Hayden Vs Sehwag

[mukund_nadkarni]

You really are bias then...... He is an arrogant looking bugger and I hate him lots, but Ponting is a superb batsman, easily better than Sehwag

Lol! I checked the thread title again, and yes indeed it is about the better batsman. Then Ponting will indeed be giving company to Tendulkar and Lara there. I was of course thinking in some other terms.

EDIT : It is the title of the poll actually. The thread simply reads Hayden Vs Sehwag.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

LOL, why on earth would you deduct Hayden's stats against the ICC World XI, Zorax?

Because Sehwag never faced them. I tried to keep the opposition equal.

Look how many Indian domestic players average over 50 in first-class cricket compared to domestic players in Australia. That's when Australia has been the dominant force in International cricket over the past 15 years. It's obviously easier for Indian players to establish themselves on Indian pitches and once they are proved it is allot easier for them to score prolifically. Hence why Sehwag is below par outside the subcontient.

a) Your first point is irrelevant
b) Hayden is below par overseas too.

TBH, some of the Pakistani attacks that Virender Sehwag has played against have been borderline minnow standard anyway. I'd like to see the average total runs in the match in every game his played against Pakistan.

Look a few pages back.

The main difference is that Hayden is comparable to the likes of Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Kallis and Dravid of the modern age in terms of class whilst Sehwag is in the class of Gayle, Gilchrist and Jayasuriya.

a) He doesn't belong in their class. You're probably the only human who thinks he does. Probably just below it, but not in that group.
b) Yes, I agree. I even said stuff to that effect. Millions of times. Viru is more play and miss, Hayden's more consistent. Only difference.

I'd just like to ask Zorax, why would you deduct statistics against a team that featured a bowler who took over 200 Test wickets at 28 a piece? What is your logic behind that?

Because you thought WI weren't good enough?

You can't keep chopping and changing. Either I add the stats for all teams, or for none of them. I can count Zimbabwe for Hayden, and exclude them and Pakistan for Sehwag. That's rubbish.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Batsman that are definately better then Sehwag from the current era: Sachin Tendulkar, Ricky Ponting, Brian Lara, Steve Waugh, Matthew Hayden, Jacques Kallis, Rahul Dravid, Kevin Pietersen, Kumar Sangakkara, Mahela Jayawardene, Graeme Smith, Herschelle Gibbs, Saeed Anwar, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Mark Taylor, Michael Slater, Justin Langer, Damien Martyn, Michael Hussey, Adam Gilchrist, Andy Flower, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Mohammad Yousuf and Younis Khan.

Batsman that are definately better then Hayden from the current era: Sachin Tendulkar, Ricky Ponting, Steve Waugh, Brian Lara and in a few years time, Kevin Pietersen.

Sachin Tendulkar, Ricky Ponting, Steve Waugh, Brian Lara, Matthew Hayden, Jacques Kallis, Rahul Dravid and Kevin Pietersen are the only batsman who truly deserve an average of above 50. Virender Sehwag would be around the 40-42 mark.

 

[manee]

Sachin Tendulkar, Ricky Ponting, Steve Waugh, Brian Lara, Matthew Hayden, Jacques Kallis, Rahul Dravid and Kevin Pietersen are the only batsman who truly deserve an average of above 50. Virender Sehwag would be around the 40-42 mark.

Care to elaborate on why Sehwag does not deserve the 50 average?

 

[ZoraxDoom]

So Viru has an average of 50 because he doesn't deserve it?

Rigghhtt....


Viru and Hayden will be greats in their own countries, but won't be greats of all time. Anyone who thinks so is deluded. End of.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

Batsmen who are better than Hayden in the present era : Everyone!

 

[Highlander999]

Batsman that are definately better then Sehwag from the current era: Sachin Tendulkar, Ricky Ponting, Brian Lara, Steve Waugh, Matthew Hayden, Jacques Kallis, Rahul Dravid, Kevin Pietersen, Kumar Sangakkara, Mahela Jayawardene, Graeme Smith, Herschelle Gibbs, Saeed Anwar, Shivnarine Chanderpaul, Mark Taylor, Michael Slater, Justin Langer, Damien Martyn, Michael Hussey, Adam Gilchrist, Andy Flower, Inzamam-ul-Haq, Mohammad Yousuf and Younis Khan.

........and Monty Panesar. That boy is like a windmill

 

[aussie_ben91]

Because Sehwag never faced them. I tried to keep the opposition equal.

