Hayden Vs Sehwag

[srikarr12]

He has more hundreds then Sehwag, which shows his temperament and with the not outs, he scored a 100 when making a lead Feelin Blue? added 0 Minutes and 49 Seconds later...

Umm maybe its because Hayden played 8 more years of cricket then Sehwag!

 

[mattfb]

Hayden has played 37 more Tests, for 15 more centuries. I'm not sure if Sehwag can match that. Hayden has been the 6th most successful batsmen since February 1 2001 in terms of averages, and has made more centuries then anyone else since Feburuary 1 2001. Hayden has been better then Tendulkar.

Feelin Blue? added 1 Minutes and 3 Seconds later...

As you can see srikarr, Hayden has 29 of his 30 centuries since 2001. He has scored 29 hundreds in 81 matches. If Sehwag was to match that he would need to score 15 tons in 15 games!

 

[sohum]

You sure you don't mean Dan

Dammit, you're right. You're all English anyways... (what did I open here?)

sohum added 3 Minutes and 32 Seconds later...

Hayden has had a better career apart from the first 25 matches. He has more hundreds then Sehwag, which shows his temperament and with the not outs, he scored a 100 when making a lead - Probably in quick time to set us up - and scored 101 out of 172, 53 out of 97 and 28 out of 47. He may finish not out chasing small targets but he gives himself the opportunity to score as many runs as possible when chasing that target.

Not really. If you look at the 66 games so that we can measure them at the same point of their career, you can see there is almost nothing between them in turns of innings and runs. The differences are consistency, which Hayden has more of, since he's scored more centuries and 50's while getting to his aggregate. I don't find your justification of "gives himself the opportunity to score as many runs as possible while chasing that [small] target" enough to convince me that in those 66 matches, Hayden deserved a higher average than Sehwag. In fact, the not out system in averages is something that I don't really like, in general.

 

[mattfb]

Yes, I know but his average wouldn't be has high as it is if he just nudged 50 or 60 when chasing that 170. The not out system is good anyway because your average is decided by runs divided by outs which is only fair because when your chasing a small target, if averages were decided by runs divided by innings then your average would go down even if you didn't get out.

 

[sohum]

Hayden has played 37 more Tests, for 15 more centuries. I'm not sure if Sehwag can match that. Hayden has been the 6th most successful batsmen since February 1 2001 in terms of averages, and has made more centuries then anyone else since Feburuary 1 2001. Hayden has been better then Tendulkar.

Again, a lot of people are banking on the hopes that Sehwag has entered his prime now. In 2001, Hayden was about 30 years old, which is exactly what Sehwag is now, IIRC. In 2001, Hayden made a comeback that saw his second coming. We saw something similar from Sehwag in Australia 2007/08. So, it would only be fair to compare Sehwag's next 7 years/81 Test matches (if he plays that many) to Hayden's prime.

I think it is fair to say, however, that both are remarkable batsmen and players that the game absolutely need. If Test cricket was full of the Dravids and Kallises, it would have prematurely died 3-4 years ago.

sohum added 3 Minutes and 27 Seconds later...

Yes, I know but his average wouldn't be has high as it is if he just nudged 50 or 60 when chasing that 170. The not out system is good anyway because your average is decided by runs divided by outs which is only fair because when your chasing a small target, if averages were decided by runs divided by innings then your average would go down even if you didn't get out.

Your logic suggests that inflated averages are better than deflated ones. If everyone used a reverse-not out system (not that I am suggesting that) everyone's average would be lower and not be that inflated.

The best replacement system I've come across is a system wherein you only get assigned a not out if the runs you have scored are less than your average at that point in time, but obviously that's a little more complicated.

It just rankles me a little that Hayden has scored 47 more runs than Sehwag in 1 more inning, yet his average is 3 runs higher. In fact, that very average suggests that in one more inning, Sehwag would actually have scored more than Hayden, but still have a lower average.

 

[Precambrian]

What are the figures discounting matches against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh?

Certainly Sehwag would dominate Hayden then.

No doubt both are flat track bullies, but Hayden seems to be a minnow basher too.

 

[mattfb]

Hayden only averages 33 against Bangladesh (4 Matches, 168 runs, 0 hundreds) and 255 against Zimbabwe (2 Matches, 501 runs, 2 hundreds). As you can see he's only every played 6 matches against minnows, and a combined of 669 runs thanks to his 380 against Zimbabwe.

