Sehwag versus Pietersen

[Vignesh]

Sehwag n pietersen How much Do they average abroad????????

[Laaloo]

Sehwag n pietersen How much Do they average abroad????????

did u read the whole thing?? :P What about home and away? Sehwag averages 52.2 at home, and 49.3 away, and 7 of his 13 tons have come away from home. Pietersen averages 58.6 at home and 40.6 away, and only 3 of his 11 centuries were scored overseas. Sehwag thus fares better away from home than Pietersen.

[f.b.m]

But I think he was getting to a deeper question of what is "away" for KP

[Kartikey]

But I think he was getting to a deeper question of what is "away" for KP

Thats a really good point. KP grew up playing on the fast, bouncy tracks in SA, and he spent 4-5 years in Eng before graduating to play internationally so he had time to adjust there as well.

[sachin_fan]

Facing the new ball in ODIs is nowhere as challenging as it is in Tests- the new ball isnt as attacking as in ODIs, where there is atmost one-two slips and the bowler is forced to keep it tight...in tests, facing the new ball where the bowler is attacking and there is 3 slips and gully is far more challenging. I am not saying Tendulkar sucks against the new ball, but he certainly is not an opener in the bonafide sense- this is why in ODIs, you've often seen middle order bats open and do well ( eg: Tendulkar, Junior, Pup, etc) And no, i don't consider batting inside the first five-six over to be indicative of prowess against the new ball- it is one thing to go in the middle after having witnessed how the ball is behaving for the first 3-4 overs, another matter entirely going in blind right from the first ball and not knowing how the ball/pitch is going to play- this is why while Dravid is an awesome #3,he is a very mediocre opener.

I think its unfair to say opening is easier in ODI's. An opener in ODI takes much more risks than an opener in tests. He has limited time and has to hit out or get out. Bog him for 3 overs, and he will try charging down the wicket or playing a reckless shot. Its a mindset, a way of thinking and the new ball can be as unforgiving in ODI's as it is , in test matches I would be grateful if some expert would draw up a statistic of the number of 1st over dismissials in ODI's and test matches. I think it would support my theory that people take more risks and are more prone to losing their wickets in ODI's than in tests. Just as you say a bowler goes on the defensive in ODI's, a batsmen goes on the defensive in tests and he puts a bigger price on his wicket. (well i wouldnt say shewag does,but he has always been an enigma, hasnt he) I have another question, having not played at the professional level. Will a number 3 be able to get an indication of the pitch just by sitting in the stands watching the balls fizz for 3-4 overs. I dont think it gives that big an advantage to any player. I believe its more to do with the mindset and the way you play. to sum, i believe opening in ODI's has its own set of challenges and is not easier than tests in anyway.

[fineleg]

^^ An opening batsman may be more defensive in Tests, but the opening spell can be really attacking - fields are attacking, bowlers charging in full speed and relentlessly attacking. No "5 overs" and then bowling change, the best bowlers will keep at you for a good 20+ overs (10 overs each or more) on the trot. Bouncers can be used more liberally in Test matches. Opening in Test matches is much much harder task than opening in ODIs. Thats why makeshift openers find it harder at Test level, compared to ODIs.

[sachin_fan]

^^ well finey, but then dont you think it would be unfair to compare tests and ODI's in general.Because both the games are played at different levels and different speeds.Now if a batsmen like shewag goes out all guns blazing in a test match and if the score is 40/0 or 50/0 after 5 overs, would you think the same field would be employed and wrt to the 5 over bowling change, i think its also has to do with the bowlers stamina as much as a need for change. I rarely see bowling changes at the end of the 10th over these days. If a bowler is in a good spell , he is given a couple of more overs, before any change happens. Also, arent the balls employed in both the games different. I understand bowlers are given more options in tests as batsmen are given more time. Liberal use of bouncers, increasing the margin for wides etc, are in place to even the odds against the bowler in a test match. But generally, i feel that opening in ODI or tests is about mentality and it is rare that a player does well as an opener in both forms of the game

[graphic23]

Sehwag > Pietersen.

[fineleg]

^^ well finey, but then dont you think it would be unfair to compare tests and ODI's in general.Because both the games are played at different levels and different speeds.Now if a batsmen like shewag goes out all guns blazing in a test match and if the score is 40/0 or 50/0 after 5 overs, would you think the same field would be employed and wrt to the 5 over bowling change, i think its also has to do with the bowlers stamina as much as a need for change. I rarely see bowling changes at the end of the 10th over these days. If a bowler is in a good spell , he is given a couple of more overs, before any change happens. Also, arent the balls employed in both the games different. I understand bowlers are given more options in tests as batsmen are given more time. Liberal use of bouncers, increasing the margin for wides etc, are in place to even the odds against the bowler in a test match. But generally, i feel that opening in ODI or tests is about mentality and it is rare that a player does well as an opener in both forms of the game

Yes. Its better to treat Test and ODI separately. Agree on that point.

[Vignesh]

Me tooooooooo.............

