Jump to content

Sehwag Stats - A case of Contrast


Guest BossBhai

Recommended Posts

Theoretically, technique helps you when the chips are down. Also, if I have to guess, I would say a Dravid or a Boycott would score more consistently, and have less variance in innings-to-innings score than a Sehwag. Sehwag makes up for his string of low scores with really big hundreds. The last test series with SA is a good example. We all know it is a bit of hit or miss in case of Sehwag.

Link to comment

This thread is entirely based on an assumption that Sehwag has a bad technique. What if thats actually wrong? :D One shouldnt mistake Sehwag's attacking instincts for 'bad technique'. If his swashbuckling strokeplay is the actual building of his big innings, then their foundation is his good technique. Sehwag has just proved a tight good technique and attacking strokeplay is need not be mutually exclusive.

Link to comment
GB played a total of 193 innings and made a grand total of 3 scores over 150 Sehwag on the other hand has made 10 scores of 150 and over in HALF AS many chances .... Hit and miss you say ? :D The thing is a sight of a Sehwag always sends down shivers of Bowlers .... which more than makes up for the lack of footwork ... With Boycott there is no such thing .... if he made a hundred it usually helps the oppositions chances of drawing the game ....
Just a fun fact. India won 2 of 14 matches in which Sehwag scored a 100. India won 9 out of 25 times Dravid scored a ton. Indian won 13 out of 39 times Sachin scored a ton. England won 10 of the 22 times Boycott scored a ton. Analysis: Could be because: 1). India could have lost but his big hundreds helped salvage a draw. E.g. Adelaide I guess 2). He scored heavy, other people in own and opposition team scored heavy too. E.g. Second test of India's tour of Pak-2006 3). Failure of India's bowlers to bowl out the opposition.
Link to comment
I was listening to Boycott harp away ad-nauseum about technique on TMS earlier today and couldnt help do this ..... a contrast between him and Sehwag ... I know I know chalk and cheese and all that but FWIW ...... :-D GB 8114 Runs in nearly 21K balls at a SR of 37% and a Avg of 47 Zero Triples and a HS of 246 4813 runs in just 6292 balls at 76% SR and a avg of 51 2 Triples and one 250+ score. To heck with technique. :winky:
Umm Boycott played against bowlers like Holding/Garner, in worse pitches then Sehwag. Sehwag got a lot of his scores on flat pitches like his 300+ in Chennai etc
Link to comment
Guest Hiten.
Not yet .... but his career path is heading in the right direction .... **touches pure wood** :winky:
*snatches the wood* :winky:
Link to comment
I was listening to Boycott harp away ad-nauseum about technique on TMS earlier today and couldnt help do this ..... a contrast between him and Sehwag ... I know I know chalk and cheese and all that but FWIW ...... :-D GB 8114 Runs in nearly 21K balls at a SR of 37% and a Avg of 47 Zero Triples and a HS of 246 4813 runs in just 6292 balls at 76% SR and a avg of 51 2 Triples and one 250+ score. To heck with technique. :winky:
BB, I think you are taking the discussion in the wrong direction. 'suppose we would have to know what exactly Boycott was saying regarding technique to say it as right or wrong. But broadly speaking technique obviously is important. However it is clearly not be all and end all of batting argument. Even in Boycott's time Sunil Gavaskar was the better opening batsman while the purist might argue that Boycott had the best technique(even Glenn Turner is supposed to have great technique). On the other hand you also had Barry Richards who was more flamboyant and people who saw him consider even better than rest of them. Point being Boycott while being technically the best was not even the best of his time, let alone to compare across his era. In fact most cricket fans would not only put Sunny, Barry ahead of him but even the likes of Gordon Greenidge etc. On a sidenote I also feel that technically good batsman are good for saving games, not winning them. Most technically correct batsman just concentrate too damn hard to play a long innings of any note. That is the reason why Hayden, Lara, Sobers, Viv, Laxman have the biggest innings score and not Boycotts and Dravids. xxx
Link to comment
BB, I think you are taking the discussion in the wrong direction. 'suppose we would have to know what exactly Boycott was saying regarding technique to say it as right or wrong. But broadly speaking technique obviously is important. However it is clearly not be all and end all of batting argument. Even in Boycott's time Sunil Gavaskar was the better opening batsman while the purist might argue that Boycott had the best technique(even Glenn Turner is supposed to have great technique). On the other hand you also had Barry Richards who was more flamboyant and people who saw him consider even better than rest of them. Point being Boycott while being technically the best was not even the best of his time, let alone to compare across his era. In fact most cricket fans would not only put Sunny, Barry ahead of him but even the likes of Gordon Greenidge etc. On a sidenote I also feel that technically good batsman are good for saving games, not winning them. Most technically correct batsman just concentrate too damn hard to play a long innings of any note. That is the reason why Hayden, Lara, Sobers, Viv, Laxman have the biggest innings score and not Boycotts and Dravids. xxx
Technically correct batsmen come to fore when the conditions are hard to bat in. That is the reason Dravid has been the most important batsman for India for last 8 or so years, because he could deliver when most others couldn't. Even the traditionally weak Indian bowling attack could bowl out the opposition due to helpful conditions. E.g. Perth test, where a 90 from Dravid was the match winning score, along with 60-70 from Sachin, I think. As I said before, one reason why Sehwag's biggies could not be converted into wins was because when he scored big, someone from opposition was also able to score big. A big reason for that could be helpful conditions. Bottomline: A 100 or so in difficult conditions has a better chance of becoming a match score than, say a 250 in not so difficult to bat tracks.
Link to comment
Technically correct batsmen come to fore when the conditions are hard to bat in. That is the reason Dravid has been the most important batsman for India for last 8 or so years, because he could deliver when most others couldn't. Even the traditionally weak Indian bowling attack could bowl out the opposition due to helpful conditions. E.g. Perth test, where a 90 from Dravid was the match winning score, along with 60-70 from Sachin, I think. As I said before, one reason why Sehwag's biggies could not be converted into wins was because when he scored big, someone from opposition was also able to score big. A big reason for that could be helpful conditions. Bottomline: A 100 or so in difficult conditions has a better chance of becoming a match score than, say a 250 in not so difficult to bat tracks.
pk, Nicely put. When it is difficult to bat, u do need solid technique + resolve.
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...