Sehwag is very similar, (2 matches against Bangladesh, 23 runs @ 11) (3 matches against Zimbabwe, 176 runs @ 58) but this just proves you still need to score the runs against the minnows. Both players have done incredibly bad against Bangladesh. No matter who you are playing you still need to score the runs.

 

[Cricketdude]

Your logic suggests that inflated averages are better than deflated ones. If everyone used a reverse-not out system (not that I am suggesting that) everyone's average would be lower and not be that inflated.

So you get 380 in your first innings.... anyway Hayden is better and it's funny that people say Sehwag averages higher in Australia than Hayden. Maybe that's because Sehwag has played 7 games. With 7 games you can call it form, luck, anything.

Sehwag didn't get to face Warne and Mcgrath and came at a time when Australia were suffering from the losses. Yes it's mediocre at the moment. Soon our bowlers will become more consistent and we will be be at the top again.

People are saying Sehwag is more consistent and also his at his "peak". Hayden was at his peak through 01-04. You would be saying he's the most consistent batsman in the world through that period.

To say pitches don't swing in Australia is laughable. How did Australia produce Hilfenhaus and Bollinger both have averages of below 30 and are swing bowlers....

 

[mattfb]

I can't see how Sehwag has been at his peak. In 06 he averaged about 30 and in 07 under 30. (It might be the other way around) This year he's been quality though. But I can't see how that means he is at his peak. He had 2 years where he averaged around 60 around 04. Isn't that when he peaked?

Feelin Blue? added 7 Minutes and 5 Seconds later...

Ahh, never mind, just noticed he only played 1 game last year, and the year before he scored more runs then 2005 (791 @ 39)

04 - 1000 runs at 63
05 - 789 runs at 60
06 - 791 runs at 38
08 - 1462 runs at 51

I guess he is at his peak

 

[sohum]

Hayden reached his peak, as most international batsmen do (except I guess Hussey, though maybe him, too) in his early 30's. Since Sehwag just reached that age, one can surmise that he will reach his peak now, especially going by his last year.

sohum added 8 Minutes and 7 Seconds later...

So you get 380 in your first innings.... anyway Hayden is better and it's funny that people say Sehwag averages higher in Australia than Hayden. Maybe that's because Sehwag has played 7 games. With 7 games you can call it form, luck, anything.

This part of your post doesn't make any sense. And 7 games is two series. As for the Australia argument, how can Sehwag win it then? You say he can't play in non-Indian conditions and when he does, you say that he has not played enough? Most players play about 50% of their games at home, so playing 10% of his games in Australia is a pretty acceptable stat. Also, using that logic, Hayden has only played 11 games in India so we cannot judge him playing better there. See how the logic is flawed? Hayden clearly performs well in India, so pretending that he doesn't based on a random number which determines the threshhold of acceptability is rather silly.

Sehwag didn't get to face Warne and Mcgrath and came at a time when Australia were suffering from the losses. Yes it's mediocre at the moment. Soon our bowlers will become more consistent and we will be be at the top again.

I don't know why Australians keep bringing up Warne when it comes to India--he has clearly has had very minimal success against us. Sehwag is also one of the best players of spin in the business. If I recall, he smashed MacGill in that MCG 195 he played on his first tour there, and MacGill is held pretty highly as a leg-spinner. Similar treatment was meted out to Danish Kaneria in Multan. Also, if you are going to use that argument, then you better be prepared to put away your counter-argument to the often used argument that the Australian batsmen never had to play their own bowlers. Generally speaking, Australia has had the best bowling attack of this generation, so any other bowlers should be treated slightly more lightly from a statistical point of view.

People are saying Sehwag is more consistent and also his at his "peak". Hayden was at his peak through 01-04. You would be saying he's the most consistent batsman in the world through that period.

I don't believe you have been reading this thread correctly. If anything, everyone seems to agree that Hayden is more consistent than Sehwag.

 

[YellowMonkey]

I can't believe why people think Hayden was one of the all-time greats. Good yes, but not great.

His statistics are not that amzing given the amount of runscoring in the last ten years.

Hutton and Gavaskar have better claims.

I'd rate Neil Harvey above Hayden, they had more difficult pitches in the old days and no BANG/ZIM. Just look at the contemporary comparisons.

