Virender Sehwag- Overrated? Underrated?

[King Cricket]

Do hundreds mean everything? Yes they do.

And three hundreds? Sehwag has two, against two of the world's toughest opponents. And Hayden has one, against the weakest team of test cricket. So.....

 

[aussie_ben91]

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.

This is my point exactly. "Century throughput" as you put it is one of the better ways to determine top-order batsman. Triple centuries don't win matches against quality opposition but hundreds do and averages can be misleading because of batsman scoring massive hundreds on flat wickets or against weak opposition.

And three hundreds? Sehwag has two, against two of the world's toughest opponents. And Hayden has one, against the weakest team of test cricket. So.....

The weakest team? You mean the team that had a pace bowler with over 200 Test wickets to his name at an average of under 30 - Heath Streak. When was the last time an Indian pace bowler averaged under 30 with the ball with over 200 wickets to his name?

 

[Slowcoach]

Ben, Indian pitches offer very little help to pace bowlers, Indian pace bowlers will always struggle to average under 30.

 

[nz0003]

Noone can demolish an attack like him

 

[Slowcoach]

The fact that Ben needs to put down all these other great batsman just shows they threaten his biased opinion about Hayden being the greatest.

I had a laugh when Ben said something along the lines of "and if Hayden had not got out for 47 with a silly shot he would have scored a ton".

That's like saying if Sehwag had not got out for 254 against Pakistan and there was no bad light or rain he would have scored 600 not out.

To be honest, Hayden is probably the best modern day opener when you take his ODI stats into account, but don't tell Ben I said that.

Yes, some of his runs were scored on flat pitches, and he is an obnoxious weed, but he was a very good batsman.

 

[sohum]

This is my point exactly. "Century throughput" as you put it is one of the better ways to determine top-order batsman. Triple centuries don't win matches against quality opposition but hundreds do and averages can be misleading because of batsman scoring massive hundreds on flat wickets or against weak opposition.

Well Sehwag's triple against Pakistan resulted in a victory. Which is to show that victories really depend on how the bowlers perform, something you continually ignore. Additionally, I showed a breakdown of Hayden's, Sehwag's, Ponting's and Dravid's doubles, which shows that all four of them are about even with regards to scoring their big tons on flat tracks or poor opposition versus not. I can do the same for all centuries if you wish.

 

[King Cricket]

The weakest team? You mean the team that had a pace bowler with over 200Test wickets to his name at an average of under 30 - Heath Streak. When was the last time an Indian pace bowler averaged under 30 with the ball with over 200 wickets to his name?

So you want to say Zimbabwe is a strong team? : Come on, Ben, stop posting this nonsense just to defame Indian players.

And BTW, if I leave out Glen McGrath (He's a pure legend), when was the last time an Australian pace bowler averaged under 30 with over 200 wickets to his name? Cricinfo says that "last time" was Jason Gillespie. If I remember correctly he was dropped in 2004 and never got picked since then. Our last time was Javagal Srinath, who retired in 2003. A year before Gillespie. Now say Srinath is over-rated and your Gillespie is the best fast fowler to have ever appeared in cricket. :
Another fact, only two English pacers I have seen playing average under 30 and has 200 wickets to their name- Darren Gough and Andy Caddick.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Well Sehwag's triple against Pakistan resulted in a victory. Which is to show that victories really depend on how the bowlers perform, something you continually ignore. Additionally, I showed a breakdown of Hayden's, Sehwag's, Ponting's and Dravid's doubles, which shows that all four of them are about even with regards to scoring their big tons on flat tracks or poor opposition versus not. I can do the same for all centuries if you wish.

How about 100's scored when under 1000 runs have been scored in the match?

So you want to say Zimbabwe is a strong team? Come on, Ben, stop posting this nonsense just to defame Indian players.

And BTW, if I leave out Glen McGrath (He's a pure legend), when was the last time an Australian pace bowler averaged under 30 with over 200 wickets to his name? Cricinfo says that "last time" was Jason Gillespie. If I remember correctly he was dropped in 2004 and never got picked since then. Our last time was Javagal Srinath, who retired in 2003. A year before Gillespie. Now say Srinath is over-rated and your Gillespie is the best fast fowler to have ever appeared in cricket.
Another fact, only two English pacers I have seen playing average under 30 and has 200 wickets to their name- Darren Gough and Andy Caddick.

