Sehwag versus GC Smith

[Trichromatic]

19 minutes ago, sandeep said:

 

Nobody scored at the rate that Sehwag did.  Not just Indian batsmen, no other opener comes close.  He's underrated for this aspect of his game, because some folks are too busy fixating on his flaws.  He had some of course.  As do most batsmen.  But those should not, and do not take away, or diminish the value that he brought to the team, and to the game.

 

My question was for @zen about so called match winning ability. 

 

1. I don't believe in concept of match winning batsmen in test cricket. It's just a term borrowed from LOIs. Test cricket is too long for that. 

 

2. When someone claims rare match winning ability, I would expect him to explain the difference created. 

[zen]

 

1 hour ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Talking about Sehwag only.

You had mentioned that he had rare match winning ability and then you went ahead with some adjectives to describe that.

In terms of the actual result, what was the difference? What was so rare about those wins. 

 

To help you understand, let me post it again.

 

India had W/L ratio of 3.4 at home in 90s.

During Sehwag's career, India had a win loss ratio of 3.1 at home. 

Post Sehwag, India had W/L ratio of 15 without rare ability of swimming, ratting opposition and taking game away with some magic.

 

Can you explain me was so different in terms of winning games at home? 

 

I agree that Pakistan series was special and so was Galle knock. So, question remains about the home games. 

 

If anything India is showing rare dominance at home post Sehwag's career and that is due to Ashwin whom you consistently diss.

 

It is unidimensional to talk about Sehwag when the same rules applies for Smith too. SA used to do well in 90s too

 

Anyways to answer your query - at home, his high strike rate batting, many times translated into huge 100s, created numerous opportunities for India to rattle the bowlers, help other Indian batsmen make hay will the sun shone, allow the team to declare early, and so on. Some of the innings include:

 

a) 83 in the 4th inning versus Eng played at a SR of 120 that allowed India to chase 350+ (or the game could have been a draw) 

b) 131 & 293 versus SL all played at a SR of over 100 

c) 165 versus SA which took SA bowlers to cleaners (high strike rate inning), which helped other batsmen as well, allowing India to bounce back in the series after losing the first test

 

His 319 versus SA helped India to draw the game (a struggling Dravid also helped himself to a 100 playing along with a dominating Sehwag) ... Not only that at times when he has got out, India has lost a test like versus Pak for e.g. - Link

 

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by zen

[Trichromatic]

26 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

It is unidimensional to talk about Sehwag when the same rules applies for Smith too. SA used to do well in 90s too

 

Anyways to answer your query - at home, his high strike rate batting, many times translated into huge 100s, created numerous opportunities for India to rattle the other bowlers, help other Indian batsmen make hay will the sun shone, allow the team to declare early and so on. Some of the innings include:

 

a) 83 in the 4th inning versus Eng played at a SR of 120 that allowed India to chase 350+ (or the game could have been a draw) 

b) 131 & 293 versus SL all played at a SR of over 100 

c) 165 versus SA which took SA bowlers to cleaners (high strike rate inning), which helped other batsmen as well, allowing India to bounce back in the series after losing the first test

 

His 319 versus SA helped India to draw the game (a struggling Dravid also helped himself to a 100 playing along with a dominating Sehwag) ... Not only that at times when he has got out, India has lost a test like versus Pak for e.g. - Link

 

 

 

Again what's rare there?

 

Are you saying that 165 by other opener woud not have helped India to win the game?

 

Sure there were big 100s and runs, but I am talking about rare match winning ability. I think you're confusing rare hitting ability with rare match winning ability.

 

83 in 4th inning while chasing 350 -- multiple teams have done that. WI did it v great Aus team and chased 400+ score by batting at normal pace. Even SA chased 400 that too in an away game where Smith scored a century at SR of 73.

 

SL has never won a test match in India. Even if you play Sehwag or any opener, India wold win games or at least not lose the game. Where is the difference in terms of results to support the argument of rare match winning ability?

 

Let me explain it to you again.

India had W/L ratio of 3.4 at home in 90s.

3.1 during Sehwag's career.

15 after Sehwag's career.

 

Are you saying something like -  without Sehwag and his rare match winning ability, India would have W/L ratio of say 1.5 and Sehwag was reason for that W/L ratio of 3.1?

 

If there no better results then how can you make claim of rare match winning ability?

 

For ex - if you say that a batsman X has rare match winning ability during big chases in ODIs. Then you should be able to present numbers that without X win % during chases were much lower and with X those numbers are significantly higher with X being main performer in those games.

 

That difference in win % shows the difference created by player. So far you have not presented any evidence to support your claim.

[zen]

2 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Again what's rare there?

 

Are you saying that 165 by other opener woud not have helped India to win the game?

 

Sure there were big 100s and runs, but I am talking about rare match winning ability. I think you're confusing rare hitting ability with rare match winning ability.

 

83 in 4th inning while chasing 350 -- multiple teams have done that. WI did it v great Aus team and chased 400+ score by batting at normal pace. Even SA chased 400 that too in an away game where Smith scored a century at SR of 73.

 

SL has never won a test match in India. Even if you play Sehwag or any opener, India wold win games or at least not lose the game. Where is the difference in terms of results to support the argument of rare match winning ability?

 

Let me explain it to you again.

