Hayden Vs Sehwag

[mattfb]

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.

For an opening batsmen they are very good. Besides, the term "Great" gets thrown around more easy. There are probably 50 or more Greats in History of Cricket.

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).

No, but looking at the records of other batsmen it's generally the time. And going by the 08 that Sehwag had (1426 runs at an average of 56 featuring 3 hundreds [This includes 2 matches in Australia and another full series against Australia in India]. He is the second top run scorer this year only behind Smith.) he is also going through his peak right about now. (Also look at the other stats I showed before to see how good he has been in 06 and 05 too.)

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.

Sehwag has played in Australia through a period of time. 2004 series against Australia where, correct me if I'm wrong, he scored a double ton at the MCG (This series was Waughs last ever, so the Aussies wanted to win the series as well and to do that good is exceptional) and the recent 07/08 one. That's a gap of 3 - 4 years so it's a period of time. Hayden has played 3 series in India I believe, but he only dominated in 2, failing in the recent tour there.

I think Hayden is better, like everyone knows but I disagree with this post a fair bit. I can't believe I defended Sehwag that much just then!

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

I think Hayden is better, like everyone knows but I disagree with this post a fair bit. I can't believe I defended Sehwag that much just then!

Good post mate.
And not because I think Sehwag is better.

 

[Cricketdude]

For an opening batsmen they are very good. Besides, the term "Great" gets thrown around more easy. There are probably 50 or more Greats in History of Cricket.



No, but looking at the records of other batsmen it's generally the time. And going by the 08 that Sehwag had (1426 runs at an average of 56 featuring 3 hundreds [This includes 2 matches in Australia and another full series against Australia in India]. He is the second top run scorer this year only behind Smith.) he is also going through his peak right about now. (Also look at the other stats I showed before to see how good he has been in 06 and 05 too.)



Sehwag has played in Australia through a period of time. 2004 series against Australia where, correct me if I'm wrong, he scored a double ton at the MCG (This series was Waughs last ever, so the Aussies wanted to win the series as well and to do that good is exceptional) and the recent 07/08 one. That's a gap of 3 - 4 years so it's a period of time. Hayden has played 3 series in India I believe, but he only dominated in 2, failing in the recent tour there.

I think Hayden is better, like everyone knows but I disagree with this post a fair bit. I can't believe I defended Sehwag that much just then!

In the 04 series he scored that exceptional 195 but his other scores couldn't back it up. Shows he's consistency really. Sehwag has had a good year lets see if he can back it up again this year.

 

[mattfb]

Well, like I said before, his 04, 05 and 06 were all great years scoring over 700 runs each calender year and average 60 in 04 and 05. In 07 he only played 1 match though which I would imagine was because of injury?

Anyway, Sehwag played 4 matches and 8 innings in that 03/04 tour here, and he was the 4th top scorer overall. If we minus his 195 he still scored 270 runs and would have been the 10th top scorer. But you have to remember he was only young and developing then, and was up against the batting likes of Ponting, Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar, Ganguly, Langer, Hayden, Waugh and Martyn so 10th would have been a fair effort. But also, why would we minus that 195? It's a great innings and theres no reason to take it off, so to finish 4th in a list like that is phenomenal.

He was consistent in that tour as well anyway. Like I said, if we take off that 195, it leaves him with 270 runs from 7 innings, which is an average of 38. He did that against the likes of Gillespie, MacGill, Bichel, Lee and Williams. Before you jump at me saying that's inexperienced, I'll tell you what, after reading Punters first diary not long ago (Which this tour was in) they all played extremely important roles in our success that year.

Later that year, when we toured there he had the 3rd best average and the 3rd most runs in that series with 299 runs @ 42 (I've ignored Agarkars efforts who is top of averages because of playing only 2 innings, one a 44*). Check out this: In the second test where he scored his huge ton (155), the rest of the team only score a combined 221 one, thanks to late digs by Kaif (64) and Patel (54). Australia only managed 235 in the first innings of the match on that pitch too. India won comfortably thanks to his innings.

But that shows how good he really is. If you want to claim the bowling line-up when he played in Australia was weak, well he was India's top scorer when we toured there in 04, and he scored his runs against the intimidating line-up of McGrath, Gillespie, Kasprowic and Warne. One of our best combination's since a while.

Remember, all that was in 2004 as well which shows how consistent he has been over the past 4 years. He's scored over 1000 runs in a calender year twice since 2004, and the other 2 times over 700 (Excluding 2007.)

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

As for the consistency element, I really wonder if any player who has an average of 50 can be considered inconsistent. As for ups and downs, everyone has them.

 

[Chetan0304]

The poll speaks for itself, Hayden's winning.

