Virender Sehwag- Overrated? Underrated?

[metallics2006]

Last time I checked, 69 > 47.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Last time I checked, 69 > 47.

The difference between 49 & 9 is greater then 69 & 47.

The statistic for South Africa is more relevant for Opening Batsman though, because problems occur for the batsman from ball 1 whilst in Sri Lanka, it's a matter of getting your eye in before Murali comes on.

 

[metallics2006]

Conditions in RSA are similar to conditions in Australia. Hayden being taller means that he can deal with the bounce in RSA better. African conditions are not new to Hayden as he plays on similar pitches in Australia.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Conditions in RSA are similar to conditions in Australia. Hayden being taller means that he can deal with the bounce in RSA better. African conditions are not new to Hayden as he plays on similar pitches in Australia.

Sehwag averaged 59 in Australia (supposedly better then Hayden :laugh), how come he can't come to grips with South African conditions?

 

[metallics2006]

Sehwag averaged 59 in Australia (supposedly better then Hayden :laugh), how come he can't come to grips with South African conditions?

Maybe because he has'nt played much matches there? Maybe because you filter stats to suit your arguements.....I dunno, take your pick.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Maybe because you filter stats to suit your arguements.....

Everyone filters statistics to suit their arguements - They do it to prove a point? The statistics I have filtered are very relevant to the arguement at hand. You just can't handle it because you've got nothing to say that can counteract what I'm saying.

 

[metallics2006]

Everyone filters statistics to suit their arguements - They do it to prove a point? The statistics I have filtered are very relevant to the arguement at hand. You just can't handle it because you've got nothing to say that can counteract what I'm saying.

And you ignore points. Like in this post. What about the not enough matches part?

 

[aussie_ben91]

And you ignore points. Like in this post. What about the not enough matches part?

His had 3 matches and failed in 5 innings. So much so that they dropped him down the order. 3 matches is plenty of time, for example, Sehwag averaged 68 in Sri Lanka from 3 matches, maybe that's only because he played 1 good innings and failed not out - we should wait til he plays more games, so his average will drop below 47. [/sarcasm]

There you go, I've sorted out your point for you. Happy?

Now, I know that someone is going to come along later on and point out that I should include Sehwag's statistics to my little assessment from earlier so I will. Even though, he cashed in one a second string Australian bowling lineup. But to continue to make the point even, I'll also add Hayden's statistics in India onto his arguement.

Virender Sehwag
Australia: 7 matches, 833 runs @ 59.50 - 2 hundreds
South Africa: 3 matches, 49 runs @ 9.80 - 0 hundreds
Sri Lanka: 3 matches, 344 runs @ 68.80 - 1 hundred
Overall: 13 matches, 1226 runs @ 51.08 - 3 hundreds

Matthew Hayden
India: 11 matches, 1027 runs @ 51.35 - 2 hundreds
South Africa: 6 matches, 540 runs @ 49.09 - 2 hundreds
Sri Lanka: 3 matches, 283 runs @ 47.16 - 1 hundred
Overall: 20 matches. 1850 runs @ 50.00 - 4 hundreds

Now before you get carried away, I'll go check the cumulative averages and check Hayden's statistics after 13 matches. Just to make the comparison perfectly even.

Cricinfo Statsguru - ML Hayden - Test matches - Batting analysis

After 13 matches, these are Hayden's statistics: 13 matches, 1385 runs @ 57.70 - 4 hundreds

= 57.70 > 51.08

Answer = Hayden > Sehwag

 

[Kshitiz_Indian]

His had 3 matches and failed in 5 innings. So much so that they dropped him down the order. 3 matches is plenty of time, for example, Sehwag averaged 68 in Sri Lanka from 3 matches, maybe that's only because he played 1 good innings and failed not out - we should wait til he plays more games, so his average will drop below 47. [/sarcasm]

There you go, I've sorted out your point for you. Happy?

Now, I know that someone is going to come along later on and point out that I should include Sehwag's statistics to my little assessment from earlier so I will. Even though, he cashed in one a second string Australian bowling lineup. But to continue to make the point even, I'll also add Hayden's statistics in India onto his arguement.

