Hayden Vs Sehwag

[Harrypotter_fan]

I would twist your last point and say that Hayden scored his runs when the opposition had attacks half as good as Australia's.

EDIT: I can sense a huge Ben tantrum coming.

 

[King Pietersen]

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

Because Hayden played over 40 games more than Sehwag that's why. It's incredibly unfair to compare 2 players career stats when one of those players has played far more games, giving him far more chance for his average to decline. Comparing their stats after 50 games apiece is very fair.

As for Hayden not having to face the Aussie bowlers, true, but he did have to face the likes of Wasim, Waqar, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock (at his best), Shoaib (at his best), Muralitharan, Kumble. Those guys are far better than the guys currently knocking about in World cricket, especially the first 6 names.

 

[manee]

In my humble opinion, Hayden has had a more illustrious career throughout than Sehwag has at any point in his career. However, Sehwag appears to be finding prime form at this point in his career. I believe that Sehwag finding a par with Hayden with Tests is extremely unlikely but a slight possibility whereas I think it is likely that Sehwag will overtake Hayden as an ODI batsman, providing he can translate his current form overseas into South Africa, New Zealand and England especially. Sehwag is showing increased ability against bouncy pitches such as those in South Africa and New Zealand and England are providing more flat pitches than ever before, in ODI cricket.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Alright - first things first, Stats:

Viru has 54 games against sides not including Bangla, Zim and WI. He actually average .28 more than his career average against them - 51.34. Strike rate of 77.3, 13 hundreds and 15 fifties (Compared to a career haul of 15/18 respectively). 4775 runs.

In Hayden's first 54 games against the same opposition (ICC World XI discluded too BTW), he averaged 50.15, strike rate of 60.95, with 15 tons and 17 fifties. Highest of 203.

So Viru has averaged more and scored wayyy faster, whilst Hayden has more bigger scores, although his highest is lower than Viru's. This tends to indicate that Hayden is more prone to getting out early, but when he starts well he scores better. Viru has better starts, and higher highs it seems, but less middle ground. Also, if you want to take the argument that Hayden faced tougher bowlers, then his much lower Strike Rate and lower highest score makes up for it.

In the end, they are equal. Said it before, saying it again. They average the similar amount in all countries, played the same role, Hayden had a lower strike rate but better consistency, Viru higher strike rate and lower consistency. They've failed in the same places, and succeeded in the same. They are even. Equal. Enough said.


Christian Bale still rocks though. Never once seen him throw his wicket away to a poor shot.

 

[manee]

You're not including West Indies? For what reason would you do that?

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Cause Ben doesn't think they are good enough apparently. Mainly because he'd throw a tantrum if we included them and not Zimbabwe, because including Zimbabwe massively inflates Hayden's stats.

 

[King Pietersen]

Yeh, why ignore the stats against West Indies? In Hayden's first 54 games they had a pretty fantastic attack with the likes of Ambrose, Walsh and Bishop steaming in. Also, as Ben said, Zimbabwe didn't have a bad attack back in the day, with bowlers averaging less than the modern WI and Indian fast bowlers. Personally I think Hayden's comfortably better, played alot of his cricket in a far more difficult era and still dominated, and you can't argue with 30 Hundreds. He's a class batsman, Sehwag's a flat track bully/slogger. He's got the worst technique I've ever seen from a batsman to average over 50. Only 3 hundreds in wins as well, which is a pretty poor record, 9 hundreds in drawn games proves the flat track bully tag.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Did you count the fact that a lot of his hundreds in draws actually saved us from a losing position?

Or that he's won us more matches with blazing fifties that possibly any other player? He turns the matches in a session, that's what matters. He isn't one to dominate for long periods of time, although he has shown he can do that too.

And his strike rate, it's ridiculous. 77. In Test cricket. You need talent to be able to score that fast and still average 50. Imagine what he could do if he chose to be more cautious? But he doesn't. And that's what makes him unique. He isn't out to amass a lot of runs, he is there to shock the bowlers, get us to a flying start, and turn matches around.