The poll speaks for itself, Sehwag's winning. [/QUOTE]

 

[sohum]

In 07 he only played 1 match though which I would imagine was because of injury?

Nope, he was unceremoniously dropped from the Test squad because he wasn't performing in ODI's. In fact, those statistics you bring up show very conclusively why the Indian selectors were dimwits!

sohum added 10 Minutes and 34 Seconds later...

As for the consistency element, I really wonder if any player who has an average of 50 can be considered inconsistent. As for ups and downs, everyone has them.

They can. Consistency is about variance, I feel, or how much a player's score differs from their average. Take Player A and B, below, with a hypothetical 10 inning spread:

Player A: 130, 5, 10, 0, 200, 25, 0, 55, 110, 0; Average: 53.5
Player B: 55, 45, 0, 150, 35, 65, 60, 0, 120, 5; Average: 53.5

Variance: SquareRoot(Sum((Inn_X - Average)^2))
Player A Variance: 210
Player B Variance: 150

These numbers don't mean much without a unit, but what it shows is that despite having the same average of over 50, Player B is almost 50% more consistent than Player A. Sehwag is more of a Player A, where he scores big when he gets a start, whereas Hayden is more of a Player B, who gets a lot of starts but doesn't score huge tons.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

They can. Consistency is about variance, I feel, or how much a player's score differs from their average. Take Player A and B, below, with a hypothetical 10 inning spread:

Player A: 130, 5, 10, 0, 200, 25, 0, 55, 110, 0; Average: 53.5
Player B: 55, 45, 0, 150, 35, 65, 60, 0, 120, 5; Average: 53.5

Variance: SquareRoot(Sum((Inn_X - Average)^2))
Player A Variance: 210
Player B Variance: 150

These numbers don't mean much without a unit, but what it shows is that despite having the same average of over 50, Player B is almost 50% more consistent than Player A. Sehwag is more of a Player A, where he scores big when he gets a start, whereas Hayden is more of a Player B, who gets a lot of starts but doesn't score huge tons.

Good analysis. Technically you're are indeed correct there, and the stats you provide are indeed possible. I concede that an average can indeed be misleading.

However, if consistency is to be a measure of a player's worth, then that logic might not be applicable as it is. First, the difference between Player A and B will surely be much less as they play more games. Also, I guess you are arguing against a fundamental premise of the way consistency is usually judged, at least in cricket. You are setting a benchmark average of sorts, then looking at the runs scored each innings, instead of concluding it by averaging the different scores at the end to judge the player's worth in terms of consistency. Even if player A keeps scoring a double and two hundreds between three ducks, he might still be judged to more consistent or at least more valuable after say about hundred matches.

Alas, maybe with Player A getting three ducks every ten innings, one might have to consider the context of the innings.

 

[aussie_ben91]

This thread and poll tally is an embarrassment to the cricketing knowledge of the entire forum. Quite frankly, it's not suprising that it has been produced by a complete goose who wouldn't know cricket if it came up and slapped him in the face. Virender Sehwag doesn't even deserve the honour of being mentioned in the same breathe as Matthew Hayden, let alone be compared to him. Sehwag isn't even 2nd best opener of the modern era, Graeme Smith is. Matthew Hayden is miles ahead of both of them.

Has Virender Sehwag EVER been ranked the BEST batsman in the ENTIRE world? Never, not even once. Graeme Smith hasn't either. Hayden was ranked the BEST batsman in the world for the majority of 2002-2004, ahead of the likes of Tendulkar, Ponting, Lara, Dravid and Kallis. Hayden was the 2nd fastest to reach 20 Test Hundreds in least ammount of matches played (behind only Bradman) and is the quickest to reach 30 Test Hundreds in the history of the game. Hundreds is what makes a player great and Hayden is much more prolific then Sehwag, despite Sehwag playing on slowish wickets, which favour Opening batsman.

How many centuries has Sehwag scored in Indian victories? Better yet, how many centuries has Sehwag scored in drawn matches? Sehwag is the batsman that has benefitted most out of heavier bats, smaller boundaries and a lack of quality bowling in the last decade. You can't use the excuse that he had the worst bowling attack of all-time either, especially when the 3rd leading wicket-taker of alltime played in the same team as him. Indian pitches are boring and predictable and are only challenging to those outside the subcontient whilst the pitches and conditions in Australia provide the largest variety in world cricket. Perth and Brisbane are arguably 2 of the most difficult pitches to open the batting in the entire world. Don't believe me? Just ask anyone that's opened there. Hayden has excelled at both venues.

