Virender Sehwag- Overrated? Underrated?

[Harrypotter_fan]

I wasn't trying to humiliate you Ben, just showing your hatred (?) towards Sehwag. Seriously, whats your problem? What have you got against Sehwag? I've no problem with you quoting me in your sig, so theres your attempt to humiliate me failed! Its foolish to say Sehwag is a good batsman but its okay to compare Hughes with Tendulkar and Bradman?

 

[manee]

Hobbs never made a triple hundred in Test cricket, but is regarded by many as as good a batsman as Bradman was.

Who on earth says that Hobbs is even near Bradman?

 

[Highlander999]

I wasn't trying to humiliate you Ben, just showing your hatred (?) towards Sehwag. Seriously, whats your problem? What have you got against Sehwag? I've no problem with you quoting me in your sig, so theres your attempt to humiliate me failed! Its foolish to say Sehwag is a good batsman but its okay to compare Hughes with Tendulkar and Bradman?

I think Indian fans don't help the case. I try and stay as neutral as I can (except with Yuvraj ) and I do notice players like Sehwag get completely over-hyped by certain members. No denying he is a quality opening batsman though, but I think Ben is slightly winding you guys up with Hughes as to give certain people a bit of their own medicine

 

[King Pietersen]

Who on earth says that Hobbs is even near Bradman?

You'd be surprised. On the ESPN classic videos, all the guys that played with Hobbs and Bradman said that Hobbs was as talented as Bradman, but it was his mentality that stopped him going on and making the massive scores that Bradman was famed for. Hobbs was regarded as a true gentleman, and he admitted himself that once he got himself to a hundred he used to pick out a bowler who he felt had bowled well, and then would get himself out to allow someone else to bat.

I still don't think that Hobbs would have averaged 99 even if he had the bullish mentality of Bradman, but the cricketing experts/journalists/people that played with him certainly believed so.

As for the Sehwag discussion. I've made my points, and I stick by them, I'm not going to spam up this discussion further by comparing him with Hayden. I think Hayden's better, but opinion is very much split within the forums.

 

[Harrypotter_fan]

For God's sake, this isn't Sehwag vs. Hayden! :upray

 

[King Cricket]

Anyway, lots of fights, quarrels, throwing mud at each other, etc etc and more etcs. I'll now try to end all these quarrels by making my standpoint crystal clear to everybody. And I think most Indian/Aussies/English will agree with me.

The main source of problem is three players:

1. Philip Hughes
2. Virender Sehwag
3. Matthew Hayden

Some think they are over-rated, some think they are under-rated, some think they are legends, some think they are craps, some think they are Gods.
Here's what I think
------------------------------------------------------------------

Virender Sehwag- A pretty decent opening batsman. One of those players who will make your mind tension-free and happy if you watch him play. Can hit almost all the delivaries of cricket with equal fluency. This is his plus point. This is his minus point as well. He tries to hit every ball into the air. And many doubt his abilities outside the sub-continent in unfavourable conditions. India will play some away tours this year, let's see how he performs. But one thing is clear, he is not a legend (I don't know what will happen some years ago, but right now he's not a legend), neither is he a great of cricket. He is just a superb player, a player who knows how to enjoy the game and a player who knows how to hit the ball. He has not finished his career yet, so we can't judge him properly as yet. I'm saying again, he is not a Hayden, neither is he a Gilchrist- he is a Virender Sehwag, a guy who enjoys the game of cricket thoroughly. He might become a legend in the future, time will say, but right now I will not rate him above Hayden, Gilchrist or the other opening greats. He is not really over-rated, he is a superb player- that's it, but as of now- not a legend.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew Hayden- One of the best Australian openers to have ever graced cricket. Quite a genius. Dominated cricket till the last day of his career. Has won many lost matches for Australia single-handedly. Has the second highest score in test cricket with a 50+ test average. Considered by many to have been the most dangerous aussie batsman when the Australian team was at it's peak. A complete and perfect player in other words. I don't rate Sehwag above him. At his best he was a bit more dangerous as well as consistent than Sehwag. He's a legend. There is no doubt about it. Arguably the finest and the most aggressive/skillful opener of this decade (In the tests) But, rating him above Sunil Gavaskar will be a little bit too much. Jack Hobbs is a legend, so is Herbert Suctcliffe. But people will always choose Sir Jack between him and Sutcliffe. The thing is like this. I say, let the legends remain legends, why compare them and run into controversies? I respect and love Hayden, so does all the Indians. I repeat again, there can be no doubt he is one of the finest openers of cricket. But please be a bit logical and sensible when you are comparing him with another person. Just like comparing him with Sehwag makes no sense whatsoever, comparing him with Gavaskar is also not very logical.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Philip Hughes- Has just made his test debut. And has showed his class in his debut series. But right now it is too early to say anything about him. We will have to wait for another few years before comparing him with any great. Right now, rating him above Gary Kirsten, Sunil Gavaskar, Sehwag, Gilchrist, and Saeed Anwar is too much. There are a number of players who have faltered away/lost his form after making a beautiful debut. David Warner is the latest addition to this list. But he has talent, I don't deny it. He has loads of talent- but let us see how well he executes his talents in the international arena. The battle is tough, let's see how he tackles and handles things. Why not wait for some years before posting anything about him? Besides, waiting is the easiest thing in the world. Why don't we wait? If he performs, if he really plays better than Gavaskar then of course we'll rate him above SMG. But, right now, standing at 23/03/2009 I'll not rate him above all the decent openers of this decade.