[CC1981]

I think its unfair to say opening is easier in ODI's.

no, not 'unfair'- its a FACT that anyone with basic understanding of proper cricket will tell you. ODI pitches are made flatter than tests, there is fielding restrictions AND there is much less margin of error for the bowler.....in the first few overs, you just have to find your timing and you are rocking away to the boundary ala Tendulkar/Waugh. Its far harder to open with 3 slips,gully and relentless attack from the bowler.....anyone who thinks opening in ODIs is just the same as opening in Tests, i am sorry to say, doesn't understand the ABC of cricket.

[sachin_fan]

no, not 'unfair'- its a FACT that anyone with basic understanding of proper cricket will tell you. ODI pitches are made flatter than tests, there is fielding restrictions AND there is much less margin of error for the bowler.....in the first few overs, you just have to find your timing and you are rocking away to the boundary ala Tendulkar/Waugh. Its far harder to open with 3 slips,gully and relentless attack from the bowler.....anyone who thinks opening in ODIs is just the same as opening in Tests, i am sorry to say, doesn't understand the ABC of cricket.

anyone who thinks opening in ODIs is just the same as opening in Tests

I never said that they are the same. All i say is it is not as easy a deal as you make it to be. The two forms of the game need different mindsets, a different level of skill and different abilities. Test cricket is more often than not a waiting game, while ODI requires a lot more risk taking, innovation and thinking/playing outside the box.I would say that ODI openers feel the pinch a little more than test openers because a couple of quick wickets and they have no 2nd innings to make it up. Its not a single minded game. 3 slips, gully etc need not be the norm always CC. It depends on the condition , the situation and the pitch. And i do believe that the period of relentless attack will exist in ODI's but batsmen, being more daring, ensure that the period is short lived. Imagine a situation, at the end of 15 overs in a ODi match, the score is 45/0. Do you think the team would be on the defensive or would go on an attack. This is a typical "test match" scenario and I think most teams would attack further and try to take the elusive wicket. An opener in ODI faces the kind of pressure that a test opener might never face. This is because, an opener plays with the clock in tests, while the ODI opener plays for each ball. the pitches afaik, are more dependent on the conditions and the country, not on the game. The australian ODi series wasnt a high scoring affair, and i havent come across many tests in india in the recent times, where it has been a bowling paradise. I dont think you would ever compare pictures in new zeland and india/pakistan. The belters remain a belters, the hot beds remain hot beds. again, as you emphasise the 3 slips and gully, i emphasise, power play periods, run rate, strike rate, etc for the ODI opener. And he cannot go bang bang alwys, he has to calculate and ensure his team gets to a stage of 70/0 or 80/0 for the team to get to a respectable total. Its no way easier than test, other than the fact that the playing period is longer

[CC1981]

All i say is it is not as easy a deal as you make it to be.

It is a **FAR** easier job, which is why middle order batsmen in tests like Tendulkar, Clarke, Gillchrist, Mark Waugh, Lara, etc. have made hay as openers in ODIs, while apart from a freak talent like Sehwag, you can't show me many middle order bat making it as openers in TESTS.

Its not a single minded game. 3 slips, gully etc need not be the norm always CC. It depends on the condition , the situation and the pitch.

I dunno how much test cricket you've seen- probably not much, but for 15+ years i've been watching cricket, 99.9% of the time, openers in TESTS come out to atleast 3 slips and a gully,sometimes with even a 4th slip in place. Even in 'dead' wickets like Antigua, that is the case.

again, as you emphasise the 3 slips and gully, i emphasise, power play periods, run rate, strike rate, etc for the ODI opener

Again, far easier to deal with, when you have field restrictions and with far less margin of error for wides. As i said, proof is in the pudding- its in ODIs where middle order bats have often succeeded as amazing openers, in tests, that list is very bare, barring Sehwag. That is evidence enough in my books,really.

[Gambit]

KP and Sehwag are easily the best under 30 test bats in the world. But which one is better?

[Chaos]

graphic neeku pitchi enkindhi! pieterson baba superior spin player than sehwag?

[Chandan]

KP and Sehwag are easily the best under 30 test bats in the world. But which one is better?

Can't say at the moment. Sehwag has been excelling as an opener while Pietersen as a MO batsman. But, whoever is better, neither can be called a great just as yet.

[DomainK]

And now Sehwag has two triples. A very rare club he belongs to.

[riya]

^^For a batsman who takes such risks it is unbelievable,really.Run a ball triple was so unreal even if it was a flat pitch,it was against the best bowling/fielding side.

[vvvslaxman]

Sehwag is one of a kind. Not many has played like him in the history of cricket. 78 strike rate for an opener is simply astonishing. Players like KP are not miracles. But players like Sehwag are.

[Dhondy]

Sehwag is one of a kind. Not many has played like him in the history of cricket. 78 strike rate for an opener is simply astonishing. Players like KP are not miracles. But players like Sehwag are.

I don't think that it's right to generalise like that. It's better to say that Sehwag plays wonderfully well against Pakistan, and is massive against SL in SL and is as good as Pietersen against Australia, but that Pietersen definitely shades him against SA in SA, or in England. The reasons are not difficult to find. Sehwag grew up on subcontinental pitches and would therefore be expected to fare better in Pakistan & SL than Pietersen. OTOH the latter grew up in SA and is at home in England, his adopted country. Hence he would be expected to perform better on pitches in those countries. What astonishes me is their respective records in Australia. Except Tendulkar, nobody even comes close. By that parameter at least, they should both be considered greats.