No, but until just a few years ago, Zimbabwe was probably equally as strong as the West Indies & New Zealand of recent memory. They had Andy Flower (much better batsman then Sehwag), who averaged over 50 with the bat and is arguably the best batsmen to have ever kept wicket and Heath Streak who was probably as good as any bowler nowadays when he was at his peak. Obviously, after these two retired then Zimbabwe became minnows. The only true minnow to have played the game is Bangladesh because they've never produced a world-class cricketer. I fail to see why you would deduct statistics from matches where world-class players were playing.

Javagal averaged 30 not under 30. Gillespie played his last Test in 2006 where he scored a double-hundred? 2006 is three years from 2003, not one.

When was the last time an Australian pace bowler took over 200 Test wickets and averaged under 30? Here is the list...

Glenn McGrath - 563 wkts @ 21.64 (1993-2007)
Dennis Lillee - 355 wkts @ 23.92 (1971-1984)
Craig McDermott - 291 wkts @ 28.63 (1984-1996)
Jason Gillespie - 259 wkts @ 26.13 (1996-2006)
Graham McKenzie - 246 wkts @ 29.78 (1961-1971)
Ray Lindwall - 228 wkts @ 23.03 (1946-1960)
Merv Hughes - 212 wkts @ 28.38 (1985-1994)
Jeff Thomson - 200 wkts @ 28.00 (1972-1985)

 

[Precambrian]

Sehwag is overrated. Carbon Copy of Chris Gayle, who averages 40 in lesser conditions. Anyone who averages under 10, in two different countries which possesses bowler-friendly conditions cannot be rated one of the best.

Virender Sehwag as an Opening Batsman in New Zealand & South Africa:

		Mat	Inns	Runs	Ave
Overall		6	9	88	9.77
in SA		3	5	49	9.75
in NZ		3	4	39	9.80

Cricinfo Statsguru - V Sehwag - Test matches - Batting analysis

A big load of the choicest horse crap. Selective stats at the very best (or worst) there. What you conveniently forget is that for a considerable period of time, Sir Mathew the slayer of All evil in the World Hayden too had such delectable batting records. Proof as below.

Before that, some interesting coincidences, Both Sehwag and Hayden are born in the same month, and just 9 days seperate their dates of birth within the month. Both made debut at roughly the same age, 23. And both have an uncanny playing style (taking it to the opposition), and both are favorite internet x vs y discussion topics.

There ends that. Now to business, From the time he made his debut, ie 23, which was in 1994, till 2001 beginning, ie, when he was about 29, Sir Mathew Hayden averaged a royal looking 26.40 in Test Match Cricket. And his away average was an even more majestic looking Mendisque 13.67 in 5 test matches. Proof? Please refer the image below :

And for Sehwag? His first 7 years in Test cricket, he made the small matter of about 4100 runs @ 50.

Now, Ben was crapping about how poor Sehwag's record is in NZ. Yes, dude it is. But Sir Mathew also had an equally abysmal record in roughly the same no. of matches in NZ during the same period. As to his record in SA, you conveniently forget that Sehwag was a manufactured opener than an actual one, and was a specialist middle order batsman thrust into opening, and hence was not an early success. But his 100 batting at no. 5 should put end to all such stupid allegations of his lack of success in SA. Please refer to the above table for Hayden's howler of performances against NZ and SA, ironically the same opposition Ben unluckily chose.

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.

Another load of crap. How come runs in the subcontinent are "lesser" than runs scored elsewhere? Dude you have any idea of what you are talking out of? Maybe you would do well to remember the performances of your own idol Kev Pietersen in the subcontinent before you resort to such illogical and stupid arguments. FYI, in the recent past, the most bat friendly conditions are found to be Australia and not India.

As to your "main" gripe about Sehwag's average falling to 42, what is the particular logic of the said stat? And is 42 an abysmal average?? And those stats are primarily because of his performances in SA, NZ and Eng. NZ failure can be primarily attributed to the one series in 2002, when everybody struggled and the entire series pitches were farcical. Don't forget Hayden too has similar figures in the same countries.

