Virender Sehwag- Overrated? Underrated?

[King Pietersen]

I don't think triple hundreds are enough to rate a batsman. Jack Hobbs never made a triple hundred in Test cricket, but is regarded by many as as good a batsman as Bradman was. You're not going to tell me Sehwag's better than Hobbs because of those triple tons are you? I presume not, therefore it's not a good enough point to count against Hayden.

Personally I think Sehwag's over-rated by Indians, and don't think he's as good as Hayden was. I don't think he's good enough to average 50, although he has been very impressive in the past year. His average will always be inflated due to playing on Indian wickets, which if you're brought up on them, are very easy to play on. They offer very little to the seam bowlers, making opening the batting easier than in any other country. If he manages to carry his recent form all around the world then he could end as a class player, but at the minute he's just a good opening batsman who's average has been inflated by playing alot of games in the subcontinent.

Joke polls weren't ever funny

Fixed.

 

[metallics2006]

I don't think triple hundreds are enough to rate a batsman. Jack Hobbs never made a triple hundred in Test cricket, but is regarded by many as as good a batsman as Bradman was. You're not going to tell me Sehwag's better than Hobbs because of those triple tons are you? I presume not, therefore it's not a good enough point to count against Hayden.

Personally I think Sehwag's over-rated by Indians, and don't think he's as good as Hayden was. I don't think he's good enough to average 50, although he has been very impressive in the past year. His average will always be inflated due to playing on Indian wickets, which if you're brought up on them, are very easy to play on. They offer very little to the seam bowlers, making opening the batting easier than in any other country. If he manages to carry his recent form all around the world then he could end as a class player, but at the minute he's just a good opening batsman who's average has been inflated by playing alot of games in the subcontinent.



Fixed.

Going by that logic, is Sehwag > Ponting since he is loads better than Ricky in the subcontinent?

Laughable.

I am not saying that Sehwag is a legend. Just that your logic is flawed.

 

[King Cricket]

I don't think triple hundreds are enough to rate a batsman. Jack Hobbs never made a triple hundred in Test cricket, but is regarded by many as as good a batsman as Bradman was. You're not going to tell me Sehwag's better than Hobbs because of those triple tons are you? I presume not, therefore it's not a good enough point to count against Hayden.

Personally I think Sehwag's over-rated by Indians, and don't think he's as good as Hayden was. I don't think he's good enough to average 50, although he has been very impressive in the past year. His average will always be inflated due to playing on Indian wickets, which if you're brought up on them, are very easy to play on. They offer very little to the seam bowlers, making opening the batting easier than in any other country. If he manages to carry his recent form all around the world then he could end as a class player, but at the minute he's just a good opening batsman who's average has been inflated by playing alot of games in the subcontinent.



Fixed.

Dan, I think not a single Indian here thinks that Sehwag is equal to Jack Hobbs or Bradman or he is greater than Matthew Hayden. (Of course I am not counting the people in the lunactic asylums) But don't you think rating a complete newby of test cricket above a player who basically ruled the test cricket of '70's and player who has scored two triples and averages 50+ and is the highest run getter of 2008 is too much? He even thinks Hughes is equal to Sachin Tendulkar! Don't you think this is way too much?? His logic is that Hughes performed well against the Proteas in his debut series, who have the most lethal bowling attack right now. But so has Sehwag, so has Gavaskar, they have performes 100 times better than Hughes- don't you think it's really really too much? What will you feel like if someone rates Md Asharaful above Sir Jack Hobbs? I am feeling the same. It is these type of ridiculous posts that make me lose my temper.

