Virender Sehwag- Overrated? Underrated?

[sohum]

Ben, this thread is about Sehwag and I saw you mention Sehwag once in that post. I am tempted to delete it but will let it go because it is a good post. However, that line of discussion stops here. It seems any discussion about Sehwag is henceforth uninteresting so I will monitor this thread over the next couple of days and if it is mostly OT, it will be closed.

 

[King Cricket]

Gavaskar scored 22 hundreds (out of 34) in drawn matches whilst Hayden scored 23 hundreds in won matches (out of 30)

Tell me one thing Ben, do hundreds mean eveything? Then why are you guys calling Sir Jack Hobbs a legend? He could manage just 15 hundreds in his entire career with just 7 (less than 50%) in won matches.

 

[Slowcoach]

What is Sehwag's "rating" btw?

How do I know if he is underrated or overrated if I do not know his rating?

I do not believe in statistics, so can we please use Battrick ratings instead?

For example, your arguments are Feeble, and your opinions are Worthless.

Ok, I will get serious now, Sehwag is the equal of Hayden. They are both fat, both bald, and are both totally useless on seaming pitches.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Tell me one thing Ben, do hundreds mean eveything? Then why are you guys calling Sir Jack Hobbs a legend? He could manage just 15 hundreds in his entire career with just 7 (less than 50%) in won matches.

Do hundreds mean everything? Yes they do. They define how great a batsman is. How often a batsman scores 100's is a better indication of how good they are instead of how high their average is because it takes less emphasis on how flat the pitches are and how much easier it is for the batsman to cash-in once they have gotten their eye.

Your crack at Jack Hobbs is quite irrelevant aswell. His scored the most first-class hundreds in the history of the game and you are saying he "just managed" 15 hundreds in his entire career, despite only playing 60 odd Tests.

 

[Highlander999]

How often a batsman scores 100's is a better indication of how good they are instead of how high their average is because it takes less emphasis on how flat the pitches are and how much easier it is for the batsman to cash-in once they have gotten their eye.

Maybe a batsman scored lots of 100's on a flat pitch. The same rule still applies, you need to score runs.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Maybe a batsman scored lots of 100's on a flat pitch. The same rule still applies, you need to score runs.

But it's harder to go from 0 to 100 on a consistant basis then it is to go from 100 to 200 on a flat deck.

 

[King Pietersen]

I really hope you've worded that wrong/I've read it wrong because if that was the case, how come Ponting's the only one of the Aussie batting line-up to have a double ton to his name? None of Katich, Clarke, Hussey, Hughes, North, Haddin or Watson have one, and Hayden only converted 2 of his 30 hundreds into Doubles, heck, Tendulkar's only made 4 Test Doubles from 42 Hundreds.

 

[aussie_ben91]

I really hope you've worded that wrong/I've read it wrong because if that was the case, how come Ponting's the only one of the Aussie batting line-up to have a double ton to his name? None of Katich, Clarke, Hussey, Hughes, North, Haddin or Watson have one, and Hayden only converted 2 of his 30 hundreds into Doubles, heck, Tendulkar's only made 4 Test Doubles from 42 Hundreds.

Maybe because they are all middle-lower order batsman?

I doubt many of them have batted on pitches like this...

Cricinfo - 1st Test: Pakistan v India at Lahore, Jan 13-17, 2006

 

[King Pietersen]

So I did read it right, you believe that it's easier to go from 100-200 and beyond than to go from 0-100 on flat pitches? =/

Ponting bats at 3 but only has 4 Test doubles, Tendulkar bats at 4 and only has 4, Hayden only converted 2 of his 30 hundreds into doubles. Surely with the amount of hundreds between them they've batted on quite a few flat tracks, and considering they're 3 of the greats of the era, they only have 10 Double Hundreds between them. Can't say I agree with your point tbh.

 

[aussie_ben91]

So you think it's easier to be batting at the crease when you are in singles figures then it is when you are on triple figures? True spoken words of a tailender.

 

[King Pietersen]

Well obviously batting on single figures is difficult, trust me, I know what batting in single figures is like , but the stats prove your theory wrong. Clearly making hundreds is difficult, but even 3 of the greatest players this era has seen have only made 10 Doubles between them. If the pitch is flat then it shouldn't be that difficult to get going, once you get passed 10 and the nerves start to fade it should be easy, and the challenges seen going from 0-100 are different to those seen going from 100-200+.

 

[aussie_ben91]

How many double centuries has Sehwag made outside the subcontient though?

 

[sohum]

But it's harder to go from 0 to 100 on a consistant basis then it is to go from 100 to 200 on a flat deck.

No, it's not. Which is why most 100's don't result in a 200. In fact, this is why Sehwag's record is impressive because his last 11 hundreds have all been 150+. It is easy to lose concentration in the middle of a long innings.

sohum added 1 Minutes and 55 Seconds later...

So you think it's easier to be batting at the crease when you are in singles figures then it is when you are on triple figures? True spoken words of a tailender.