I love how people put words into my mouth and how Matthew Hayden can't be compared to Sunil Gavaskar despite the fact that Gavaskar scored 22 hundreds (out of 34) in drawn matches whilst Hayden scored 23 hundreds in won matches (out of 30) and yet Hayden gets called a flat-track bully? But yet the epitome of a flattrack bully - Virender Sehwag is considered 'close' to Matthew Hayden.

Don't tell me this is happening. Hayden gets credit for what his bowlers did and Gavaskar suffers because his bowlers were ****? What has results of matches got to do with batting stats of players? Ridiculous.

It was a shame that Mark Taylor was ever made captain because had he not been captain that he would've dropped in the mid 1990's and Hayden would've gotten his chance to cement his spot in the Australian lineup. Hayden was shafted into world cricket against the best sides The West Indies & South Africa and despite that he outperformed Mark Taylor comprehensively. He made a century in Adelaide 1997 and would've made another one in Perth against Ambrose, Walsh & Bishop had he not thrown his wicket away in the second innings to Carl Hooper on 47. In someways Mark Taylor's captaincy was probably a blessing in disguise because it filled Hayden's hunger to score 30 hundreds in just 94 Tests.

Lol, What? Mark Taylor "made" the invincible Australians of the early 2000s. He is easily the best captain for Australia since Ian Chappell in the 60s and 70s. Steve Waugh was lucky to reap the fruits of Taylor's and Border's labour, and Ponting enjoyed the leftovers to a good extent.

And as regards to your inane argument of "how Hayden's hunger was filled". Hayden made his comeback at the age of around 30+ which is considered to be the peak of batsmanship. He also benefitted from flat Australian surfaces as evidenced by his strong Home average. Had Sehwag been an Australian, he would be averaging in the mid to late 50s now, considering how he played in Australia.

Considering that Sehwag is only 30 now, and that Hayden made 80% of his runs only after 30, it can be safely assumed that by the time Sehwag is finished, Hayden would have been pushed into the deep realms of cricketing obscurity by the Delhi dasher.

 

[Cricketman]

I hate the bullcrap about subcontinent runs 'counting for less' than other places. It's just stupid is what it is. Sure, pitches in Pakistan are absolute roads, but Indian tracks aren't that bad. And before you guys spew crap, think of the conditions. Temperature's are high, usually around the 100 degree Fahrenheit mark, with Humidity in the 90s. Try playing 5 days of cricket in those conditions, we do it and do it well. Just because the pitches don't seam doesn't mean it's flat. They turn, and most 'non subcontinent' sides don't have a half assed spinner who could make use of the conditions, and our batsman feast on that. Thus, you guys have to make an excuse for the lack of success or quality by stating these random 'facts'.

It's like saying a fast bowlers wicket in England or Australia doesn't count as much as it does in India or Pakistan. You had your conditions, you made use of it, that's that. If you guys can't learn to cope with different places in the world and different conditions, it's not our problem.

 

[metallics2006]

The fact that Ben needs to put down all these other great batsman just shows they threaten his biased opinion about Hayden being the greatest.

I had a laugh when Ben said something along the lines of "and if Hayden had not got out for 47 with a silly shot he would have scored a ton".

That's like saying if Sehwag had not got out for 254 against Pakistan and there was no bad light or rain he would have scored 600 not out.

To be honest, Hayden is probably the best modern day opener when you take his ODI stats into account, but don't tell Ben I said that.

Yes, some of his runs were scored on flat pitches, and he is an obnoxious weed, but he was a very good batsman.

The ODI part is also debatable mate. Ganguly was a better opener in ODIs than Hayden.

http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cricket-chat/42165-another-one-those-vs-b-threads.html

 

[Precambrian]

To be honest, Hayden is probably the best modern day opener when you take his ODI stats into account, but don't tell Ben I said that.

Tendulkar wouldn't be too happy with that assertion.

 

[metallics2006]

Tendulkar wouldn't be too happy with that assertion.

...and Ganguly, Kirsten, Saeed Anwar, Graeme Smith, Greenidge etc.

 

[King Pietersen]

Sachin > Hayden > Everyone else

In terms of opening in an ODi.

 

[Cricketman]

Ganguly was better than Hayden. So was Saeed Anwar, Gary Kirsten...