-----------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope this puts a full-stop to our quarrels. As I have had enough or rows and controversies- I want the old PC back.

 

[metallics2006]

Talk about paying someone with his own coin.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, lots of fights, quarrels, throwing mud at each other, etc etc and more etcs. I'll now try to end all these quarrels by making my standpoint crystal clear to everybody. And I think most Indian/Aussies/English will agree with me.

The main source of problem is three players:

1. Philip Hughes
2. Virender Sehwag
3. Matthew Hayden

Some think they are over-rated, some think they are under-rated, some think they are legends, some think they are craps, some think they are Gods.
Here's what I think
------------------------------------------------------------------

Virender Sehwag- A pretty decent opening batsman. One of those players who will make your mind tension-free and happy if you watch him play. Can hit almost all the delivaries of cricket with equal fluency. This is his plus point. This is his minus point as well. He tries to hit every ball into the air. And many doubt his abilities outside the sub-continent in unfavourable conditions. India will play some away tours this year, let's see how he performs. But one thing is clear, he is not a legend (I don't know what will happen some years ago, but right now he's not a legend), neither is he a great of cricket. He is just a superb player, a player who knows how to enjoy the game and a player who knows how to hit the ball. He has not finished his career yet, so we can't judge him properly as yet. I'm saying again, he is not a Hayden, neither is he a Gilchrist- he is a Virender Sehwag, a guy who enjoys the game of cricket thoroughly. He might become a legend in the future, time will say, but right now I will not rate him above Hayden, Gilchrist or the other opening greats. He is not really over-rated, he is a superb player- that's it, but as of now- not a legend.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew Hayden- One of the best Australian openers to have ever graced cricket. Quite a genius. Dominated cricket till the last day of his career. Has won many lost matches for Australia single-handedly. Has the second highest score in test cricket with a 50+ test average. Considered by many to have been the most dangerous aussie batsman when the Australian team was at it's peak. A complete and perfect player in other words. I don't rate Sehwag above him. At his best he was a bit more dangerous as well as consistent than Sehwag. He's a legend. There is no doubt about it. Arguably the finest and the most aggressive/skillful opener of this decade (In the tests) But, rating him above Sunil Gavaskar will be a little bit too much. Jack Hobbs is a legend, so is Herbert Suctcliffe. But people will always choose Sir Jack between him and Sutcliffe. The thing is like this. I say, let the legends remain legends, why compare them and run into controversies? I respect and love Hayden, so does all the Indians. I repeat again, there can be no doubt he is one of the finest openers of cricket. But please be a bit logical and sensible when you are comparing him with another person. Just like comparing him with Sehwag makes no sense whatsoever, comparing him with Gavaskar is also not very logical.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Philip Hughes- Has just made his test debut. And has showed his class in his debut series. But right now it is too early to say anything about him. We will have to wait for another few years before comparing him with any great. Right now, rating him above Gary Kirsten, Sunil Gavaskar, Sehwag, Gilchrist, and Saeed Anwar is too much. There are a number of players who have faltered away/lost his form after making a beautiful debut. David Warner is the latest addition to this list. But he has talent, I don't deny it. He has loads of talent- but let us see how well he executes his talents in the international arena. The battle is tough, let's see how he tackles and handles things. Why not wait for some years before posting anything about him? Besides, waiting is the easiest thing in the world. Why don't we wait? If he performs, if he really plays better than Gavaskar then of course we'll rate him above SMG. But, right now, standing at 23/03/2009 I'll not rate him above all the decent openers of this decade.

-----------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope this puts a full-stop to our quarrels. As I have had enough or rows and controversies- I want the old PC back.

The only problem here is you inability to identify jokes.




That did'nt sound too good. Did it?:S

 

[mattfb]

Talk about paying someone with his own coin.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, lots of fights, quarrels, throwing mud at each other, etc etc and more etcs. I'll now try to end all these quarrels by making my standpoint crystal clear to everybody. And I think most Indian/Aussies/English will agree with me.