Virender Sehwag
Australia: 7 matches, 833 runs @ 59.50 - 2 hundreds
South Africa: 3 matches, 49 runs @ 9.80 - 0 hundreds
Sri Lanka: 3 matches, 344 runs @ 68.80 - 1 hundred
Overall: 13 matches, 1226 runs @ 51.08 - 3 hundreds

Matthew Hayden
India: 11 matches, 1027 runs @ 51.35 - 2 hundreds
South Africa: 6 matches, 540 runs @ 49.09 - 2 hundreds
Sri Lanka: 3 matches, 283 runs @ 47.16 - 1 hundred
Overall: 20 matches. 1850 runs @ 50.00 - 4 hundreds

Now before you get carried away, I'll go check the cumulative averages and check Hayden's statistics after 13 matches. Just to make the comparison perfectly even.

Cricinfo Statsguru - ML Hayden - Test matches - Batting analysis

After 13 matches, these are Hayden's statistics: 13 matches, 1385 runs @ 57.70 - 4 hundreds

= 57.70 > 51.08

Answer = Hayden > Sehwag

See, this is your problem. You're comparing two people of different times, of different matches played, of different experience. You can't just take Hayden's average in his first 13 matches to match with Sehwag's in his total 13 matches. Maybe Hayden had better form in his early matches (Those very stats show that) and Sehwag has had both periods in his 13 matches.

Statistical comparisons only hold good when the experience, the Cricketing age, are similar.

 

[aussie_ben91]

See, this is your problem. You're comparing two people of different times, of different matches played, of different experience. You can't just take Hayden's average in his first 13 matches to match with Sehwag's in his total 13 matches. Maybe Hayden had better form in his early matches (Those very stats show that) and Sehwag has had both periods in his 13 matches.

Statistical comparisons only hold good when the experience, the Cricketing age, are similar.

They played in the same era. That's why I only calculated between the periods where they were both playing in world cricket. This is a cricket forum, you can be compare anyone. But I will admit, comparing Sehwag to Hayden is stupid because Sehwag isn't and never will be close to Hayden as a batsman.

 

[srikarr12]

They played in the same era.

Last time I checked Sehwag debuted after Hayden almost 7 years later. Seven years for Hayden to settle into the international scene and already being compared to a player who is seven years behind.......

 

[aussie_ben91]

Last time I checked Sehwag debuted after Hayden almost 7 years later. Seven years for Hayden to settle into the international scene and already being compared to a player who is seven years behind.......

And in those 7 years Hayden has be rated the best batsman in the world whilst Sehwag hasn't.

 

[srikarr12]

And in those 7 years Hayden has be rated the best batsman in the world whilst Sehwag hasn't.

By being a flat track bully.....ripping through weak bowling attacks but failing against teams like South Africa and England.

 

[aussie_ben91]

By being a flat track bully.....ripping through weak bowling attacks but failing against teams like South Africa and England.

Yep, that pretty much sums up Virender Sehwag!

 

[manee]

This petulant arguing seems to be missing the truth which is obvious but neglected because it does not hold a polar view of Sehwag being either useless or great.

Sehwag struggles on seamer friendly pitches. He does not look at ease in South Africa, nor in New Zealand. This is a detriment to anyone stating that he is one of the best openers of all time. A great opener needs to contend with all conditions; perhaps difficult conditions moreso than others. Is this to say that Sehwag cannot bat on seamer friendly surfaces? No. In the recent series in New Zealand, he batted with ease and often dismissed himself with negligent strokeplay. The previous series in New Zealand (in 2002/3) was played on pitches not fit for international competition, so be weary when using such statistics.

To say that Sehwag boosts his statistics with scores in the subcontinent would be a reasonable thing to say. However, to say that subcontinent tracks are homogenous (the same) is misguided and ignorant. Sri Lankan pitches take turn and offer assistance to the seamers, despite being slow - they have been tailor made for Muralitharan (and Mendis, in the last series) to turn heavily and be extremely difficult to bat on. Sehwag's double century against Murali and Mendis on such a track was a magnificant accomplishment and proves that Sehwag is not a flat track bully. Calling him a subcontinent track 'bully' may be more accurate, but only when taking into account that Sehwag can tackle troubling tracks in the subcontinent with some proficience.

Is this to say that Sehwag cannot score runs outside the subcontinent? Again, no. Sehwag has a century in England, albeit on a flat track. He also has an 84 on a more result orientated track. Two flattish tracks, but for the purpose of proving that he can bat outside the subcontinent, they will do.

Hopefully, I have shown the medium ground which has been neglected, but I hold no doubt that my post will be used to portray one extreme or another by someone looking to disagree for the sake of disagreeing.