It's pretty clear why opening in India is easier in comparison to batting in the middle order in India than opening elsewhere is compared to batting in the middle order elsewhere.

Case closed

 

[C_C]

Sorry, where exactly do you disagree? If you open in Australia, you face the difficulty of facing pace bowlers with a new ball in conditions which offer them assistance... fast, bouncy pitches, seam movement and swing. If you bat down the order it is just as easy to score in the conditions with an old ball, and it does less off the wicket, not to mention the bowlers being tired. In India you face pace bowlers on slow, low pitches with minimal seam movement, and it is significantly easier to score when the ball is new and comes on to the bat. The old ball becomes much more difficult to get away with the pace taken off it on a low bouncing pitch, particularly when spinners will bowl the majority of the overs.

It's pretty clear why opening in India is easier in comparison to batting in the middle order in India than opening elsewhere is compared to batting in the middle order elsewhere.

First, OZ pitches are not what it used to be...considerably flatter.
second, Sehwag isnt opening JUST in India...he's opened overseas as well with quiete a bit of success.... faced Akhtar and Sami...who have pace and bounce (sami a bit more skid) by the heaps.
An in IND, its easier to play near the end because the bounce becomes lower (unless you are talkin a 4th/5th day pitch) and lower bounceis easier to play than good bounce...

but the point is, Gilly beats on tired bowlers and when the ball is old...and when he does come across spinners of callibre on a spinning pitch, he isnt that hoo-haa. Sehwag on the other hand faces bowlers at their freshest and the ball at its hardest/bounciest....

This is getting ridiculous now...arguing that opening in test cricket is easier than comming in at #7 with the score on 250-300 regularly and blitzing already demoralised and tired bowlers.

 

[SquidAU]

First, OZ pitches are not what it used to be...considerably flatter.
second, Sehwag isnt opening JUST in India...he's opened overseas as well with quiete a bit of success.... faced Akhtar and Sami...who have pace and bounce (sami a bit more skid) by the heaps.
An in IND, its easier to play near the end because the bounce becomes lower (unless you are talkin a 4th/5th day pitch) and lower bounceis easier to play than good bounce...

but the point is, Gilly beats on tired bowlers and when the ball is old...and when he does come across spinners of callibre on a spinning pitch, he isnt that hoo-haa. Sehwag on the other hand faces bowlers at their freshest and the ball at its hardest/bounciest....

This is getting ridiculous now...arguing that opening in test cricket is easier than comming in at #7 with the score on 250-300 regularly and blitzing already demoralised and tired bowlers.

OKay, you maybe talking about test cricket, but Gilly does open in ODI's and does he not blitz bowlers then? And what about times when the Aussies have been 5 for not much and he plays his natural game then........He does not always "beat on tired bowlers" and "when the ball is old"

There is such a thing as a new ball in test cricket, is there not?

 

[C_C]

I am talkin test cricket... ODI cricket is fun and stuff for me....not the real deal..am sure you'll agree.
Besides, both Gilly and Waggy open in ODI cricket.

And i am not talkin about once every year scenarios of Gilly comming in at 50/5 and doing a rescue job....those are very far and few in between....i am talkin about the average scenrio...the average scenario for Gilly is to come with the score at 250-300 and then pulverise bowlers who are deadbeat and demoralised.
Yes there are new balls in test cricket but if you think Facing Pollock fresh up is the same as freshing pollock after he has bowled 20 overs and toiled the whole day on the field is the same...then what can i say but

 

[superkingdave]

but Sehwag has yet to make a significant contribution in the second innings of a test match - he can't really be considered a complete player until he does.

 

[vic_orthdox]

i remember someone saying that steve waugh never made a century in the fourth innings of a match...

 

[Arjun]

While fans can go on and on about Sehwag's batting, nothing has been said of his bowling. In ODI's whenever given a long spell, he doesn't let his captain down. He bowls wicket-to-wicket and tries out different variations, either turning the ball, or sliding it straight, or holding it back. His bowling in two matches, one against the South Africans in 2002, and against the West Indians at home in a series that followed, is stuff a strike bowler would be proud of. If he can bowl ten overs a match in ODI's, he can add some much-needed balance to the side. Sure, he's no strike bowler, but nor are Afridi, Razzaq, Styris, Gayle, Sanath and Symonds, (and of course Agarkar) but they're still useful. Now that would make him a phenomenal ODI player.

 

[Robertinho]

That is true, vic_orthdox. Of his 168 matches - unusally enough Australia bowled first (or: would have batted 4th) 116 times - 69.04% - a startling figure. Something else notable is that of the 116 times Australia only had to bat in the 4th innings 52 times - 44.8% of the times they should have. (Bizarre. Someone please confirm.)

Anyway - Waugh, from 31 innings with 7 not outs, scored 613 runs @ 25.54 (no centuries - only 2 half centuries - 80 and 67).

 

[social]

An in IND, its easier to play near the end because the bounce becomes lower (unless you are talkin a 4th/5th day pitch) and lower bounceis easier to play than good bounce...

Incorrect.

Bounce becomes lower and slower making it harder to play scoring shots.

In any event, bounce is very rarely a factor in India unless you're referring to the lack of it and that will become worse over the course of a match not better.

Put simply, 50% of Sehwag's tests are likely to be in India and in that situation he is batting in the most favourable position.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

I think social is right here when he says that you can't really compare Sehwag and Gilchrist. People like to try and do it because they are both aggressive batsmen, but really because they play in completely different positions it is impossible. I mean, is it really possible to compare say Gilchrist and Langer? Certainly Gilchrist's average is much higher, but they bat in completely different circumstances and cannot simply be compared as equals. At best you could say that Gilchrist is of more importance in his position to the team than Langer is in his, but even then that doesn't necessarily mean that Gilchrist is a better batsman.

Sehwag is better compared to other opening or top order batsman than an aggressive lower-order all-rounder like Gilchrist. The only reason the comparison in the other thread between Richards and Gilchrist came up is because a different criteria than general batting ability came up, which was how devastating they were as players. In this respect Gilchrist and Sehwag can be compared, but not directly as batsmen. After all, even if Gilchrist averaged 20 more than Sehwag, he isn't an opener so Sehwag's runs could still be considered more valuable.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't think it is fair to compare Gilly and Sehwag at this point. Both of them have different roles to play in their respective sides and they both do it to the best of their ability. TBH, I admire Gilchrist because, on the few occassions that teams have batted well against the Aussies, he has still found the energy to come back and play vital knocks. That something cannot be said for Sehwag as he is not a keeper and therefore, doesn't have to concentrate that hard.

 

[Deja moo]

Trouble is that Tendulkar has achieved similar results to Sehwag over 100 tests not 30 +.

And Tec, to say that Gilchrist is incapable of playing carefully is nonsense. His genius stems from the fact that no-one in 70 tests has worked out how to contain him for extended periods. Maybe that makes him a better player than Sehwag

14 tests vs India at an average of 29 point something.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

14 tests vs India at an average of 29 point something.

And yet in those 14 tests he has made 2 match-winning hundreds.