So while Hayden dominates by piling on runs, Viru does it by blazing them. They both put fear into bowlers. They both are the same. Both will be remembered as legends in their countries. The stats show it as well! And if we are gonna compare them by bowlers and pitches face, we'll be here forever.

Just take it this way - they both average about the same. Hayden faced tougher times, fine, hence the lower strike rate. Viru has had it easier, so the higher strike rate. Take those out, take the overall stats I posted earlier, and they are equal. That's that.

 

[mukund_nadkarni]

This thread and poll tally is an embarrassment to the cricketing knowledge of the entire forum.

Look who is speaking!:

 

[King Cricket]

As Zorax says, both are equal. The only difference between them is that Haydos had a much more careful approach, whereas Veeru is completely careless. Veeru goes there to whack the bowlers, he cares the least for runs. He goes there to enjoy cricket in other words, whereas Haydos was a hardcore professional. This is the only and main difference between these two guys. Othereise they are totally equal.


King Cricket added 9 Minutes and 57 Seconds later...

And ben, one thing buddy, why make dead threads active? Making these type of threads active means more controversies, more rows, more throwing mud at each other etc etc.

 

[mattfb]

And ben, one thing buddy, why make dead threads active? Making these type of threads active means more controversies, more rows, more throwing mud at each other etc etc.

Because he wanted to discuss this maybe....

 

[jordox]

Hayden's the better bat.

The poll speaks for itself, Sehwag's winning.

[/QUOTE]

Because their are more indians on here than Australians. Most of the votes, give or take a few would just be because of someones nationality.

 

[aussie_ben91]

LOL, why on earth would you deduct Hayden's stats against the ICC World XI, Zorax? Doing so, totally contradicts any theory that Hayden is a minnow basher. Even if they were playing at 70% or 80% then they are still better then any other bowling attack over the past 15-20 years. Do you even remember how players that played for the World XI came out in the media and said that they wanted to thump Australia? Or the position that Hayden's career was in? He was under pressure to makes runs in that game and he delievered against the best bowlers in the world. Had he failed in that game then the media would've been pushing for his axing, especially following defeat in the Ashes.

If Sehwag had've chosen to play more cautiously then it really wouldn't of made much of a difference. He is a momemtum player and he doesn't move his feet. 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.

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.

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.

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?

And ben, one thing buddy, why make dead threads active? Making these type of threads active means more controversies, more rows, more throwing mud at each other etc etc.

Considering, it's the thread that I got targetted and banned from...

 

[srikarr12]

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.

Whats that gonna achieve? Do you want to put Pakistan in the minnow shelf like the WIndies?

 

[King Cricket]

I think I'm the only Indian to vote for Hayden. Anyway, that was before I checked his stats at cricinfo. But now that I've checked his stats, still I'll go for Haydos. Yeah, you guys may think that I'm maintaining a double standard- first going for Haydos, then saying they are both equal, then again saying Haydos. Well, yesterday I did a bit of research on these two players. One thing I must say- Haydos is much more consistent than Sehwag. Sehwag has risen to the big picture only last year- with that triple before the IPL. Before that, I mean after the 2007 WC where was he? He's one type of player, Haydos is another type of player. Hayden is aggresive- but Veeru is slam-bang. Nobody knows what he'll do in the next moment- he can get back to the pavillion for a duck, get out in 99 or can even score a 500. He's not the kind of player the captain would like to rely upon at times of danger. OK, yeah- he can turn a whole match upside down- like he did versus England- but he can get out for a duck as well. He also has the habit of throwing his wicket away- something like Victor Trumper used to do. Whereas Haydos was aggresive, he knew how to play biggies, but he also knew how to defend the ball. I'll still say they are equal- but Haydos is slightly ahead of Veeru. Both of them are class players. The only difference- Veeru is a megastar but Haydos is a legend. A perfect cricketer in other words. Veeru is not imperfect, he's superb as well- but Haydos was a completely different kind of guy. What's the difference between Chris Gayle and Sachin? Gayle's no 2, Sachi's no 20- Yes there is a difference, a big big difference which makes Sachin a legend and Gayle a superb cricketer but not legend. Veeru and Haydos are just like that.