World's best batting line up

[iamdavid]

Sehwag a slogger with lots of luck? That's funny considering he's been referred to as a Tendulkar clone by many.

a) I know that was a little harsh , it was a hit back at the thread is Hayden just a slogger with lots of luck etc.
b) I dont thinks it far wrong to be honest , if the Australians had bowled straight(& from behind the popping crease) , held their catches & the 3rd umpire had been a little more instinctive then Sehwag wouldnt have made half the runs he has this summer , he takes premeditated swings through or across the line of perfectly decent deliveries & has numerous technical flaws.
The fact he's made so many runs shows just how much the standards in bowling & feilding have declined in world cricket lately.
c) Ive never tried to pretend Brett Lee was a test class bowler , agree with you completely there , was a super bowler in his first 7 tests & has been complete rubbish ever since.

 

[luckyeddie]

Sehwag a slogger with lots of luck? That's funny considering he's been referred to as a Tendulkar clone by many. I think that was too harsh on a guy that has pretty much just sealed any chance of Australia winning the 4th test. With that same thought I can call Bret Lee a bowler with lots of luck in the past few years, who when that luck is taken away, is exposed for the bowler he really is. Same concept.

Australia do have the best batting line up in the world, but it won't last too many more years. India have the best middle order though without a doubt but it's how far Australia bat that makes the difference. Gilchrist batting at number 7 is just amazing.

Gilchrist - just a slogger with lots of luck?:P

 

[V Reddy]

b) I dont thinks it far wrong to be honest , if the Australians had bowled straight(& from behind the popping crease) , held their catches & the 3rd umpire had been a little more instinctive then Sehwag wouldnt have made half the runs he has this summer , he takes premeditated swings through or across the line of perfectly decent deliveries & has numerous technical flaws.
The fact he's made so many runs shows just how much the standards in bowling & feilding have declined in world cricket lately.
[/B]

Sehwag bats like Gilchrist. Anything to be hit, he will. I have been impressed with is batting in this series. He has batted carefully in the first innings in almost all the innings except for this one in which he had to make quick runs. The Melbourne knock where in the first 15 overs he scored only around 15 and the Trent Bridge knock against England are his best IMO. Gilchrist and Sehwag's catches get dropped b'coz they are hit pretty hard and so travel quickly to the fielders. They make their luck :rolleyes:

 

[marc71178]

Hayden n Langer are up there with Gibbs n Smith as the best openers in the world ATM.

Don't forget Vaughan and Trescothick...

 

[Bazza]

On paper it's Smith & Gibbs, Langer & Hayden then Trescothick & Vaughan.

 

[Salamuddin]

to iamdavid

Your whole argument regarding Sehwag is based on ifs:

if the Aussies had held catches, if the umpire had ruled him out..etc. Point is none of that happened. Frankly the Aussies were just not good enough to get him out cheaply.

Sehwag may ride his luck but I don't see how that makes him out to be any different to Gilchrist.

 

[Eclipse]

Gilchrist has a better techeque against quick bowlers than Shewag.

 

[iamdavid]

Don't forget Vaughan and Trescothick...

I didnt :P
They fall a distant 3rd IMO.

Sehwag may ride his luck but I don't see how that makes him out to be any different to Gilchrist.

Nor do I

 

[Richard]

Gilchrist - just a slogger with lots of luck?:P

Well, his average has dropped like a stone this series.
Abaat bluddei taarm too!
Just hope it keeps going down in Sri Lanka.8D

 

[luckyeddie]

Well, his average has dropped like a stone this series.
Abaat bluddei taarm too!
Just hope it keeps going down in Sri Lanka.8D

It was indeed the most hilarious of stumpings today.

 

[Richard]

Re: to iamdavid

Your whole argument regarding Sehwag is based on ifs:

if the Aussies had held catches, if the umpire had ruled him out..etc. Point is none of that happened. Frankly the Aussies were just not good enough to get him out cheaply.

Sehwag may ride his luck but I don't see how that makes him out to be any different to Gilchrist.

He's not.:P
Just because the Aussies' catching (and bowling) was substandard doesn't say anything about Sehwag.
It is not based on ifs, it is based on woulds. Sehwag would have been out in the 40s if Katich had held a simple catch in his 195. He would have been run-out if Gilchrist had had softer hands.
The fact that he didn't only says he was lucky, and luck doens't say anything about skill.
And I'm sure he should have been out cheaply in other innings, too, the second-innings at The SCG being one certainty.

 

[Richard]

Sehwag bats like Gilchrist. Anything to be hit, he will. I have been impressed with is batting in this series. He has batted carefully in the first innings in almost all the innings except for this one in which he had to make quick runs. The Melbourne knock where in the first 15 overs he scored only around 15 and the Trent Bridge knock against England are his best IMO. Gilchrist and Sehwag's catches get dropped b'coz they are hit pretty hard and so travel quickly to the fielders. They make their luck :rolleyes:

Not strictly true. That's just a stereotype people use. Most of the dropped catches they have benefited from have not been in the least difficult.
IMO his finest knocks are at Trent Bridge where it was swinging all over the place and at St.George's Park when they were 4 down for not many. Both chanceless innings; simply no getting around the fact that the Melbourne knock would have been 40-odd and no more but for Katich's butterfingers. I enjoyed seeing him smash MacGill and the rest all over The MCG and I didn't especially enjoy him hammering Pollock, Ntini, Kallis, Klusener, Cork and White. But there's no doubt in my mind which were the better innings'.