The main source of problem is three players:

1. Philip Hughes
2. Virender Sehwag
3. Matthew Hayden

Some think they are over-rated, some think they are under-rated, some think they are legends, some think they are craps, some think they are Gods.
Here's what I think
------------------------------------------------------------------

Virender Sehwag- A pretty decent opening batsman. One of those players who will make your mind tension-free and happy if you watch him play. Can hit almost all the delivaries of cricket with equal fluency. This is his plus point. This is his minus point as well. He tries to hit every ball into the air. And many doubt his abilities outside the sub-continent in unfavourable conditions. India will play some away tours this year, let's see how he performs. But one thing is clear, he is not a legend (I don't know what will happen some years ago, but right now he's not a legend), neither is he a great of cricket. He is just a superb player, a player who knows how to enjoy the game and a player who knows how to hit the ball. He has not finished his career yet, so we can't judge him properly as yet. I'm saying again, he is not a Hayden, neither is he a Gilchrist- he is a Virender Sehwag, a guy who enjoys the game of cricket thoroughly. He might become a legend in the future, time will say, but right now I will not rate him above Hayden, Gilchrist or the other opening greats. He is not really over-rated, he is a superb player- that's it, but as of now- not a legend.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Matthew Hayden- One of the best Australian openers to have ever graced cricket. Quite a genius. Dominated cricket till the last day of his career. Has won many lost matches for Australia single-handedly. Has the second highest score in test cricket with a 50+ test average. Considered by many to have been the most dangerous aussie batsman when the Australian team was at it's peak. A complete and perfect player in other words. I don't rate Sehwag above him. At his best he was a bit more dangerous as well as consistent than Sehwag. He's a legend. There is no doubt about it. Arguably the finest and the most aggressive/skillful opener of this decade (In the tests) But, rating him above Sunil Gavaskar will be a little bit too much. Jack Hobbs is a legend, so is Herbert Suctcliffe. But people will always choose Sir Jack between him and Sutcliffe. The thing is like this. I say, let the legends remain legends, why compare them and run into controversies? I respect and love Hayden, so does all the Indians. I repeat again, there can be no doubt he is one of the finest openers of cricket. But please be a bit logical and sensible when you are comparing him with another person. Just like comparing him with Sehwag makes no sense whatsoever, comparing him with Gavaskar is also not very logical.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Philip Hughes- Has just made his test debut. And has showed his class in his debut series. But right now it is too early to say anything about him. We will have to wait for another few years before comparing him with any great. Right now, rating him above Gary Kirsten, Sunil Gavaskar, Sehwag, Gilchrist, and Saeed Anwar is too much. There are a number of players who have faltered away/lost his form after making a beautiful debut. David Warner is the latest addition to this list. But he has talent, I don't deny it. He has loads of talent- but let us see how well he executes his talents in the international arena. The battle is tough, let's see how he tackles and handles things. Why not wait for some years before posting anything about him? Besides, waiting is the easiest thing in the world. Why don't we wait? If he performs, if he really plays better than Gavaskar then of course we'll rate him above SMG. But, right now, standing at 23/03/2009 I'll not rate him above all the decent openers of this decade.

-----------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope this puts a full-stop to our quarrels. As I have had enough or rows and controversies- I want the old PC back.

I'm going to be honest here. I've been reading your posts in reply to Ben with a huge smile on my face the last few weeks. Nearly every post you complain about Ben, but post something even more stupid. The "typical 1 year old post" comment is near the top. Your worse then Ben atm, because Ben doesn't complain about everyone else. That said, I don't actually think Ben is bad and I don't understand why everyone always tries to pay him out? He has serious skill in the way he picks certain stats to make players look bad, and others good lol.

Btw Ben, your in top form lately. You've got a brand new fanbase, or hatebase if you will, that are funniest to watch get angry and worked up at your posts. kiu!

Anyway, I am going to say Sehwag is overrated because lately I have been seeing people rating him so high, that they think in 5 years time he will be in contention to be in a poll for the 2nd best test batsmen of all time.

 

[Chetan0304]

Two triple ton's Vs two great sides of test cricket, with a strike rate of over 80-90 is not good at all, his aggressive batting style at top of the order is full waste still it always ends a win for his team. a opening batmen in all forms of the game, a vice captain and captain of Domestic team.

Conclusion :- Sehwag is Overrated :cool: imo

 

[shravi]

I think Indian fans don't help the case. I try and stay as neutral as I can (except with Yuvraj ) and I do notice players like Sehwag get completely over-hyped by certain members. No denying he is a quality opening batsman though, but I think Ben is slightly winding you guys up with Hughes as to give certain people a bit of their own medicine



I have no sympathy for you when you post like that. If you post like that, don't complain when people wind you up.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Highlander999]

Where did I say what he is doing is right?

 

[King Pietersen]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I think you'll find they do. It certainly worked when I made the Bradman vs Dhoni thread, we've barely seen Precum since. 2 wrongs definitely make a right.

Tom's right though, Ben is just winding you all up. Knowing the all the young'uns have no grasp on the art of sarcasm. I'm finding it very funny.

 

[Chetan0304]

I think you'll find they do. It certainly worked when I made the Bradman vs Dhoni thread, we've barely seen Precum since. 2 wrongs definitely make a right.

Tom's right though, Ben is just winding you all up. Knowing the all the young'uns have no grasp on the art of sarcasm. I'm finding it very funny.

Uncles has achieved a Phd on Sarcasm, can you please teach some kids? :upray:hpraise

 

[metallics2006]

Lolwut?..........

 

[sohum]

I thought King_Cricket's summary post on this page was quite accurate.

Also, please remember that riling up other members just for the sake of riling them up is considered trolling and will be infracted in the future.