 

[Highlander999]

Dan, I think not a single Indian here thinks that Sehwag is equal to Jack Hobbs or Bradman or he is greater than Matthew Hayden. (Of course I am not counting the people in the lunactic asylums) But don't you think rating a complete newby of test cricket above a player who basically ruled the test cricket of '70's and player who has scored two triples and averages 50+ and is the highest run getter of 2008 is too much? He even thinks Hughes is equal to Sachin Tendulkar! Don't you think this is way too much?? His logic is that Hughes performed well against the Proteas in his debut series, who have the most lethal bowling attack right now. But so has Sehwag, so has Gavaskar, they have performes 100 times better than Hughes- don't you think it's really really too much? What will you feel like if someone rates Md Asharaful above Sir Jack Hobbs? I am feeling the same. It is these type of ridiculous posts that make me lose my temper.

If someone is trolling somewhere, coming out with deliberately inflamotary statements about players, intent on winding people up, instead of "losing your temper" just report it. It is an internet forum at the end of the day, it's not worth getting worked up about.

 

[metallics2006]

Dan, I think not a single Indian here thinks that Sehwag is equal to Jack Hobbs or Bradman or he is greater than Matthew Hayden. (Of course I am not counting the people in the lunactic asylums) But don't you think rating a complete newby of test cricket above a player who basically ruled the test cricket of '70's and player who has scored two triples and averages 50+ and is the highest run getter of 2008 is too much? He even thinks Hughes is equal to Sachin Tendulkar! Don't you think this is way too much?? His logic is that Hughes performed well against the Proteas in his debut series, who have the most lethal bowling attack right now. But so has Sehwag, so has Gavaskar, they have performes 100 times better than Hughes- don't you think it's really really too much? What will you feel like if someone rates Md Asharaful above Sir Jack Hobbs? I am feeling the same. It is these type of ridiculous posts that make me lose my temper.

Ever heard of a thing called "joke". They make your heart better and a person healthy you know. Dont get it? Humans generally do this when they hear/see it:

:laugh

 

[King Pietersen]

Going by that logic, is Sehwag > Ponting since he is loads better than Ricky in the subcontinent?

Laughable.

I am not saying that Sehwag is a legend. Just that your logic is flawed.

No, you've not read my post. My point was that runs in the subcontinent generally count for less than runs outside. Not that subcontinental runs are better than runs in South Africa, Australia etc. That's my main gripe with Sehwag, his average drops to 42 outside Asia with a terrible record in New Zealand and South Africa and with only 4 of his 15 Test Hundreds. Then in result matches his record is even worse. Taking his runs in draws out, he averages 30 with only 1 hundred.

Think you may have misread my post.

 

[Leggie]

Personally I think Sehwag's over-rated by Indians, and don't think he's as good as Hayden was. I don't think he's good enough to average 50, although he has been very impressive in the past year. His average will always be inflated due to playing on Indian wickets, which if you're brought up on them, are very easy to play on. They offer very little to the seam bowlers, making opening the batting easier than in any other country. If he manages to carry his recent form all around the world then he could end as a class player, but at the minute he's just a good opening batsman who's average has been inflated by playing alot of games in the subcontinent.



Fixed.

Well you're obviously going to bat well on pitches you've grown up on. Sehwag can't help being Indian. Ricky Ponting averages 60 at home because he's grown up playing on Australian pitches. Your argument of Sehwags average being inflated due to him playing on Indian wickets is also weird because Sehwag averages 50 away from India. In fact he averages higher than Ponting and Hayden away from home. Also if Indian wickets are so 'helpless' to seam bowlers, how come Zaheer owned Hayden and Ishant owned Ponting in the last Test Series?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Sehwag is better than Hayden or Ponting, just wanted to make a point regarding Indian pitches.

 

[aus_maestro]

Underrated or overrated, I'd have him opening for us

 

[metallics2006]

No, you've not read my post. My point was that runs in the subcontinent generally count for less than runs outside. Not that subcontinental runs are better than runs in South Africa, Australia etc. That's my main gripe with Sehwag, his average drops to 42 outside Asia with a terrible record in New Zealand and South Africa and with only 4 of his 15 Test Hundreds. Then in result matches his record is even worse. Taking his runs in draws out, he averages 30 with only 1 hundred.

Think you may have misread my post.