 

[Richard]

Sehwag a slogger with lots of luck? That's funny considering he's been referred to as a Tendulkar clone by many. I think that was too harsh on a guy that has pretty much just sealed any chance of Australia winning the 4th test. With that same thought I can call Bret Lee a bowler with lots of luck in the past few years, who when that luck is taken away, is exposed for the bowler he really is. Same concept.

You would be quite correct to call Lee such.
Sehwag may look like Tendulkar at the crease but he sure doesn't bat like him. Just because people have called him a Tendulkar-clone doesn't mean he doesn't have lots of luck - most people just don't realise how signficant that is.
And he would not have sealed anything had Lee's foot been behind the line.

 

[marc71178]

Re: Re: to iamdavid

Just because the Aussies' catching (and bowling) was substandard doesn't say anything about Sehwag.

Yet the catching (and bowling) of other sides does say something about Gilchrist?

 

[Salamuddin]

If Sehwag has profited from declining bowling and fielding standards, so has Gilchrist.

I mean, do you seriously believe Gilchrist is as good or a better player than Steve Waugh as his average may suggest ?

I think in this series, the Indians have bowled well to some Aussies and poorly to others. Gilchrist is one of those I think they've bowled quite well to. They've basically given him little leeway to free those arms of his -- and the results are there for all to see.

It will be interesting to see how Gilly goes in Sri Lanka and India -- my feeling is that his average will come down further.

 

[Jono]

Well it seems Sehwag has a lot of critics, I just hope he puts you all to shame during the VB series where he cuts loose on the Aussies again. The fact remains Sehwag has a unique style, which is successful. If it wasn't for him the WC final would of been even more one sided then it already was. His innings in Melbourne was absolutely exhilirating and I was there watching every shot he played. So what if he was dropped often, I guess he hits it too hard for the Aussies to catch eh?

Right now Sehwag is a better player than Gilchrist in my opinion, and recent games prove that.

 

[Richard]

Re: Re: Re: to iamdavid

Yet the catching (and bowling) of other sides does say something about Gilchrist?

No, it doesn't.
What says something about Gilchrist, and Sehwag, is that they need the dropped catches (and\or popgun bowling) to get runs against their name.
The fact that the opposition can't catch \ wicketkeepers can't stump \ Umpires are incompetant doesn't say anything about anyone who benefits - the fact that the chances were given does.

 

[Richard]

If Sehwag has profited from declining bowling and fielding standards, so has Gilchrist.

I mean, do you seriously believe Gilchrist is as good or a better player than Steve Waugh as his average may suggest ?

I think in this series, the Indians have bowled well to some Aussies and poorly to others. Gilchrist is one of those I think they've bowled quite well to. They've basically given him little leeway to free those arms of his -- and the results are there for all to see.

It will be interesting to see how Gilly goes in Sri Lanka and India -- my feeling is that his average will come down further.

I agree with all of that.
The other significant thing the Indians did in that series was took every opportunity given to them. And one that, really, wasn't - Patel fluked a stumping; a rare instance of bad luck for Gilchrist.
I have long argued that Gilchrist's average is far higher than it would be in the days of better catching standards, and that Stephen Waugh is twice the player Gilchrist is.

 

[Richard]

Well it seems Sehwag has a lot of critics, I just hope he puts you all to shame during the VB series where he cuts loose on the Aussies again. The fact remains Sehwag has a unique style, which is successful. If it wasn't for him the WC final would of been even more one sided then it already was. His innings in Melbourne was absolutely exhilirating and I was there watching every shot he played. So what if he was dropped often, I guess he hits it too hard for the Aussies to catch eh?

Right now Sehwag is a better player than Gilchrist in my opinion, and recent games prove that.

Sehwag will put us all to shame only by scoring chanceless runs in Test-cricket opening the batting.
Because right now, that's all we've said he's incapable of. It's very, very silly indeed to say "so-and-so can't make runs" because anyone, and I mean anyone, can make runs if the bowling, fielding and Umpiring are poor enough.
I've never said Sehwag was sub-par in ODIs, and he's far better there opening than wasted at five or six. I've never said he wouldn't make a good Test middle-order player. I've simply said that to score runs against even remotely accurate bowling opening in Test-cricket he needs luck - and the facts back me up.
david has made the precise same point.

 

[Shane Warne]

IMO these are the best batting-line-ups I've ever seen:
Kirsten
Gibbs
Kallis
Cullinan
Cronje
Rhodes
Boucher
Klusener
Pollock
Donald
Adams
and:
Blewett (Hayden's inadequecies were still being exposed in those days)
Slater
Langer
M. Waugh
S. Waugh
Ponting
Gilchrist
The line-ups of today are slightly inferior to them and there is one that outstrips them:
Das
Sehwag
Dravid
Tendulkar
Laxman
Ganguly
Mongia
Of course this has never played together, though some of it has.
Anyway, the best I've ever seen in an ODI and surely the best ever has to be:
Ganguly
Sehwag
Dravid
Tendulkar
Laxman
Yuvraj Singh
Kaif
Agarkar
Kumble
Srinath
Unbeatable. And for a period they went around looking like they could beat any total you set them.

wow, what a tail. unfortunately you are only allowed 11 players though. also a bit of bowling to balance it out