A monkey at the cricket: Harvey vs Hayden

Not that Sehwag is a great either.

 

[Highlander999]

Dammit, you're right. You're all English anyways... (what did I open here?)

Only half English You racist

 

[vaibhav mehta]

Sehwag didn't get to face Warne and Mcgrath and came at a time when Australia were suffering from the losses. Yes it's mediocre at the moment. Soon our bowlers will become more consistent and we will be be at the top again.

I think I did not allow to use this comment when We were discussing Sachin and Ponting that actually Sachin has dominated against one of the best bowling combination at that time??

Anyway Back on the topic I think Hayden has been totally devastating on his career peak but at the same time Sehwag still has good 6-7years left on his side.
You actually can't compare two players picks when one has retired and other has long way to go.

Those who mentioned technique,I say Left hander always has better advantage to score over his weak points then right hander though that is my personal opinion.
Have you not seen Chandrapaul's stance? Just imagine someone right hander with that ugly stance and still Chandra is one of the best.
Other example is Smith(though He has improved lot).

 

[Cricketdude]

Hayden reached his peak, as most international batsmen do (except I guess Hussey, though maybe him, too) in his early 30's. Since Sehwag just reached that age, one can surmise that he will reach his peak now, especially going by his last year.

You can't say he'll reach his peak now or any other time. Some players reach their peak earlier than others though(such as Tendulkar).

This part of your post doesn't make any sense. And 7 games is two series. As for the Australia argument, how can Sehwag win it then? You say he can't play in non-Indian conditions and when he does, you say that he has not played enough? Most players play about 50% of their games at home, so playing 10% of his games in Australia is a pretty acceptable stat. Also, using that logic, Hayden has only played 11 games in India so we cannot judge him playing better there. See how the logic is flawed? Hayden clearly performs well in India, so pretending that he doesn't based on a random number which determines the threshhold of acceptability is rather silly.

Well done for Sehwag for doing well but at that time Australia only had two good bowlers. I'll ignore that you said that I said he can't perform in non indian conditions, I never said that. He hasn't played enough to be considered along side Hayden. At least that 11 games is through a period of time.

I don't know why Australians keep bringing up Warne when it comes to India--he has clearly has had very minimal success against us. Sehwag is also one of the best players of spin in the business. If I recall, he smashed MacGill in that MCG 195 he played on his first tour there, and MacGill is held pretty highly as a leg-spinner. Similar treatment was meted out to Danish Kaneria in Multan. Also, if you are going to use that argument, then you better be prepared to put away your counter-argument to the often used argument that the Australian batsmen never had to play their own bowlers. Generally speaking, Australia has had the best bowling attack of this generation, so any other bowlers should be treated slightly more lightly from a statistical point of view.


I don't believe you have been reading this thread correctly. If anything, everyone seems to agree that Hayden is more consistent than Sehwag.

He may be a good player of spin but when he gets bobbed down(thats where Mcgrath comes in) he falters. He doesn't have to best temperment. Flintoff in the Ashes found a way of getting Gilly(round the wicket). Expect bowlers to be doing inswingers all day long against Sehwag from now on.

People are forgetting that Hayden is also a one day player also. Hayden has a very good record in one day considering he goes out there and just smacks it in the first fifteen overs.
Sehwag has an average of 33 in one days. Sehwag's worst record is against Australia averaging 22 from 17 games.

 

[sohum]

You can't say he'll reach his peak now or any other time. Some players reach their peak earlier than others though(such as Tendulkar).

Of course you can't claim something like that, but you can extrapolate based on the performance of most batsmen. You seem to think that Sehwag can only get worse, for some reason, whereas his statistics clearly disprove that. The whole point of the peak argument is to show how this comparison is flawed.

Well done for Sehwag for doing well but at that time Australia only had two good bowlers. I'll ignore that you said that I said he can't perform in non indian conditions, I never said that. He hasn't played enough to be considered along side Hayden. At least that 11 games is through a period of time.

So then you agree that Hayden didn't play well in India? He only played 3 more Tests than Sehwag has played in Australia.

Expect bowlers to be doing inswingers all day long against Sehwag from now on.

This has been a well-documented weakness of his, not a revelation that someone came upon over the last two and a half months. Unfortunately "doing inswingers all day long" won't achieve much because he is strong off his pads and will work it away to mid wicket for four "all day long".