You dont have to be bowled out twice to be dismissed in the sub-continent iirc. You can get a scorching yorker at 150 Mph anywhere in the world to be dismissed. If anything, I think its the bowlers' inability to get his wicket. A drop from 50 to 42 is not too bad. There is something called home-advantage in sports for a reason. Almost every player's average will drop on away tours.

metallics2006 added 4 Minutes and 35 Seconds later...

He had a problem in the past with deliveries coming in to his body. Looks like he has worked on his leg-side play with a little help from Kirsten in the batting nets. So, he is beginning to remove the weaknesses in his batting that he used to have 5 years back. That is a sign of improvement and I feel he can be even better than the batsman that he currently is.

 

[King Pietersen]

It's the same for Sehwag adjusting to foreign conditions as it is for Hayden adjusting to Asian conditions. Yet Hayden averages 50 in Asia, compared with Sehwag who averages 42 outside Asia. Then in result matches, Hayden averages 51 in Asia, compared to Sehwag who averages 30 outside Asia. Hayden has 3 more hundreds as well. Also, if you take out the minnow, Bangladesh, Hayden averages 53 in Asia. Hayden adjusts to foreign conditions better than Sehwag does.

 

[King Cricket]

^I think we are not discussing "Hayden vs Sehwag" here. It's pretty funny that the main thread is dead, but this topic comes over and over again in the forums.

 

[sohum]

It's the same for Sehwag adjusting to foreign conditions as it is for Hayden adjusting to Asian conditions. Yet Hayden averages 50 in Asia, compared with Sehwag who averages 42 outside Asia. Then in result matches, Hayden averages 51 in Asia, compared to Sehwag who averages 30 outside Asia. Hayden has 3 more hundreds as well. Also, if you take out the minnow, Bangladesh, Hayden averages 53 in Asia. Hayden adjusts to foreign conditions better than Sehwag does.

You are contradicting yourself all over the place. Don't you think a 9-run per inning differential that Hayden enjoys is enough to be satisfied by your condition that Asian pitches are easier to bat on? Surely they must be 9-runs easier than non-Asian conditions. Secondly, I don't know why Asia is being used as the basis of your dichotomy of Hayden and Sehwag. Thirdly, results are really something that is determined by the performance of the bowlers as much as it is by the quality of the pitch on offer. For example, in Sehwag's first triple century on the flat track of Multan, the bowlers still had enough punch in them to take 20 wickets. You can't hold it against Sehwag if his bowlers did not have the fight to grab 20 wickets.

 

[metallics2006]

It's the same for Sehwag adjusting to foreign conditions as it is for Hayden adjusting to Asian conditions. Yet Hayden averages 50 in Asia, compared with Sehwag who averages 42 outside Asia. Then in result matches, Hayden averages 51 in Asia, compared to Sehwag who averages 30 outside Asia. Hayden has 3 more hundreds as well. Also, if you take out the minnow, Bangladesh, Hayden averages 53 in Asia. Hayden adjusts to foreign conditions better than Sehwag does.

Okay, Hayden adapts to foriegn conditions better. Thats one aspect of batting. Batting is an art which has much more to it than just adapting to conditions. How does it make him inferior to Hayden when we are speaking about batting as a whole?

 

[sohum]

Okay, Hayden adapts to foriegn conditions better. Thats one aspect of batting. Batting is an art which has much more to it than just adapting to conditions. How does it make him inferior to Hayden when we are speaking about batting as a whole?

Moreover, how does Hayden being better than Sehwag have anything to do with Sehwag being under or overrated? Last I checked Test cricket could have more than one good batsman, hence both Hayden and Sehwag can be good batsmen and not overrated, without taking into consideration any judgment calls as to who is better than whom.

 

[metallics2006]

Moreover, how does Hayden being better than Sehwag have anything to do with Sehwag being under or overrated? Last I checked Test cricket could have more than one good batsman, hence both Hayden and Sehwag can be good batsmen and not overrated, without taking into consideration any judgment calls as to who is better than whom.

Indeed................