Well, you have to keep in mind that once you reach a 100, the field is going to be spread out a lot more and hence you aren't going to be able to score as quickly. Unfortunately, the physical limits of the body require you to have a finite amount of energy, which means with all the energy you're putting in to concentrate hard as well as run between the wickets is eventually going to sap out. Which is why big hundreds are almost always rated highly, because you have to concentrate over such a longer period of time.

sohum added 21 Minutes and 35 Seconds later...

How many double centuries has Sehwag made outside the subcontient though?

0. But you know why your point is invalid? Let's look at Sehwag's 5 doubles:

319 v. South Africa: Flat track, but scored 319/627 = 51% of the runs (India was bowled out
309 v. Pakistan: Scored in a winning effort
254 v. Pakistan: Scored on a flat track with 5 other centurions in the match
201* v. Sri Lanka: Scored 201 of the 1026 runs scored in the game = about 20% of the runs scored in the whole match. Next highest score was 86... definitely not a flat track.
201 v. Pakistan: Scored on a flat pitch, but one where Pakistan won so obviously something in it for the bowlers

3/5 were decent efforts; 2/5 India won; 3/5 were not drawn

Since you are adamant in using Hayden to show whether Sehwag is overrated or underrated or correctly rated, let's look at Hayden's 2 doubles.

380 v. Zimbabwe: Nothing really needs to be said about this...
203 v. India: Quality knock when his team failed around him, similar to Sehwag's 201* v. Sri Lanka last year

1/2 were decent efforts; 2/2 Australia won; 2/2 were not drawn

And let's just take a look at Ponting for good measure:

257 v. India: Australia won, but worthwhile remember that the match featured a 195 from Sehwag and 136 from Hayden
242 v. India: Australia lost, and Dravid scored 233 and Laxman 148
207 v. Pakistan: Australia won courtesy of Warne, McGrath, MacGill; featured tons from Salman Butt (!!) and Gilly
206 v. West Indies: Flat track, featured 6 centurions

3/4 were decent efforts; 3/4 Australia won; 4/4 were not drawn

And finally, let's take a look at Rahul Dravid.

270 v. Pakistan: India won by an innings, next highest score in the match was 77 by Ganguly
233 v. Australia: Mentioned above
222 v. New Zealand: Flattish track, although only 2 other small centuries in the game, and India were 4 wickets away from victory
217 v. England: Flat track, albeit in England
200* v. Zimbabwe: It was Zimbabwe...

3/5 were decent efforts; 3/5 India won; 3/5 were not drawn

So Sehwag's scored all his 5 doubles in the subcontinent, Hayden has scored 1 in India and one in Australia, Ponting has scored 3 in Australia and 1 in West Indies and Dravid has scored 3 in the subcontinent, 1 in Australia and 1 in England. So...

Sehwag: 0 outside subcontinent
Hayden: 1 outside Australia
Ponting: 1 outside Australia
Dravid: 2 outside subcontinent

As conclusions, we can easily see that Ponting is the best in this group. Hayden simply hasn't scored enough doubles to be compared with the other three. And Australia's bowling can be attributed to creating victories in matches. For example, with the Dravid v. New Zealand, an Australian bowling attack would have been able to secure a victory in that game.

It is also worth noting that subcontinent does not equate with flat track. For example, some of the flatter tracks mentioned in the subset above were in the West Indies and England.

 

[Harrypotter_fan]

How many double centuries has Sehwag made outside the subcontient though?

How many double centuries has Hayden made outside the subcontient? One. That too in Australia (i.e. at home) against Zimbabwe.

Sehwag made 195 against Australia in Australia. He was 5 short of 200 though.

 

[sohum]

Finally, let's take a look at a few stats comparing Sehwag, Hayden, and Gavaskar.

Average 100s
Virender Sehwag: 199.28
Matthew Hayden: 146.14
Sunil Gavaskar: 177.85

Clearly, Gavaskar is the best of the 3 since he has sustained such a high average over more innings than either of the other 2. Hayden is in second place with a decent average and 30 centuries. But Sehwag's record is impressive. Whenever he scores a century, he is likely to double up! If Sehwag scored fifteen more centuries and all of them were 100 and out (nothing past 100), his average would be 147.93, which is still a run above Hayden's. The point I'm trying to bring here is that if the people who are overrating Sehwag now are actually right, they will have underrated him.

Century Throughput
Sehwag: 15 in 115 innings = 13%
Hayden: 30 in 184 innings = 16%
Gavaskar: 34 in 214 innings = 16%

I'd give this one to Hayden since SG was a tad under 16. Hayden's productivity is unquestionable and the number of centuries he's racked up in as many games as he has is admirable. Sehwag's inconsistency shows through with this statistic, which is one factor that over-raters think he has worked on over the last year or two. Only the next two seasons will really let us draw conclusions as to whether he is being overrated or not, since he seems to have hit his prime right about now.