So you are trying to justify that Sehwag is better because he performed better against weaker opposition?

a) Your first point is irrelevant
b) Hayden is below par overseas too.

a) Yes it is relevant. Conditions are obviously more suited to Indian batsman.
b) Hayden averaged over 60 in away tours for 3 years straight.

a) He doesn't belong in their class. You're probably the only human who thinks he does. Probably just below it, but not in that group.
b) Yes, I agree. I even said stuff to that effect. Millions of times. Viru is more play and miss, Hayden's more consistent. Only difference.

a) Yes he does. He was averaging over 50 before Kallis and Ponting were and he scored 5 more Test centuries then Rahul Dravid. All of the batsman I listed had their averages peaking around 58 after a significant amount of time. If anything, Dravid or Kallis would be the ones removed because they never were as dominant as the others.

You can't keep chopping and changing. Either I add the stats for all teams, or for none of them. I can count Zimbabwe for Hayden, and exclude them and Pakistan for Sehwag. That's rubbish.

You should only deduct statistics against Bangladesh because they are the only country that hasn't produced atleast acouple of world-class players.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

Viru and Hayden will be greats in their own countries, but won't be greats of all time.

Sehwag is still playing, and playing well, so he does have a chance.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Care to elaborate on why Sehwag does not deserve the 50 average?

It's just in the scheme of things over time. Many people discount great batsman of the modern age because so many other batsman average over 50 (mainly subcontient players). Sehwag is one of the batsman who I would cut down from the tree whilst I believe the likes of Tendulkar, Ponting and Lara deserve higher averages then what they have.

Sehwag is still playing, and playing well, so he does have a chance.

Hopefully he plays more cricket overseas and less at home and gets exposed for the fraud that he is.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

So you are trying to justify that Sehwag is better because he performed better against weaker opposition?

That's actually quite the opposite, my stats posted earlier showed that both Hayden and Viru performed better against stronger sides (Read: Each other, RSA, England) than against the weaker ones (Bangladesh, NZ). Hayden has one big innings against Zim, but in a few matches, whereas Viru pummelled WI a bit (If I remember right).

a) Yes it is relevant. Conditions are obviously more suited to Indian batsman.
b) Hayden averaged over 60 in away tours for 3 years straight.

- I meant your point about the domestic structures.
- Hayden's career lasted more than 3 years. He had a great patch in between, struggled either side of it. Again, can't just pick and choose when to use stats. On that basis, I'd say Hayden was the best bat in the world at that phase, but Viru pwns all over him in 2008...

a) Yes he does. He was averaging over 50 before Kallis and Ponting were and he scored 5 more Test centuries then Rahul Dravid. All of the batsman I listed had their averages peaking around 58 after a significant amount of time. If anything, Dravid or Kallis would be the ones removed because they never were as dominant as the others.

Again the obsession with statistics. Dravid will stay, as he was one who carried the side time and time again, and won us many matches single handedly. Kallis might be omitted. But Hayden will never be in the same class as Sachin and Lara, or Ponting even.


Deducting stats from Bangla will actually increase both their career averages. So in essence, it wouldn't be fair, as the Bangla bowlers may have actually had something on them...

ZoraxDoom added 2 Minutes and 32 Seconds later...

Another thing - Subcontinental pitches are usually flat, fine, but I don't see why that automatically means every run scored there doesn't matter. I mean, if it is so easy, shouldn't we discount Hayden's stats in India, Pak, SL and Bangladesh then?

And if you are going on the home advantage thing, I could argue it is easier for Hayden in Australia because he was raised there (BTW: DUH!). Should we remove those stats as well?

 

[aussie_ben91]

Deducting stats from Bangla will actually increase both their career averages. So in essence, it wouldn't be fair, as the Bangla bowlers may have actually had something on them...

I mean in all comparisons for all players that Bangladesh statistics should be removed because they are the only true minnow.

And if you are going on the home advantage thing, I could argue it is easier for Hayden in Australia because he was raised there (BTW: DUH!). Should we remove those stats as well?

How many 100's has Sehwag scored when there have been less then 1,000 runs scored in the entire match?

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Umm...does that matter? I have to point out that India haven't exactly had the best bowling attack for the best part of his career. Aus could shoot sides out for 200 runs on Flat pitches, India would end up conceding 300 on a minefield...

 

[aussie_ben91]

Funny seeing as how you had the 3rd leading wicket taker in the history of the game on your side. You also had Harbhajan who is one of the leading wicket-takers of the past decade.

The thing is, I don't think Sehwag is capable of scoring a gritty hundred in tough conditions, something Hayden has done plenty'a times.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

Hopefully he plays more cricket overseas and less at home and gets exposed for the fraud that he is.

You just hate Sehwag, don't you?!