You want to compare Sehwag with another Opening Batsman then compare him with Chris Gayle. I mean afterall, they both just stand flat-footed and slog. What's to say that if Gayle wouldn't average over 50 if he played in a stronger team and on pitches that consistantly produces a combination of over 1,000 runs in the first 2 innings of a Test Match? Gayle does have a triple-hundred to his name, remember?

Hayden is one of, if not possibly the greatest Opening batsman to have ever played the game. His average might not be as high as Gavaskar, Hobbs, Sutcliffe or Hutton, but that's only because his played more matches then all of them, barring Gavaskar. He still averages over 50. He has the 3rd highest converison rate in the history of the game when it comes to Tests played/Hundreds scored, only behind Sir Donald Bradman and Clive Walcott and he played over twice as many games as what Walcott did. If I was picking a World XI then I'd want an Opening Batsman that scores 100's and there has been no better Opening Batsman then Hayden when it comes to constantly scoring 100's.

 

[Highlander999]

Trouble's back

 

[mattfb]

See how good it is to have Ben back. It has been ageeesss since we have seen such quality posts like that. He has put his point across and supplied facts he believes proves Hayden is the best.

 

[Harrypotter_fan]

Ben brings up an interesting point. He says that Australian pitches are harder to bat on and Hayden has played better there. The stats say that Sehwag has an average of 59.50 in Australia while Hayden's average is 57.88. Contradicts your point Ben, eh?

As for Brisbane and WACA, Sehwag has just played 2 matches there while Hayden has played 12. So you can't really consider Sehwag's average here to compare.

The rest of your post is personal opinion. I mean "Hundreds is what makes a player", "Hayden was top ranked so he is better", "Hayden is the best opener", etc.

I'll give you the point about the conversion rate being high but in my opinion an opener's top job is to give a good start and secondary is to convert it into a hundred.

I'm not saying Sehwag is better, I feel both players are good enough.

 

[King Pietersen]

No, it doesn't contradict his point, as Sehwag only played 7 games in Australia, compared with Hayden's 56, obviously Sehwag's average is going to be enhanced somewhat. I'd bet that if Sehwag played 56 games in Australia he'd not average over 50. Ben's completely spot on, apart from the bit about Hayden being the greatest opener ever, but we won't go into that here. Hayden was a far better player than Sehwag will ever be, and it's ludicrous that 21 people on this forum picked Sehwag ahead of him.

I think a fairer comparison between the 2 is after 50 games a piece. Lets have a look at the stats:

Hayden: 4488 runs, high score of 380, average of 58.28 with 17 hundreds

Sehwag: 4103 runs, high score of 309, average of 51.28 with 12 hundreds

Hayden > Sehwag.

 

[Harrypotter_fan]

And how exactly are you predicting what Sehwag's average would be if he played 56 matches in Australia?

EDIT: Why compare after 50 games? Why not just compare the career stats?

 

[aussie_ben91]

Not really. All he did was post in Cricket Chat and get into arguments with everyone, many of which he lost, and be rude and racist to everyone who disagreed...


And why are people so offended when someone calls Sehwag/Hayden a flat track bully. They both are!!

Stop trying to talk yourself up and promote yourself. You didn't win one arguement against me so it's not like you are talking from experience.

If Hayden's a flat-track bully then why would one of the great fights in difficult conditions - Steve Waugh say this?

Steve Waugh, former Australia captain
The great thing about Matthew Hayden was that he redefined what an opening batsman was. He changed the face of Test-match batting for ever. His real legacy will be changing the way cricket was played. He always tried to dominate and went after the opening bowlers in the first session.

He was so good it was sometimes embarrassing to bat at the other end. Once, when he got a century on a difficult pitch in Johannesburg [in 2002], I told him: "Mate, you are so good this is embarrassing."

Cricinfo - 'He changed the face of batting for ever'

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.

Hayden dominates Sehwag in any form of cricket.

Why would you discount stats against Zimbabwe anyway? Forgotten about oh, I dunno, Heath Streak? Averaged 28 in Test Cricket with over 200 wickets. Also had Ray Price & Andy Blignaut who averaged in the mid 30's. Compare this to the West Indies bowlers who have Jerome Taylor who averages 35, Bravo 38, Fidel 38, Gayle 40, Powell 45.

Considering that India currently doesn't have a regular bowler that averages under 30 in Tests, I see no need to discount statistics against Zimbabwe.

Ben brings up an interesting point. He says that Australian pitches are harder to bat on and Hayden has played better there. The stats say that Sehwag has an average of 59.50 in Australia while Hayden's average is 57.88. Contradicts your point Ben, eh?

Highly doubt Sehwag would maintain that average if he played as many matches as Hayden. Sehwag scored most of his runs against Australia in the 2003/04 when Australia's bowling was at it's weakest for the last decade.