India had W/L ratio of 3.4 at home in 90s.

3.1 during Sehwag's career.

15 after Sehwag's career.

 

Are you saying something like -  without Sehwag and his rare match winning ability, India would have W/L ratio of say 1.5 and Sehwag was reason for that W/L ratio of 3.1?

 

 

 

The above shows a lack of understanding of both cricket and stats.

 

WI have won without Malcolm Marshall, do we say he does not make an impact? Aus has won without McGrath, do we say he did not make an impact as any other bowler would too?  

 

W/L ratio is pointless as it depends upon a variety of factors including pitches, team composition, opponents, form, and so on. If Ind had a W/L ratio of 3.4 in 90s and 3.1 during Sehwag's career, would you say the team of 90s was better?

 

[Majestic]

7 hours ago, zen said:

The point is that guys like Sehwag and Gilchrist are not grinding types … Not many team would pick them to grind … A team has players that would do well in x,y, & x conditions, and players who would do well in a, b, and c conditions

 

No issues with Smith, who is also a good opener, being picked by anyone, only commenting because of “reasoning” against one player 

 

Gambhir was similar to Smith in his approach towards cricket but most folks are likely to go with Sehwag … Not many will pick Andy Flower over Gilchrist because Flower grinds. Like Sehwag, Gilchrist is a rare attacking batsman too 

And ppl can write stuff on why Smith would not work (only mostly excelled in Eng, NZ, and of course SA, for e.g, while Sehwag is better in subcon + Aus) but these recent topics (Subcon player versus SENA player thread) are more about being positive on both players while picking one  

 

These are all poor examples. Gilchrist was an all conditions batsman unlike Sehwag. Sehwag was no doubt an aggressive batsman but this is not an excuse for his failures in SEN.

 

Also, Sehwag is not better than Smith in Australia or West Indies either. Graem Smith has played great knocks in Australia too. Perth 2008 and Adelaide 2012 were standouts. He was the player of the series in that series win in Australia 2008.

 

India have produced many players who are beast at home but only few are the ones who are great away as well. Sehwag simply doesn't belong in that. 

 

He has not won his team a single match by the scruff of its neck outside Asia vs any top opposition. That goes against him big time. A great match winner but only in Asian conditions and often a liability outside Asia.

 

Tendulkar, Gavaskar, Dravid, Kohli, Pant and Laxman are all bigger match winners than him outside Asia.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Majestic

[sandeep]

3 hours ago, Trichromatic said:

 

My question was for @zen about so called match winning ability. 

 

1. I don't believe in concept of match winning batsmen in test cricket. It's just a term borrowed from LOIs. Test cricket is too long for that. 

 

2. When someone claims rare match winning ability, I would expect him to explain the difference created. 

That's a logic 'slice' that even the Zen 'slicing' master would be proud of!

[zen]

4 minutes ago, Majestic said:

These are all poor examples. Gilchrist was an all conditions batsman unlike Sehwag. Sehwag was no doubt an aggressive batsman but this is not an excuse for his failures in SEN.

 

Also, Sehwag is not better than Smith in Australia or West Indies either. Graem Smith has played great knocks in Australia too. Perth 2008 and Adelaide 2012 were standouts. He was the player of the series in that series win in Australia 2008.

 

India have produced many players who are beast at home but only few are the ones who are great away as well. Sehwag simply doesn't belong in that. 

Not an issue if you want to pick Smith (the idea is that both these players get picked) 

 

Note that Sehwag has 2 100s in Aus, and a higher average than Smith iirc, playing lone warrior on many occasions 

Sehwag pluses include winning in Pak, a first for India 

 

[Majestic]

16 minutes ago, zen said:

Not an issue if you want to pick Smith (the idea is that both these players get picked) 

 

Note that Sehwag has 2 100s in Aus, and a higher average than Smith iirc, playing lone warrior on many occasions 

Sehwag pluses include winning in Pak, a first for India 

 

Lone warrior on many occasions?? Which ones in Tests outside Asia? I can't recall any in SEN. In the Adelaide 2008 test, Tendulkar was the man of match. Only Melbourne 2003 was a great knock from him. But when his team needed him to excel in 2011 England and Australia tour, he went missing completely.

 

I will pick Laxman over him too. Perth, Adelaide, Johannesburg and Sydney, VVS had far more memorable performances overseas than Sehwag had.

 

 

[rkt.india]

Smith anyday

[Majestic]

3 hours ago, sandeep said:

This is..........nonsense.

 

Sehwag had a very good defensive technique, left very well, and defended well when he wanted to.  But his batting method simply didn't bank excessively on defense and put emphasis on scoring.  It didn't always work, but to claim that he had "no idea where his offstump was", thats bullshit.  This is not a guy who was getting bowled or legbefore frequently.  

He was not getting bowled or leg before frequently but he was getting edged to slips very frequently. That is exactly what happens when you are not aware of which deliveries you should be leaving while which ones to play on.

 

He is in same tier as Warner and Langer in Test cricket and below Smith, Hayden and Cook as far as longer format is concerned.

[sandeep]

2 minutes ago, Majestic said:

That is exactly what happens when you are not aware of which deliveries you should be leaving while which ones to play on.

 

 

That's making 22 out of 2 + 2.   Deliveries that most batsmen preferred to leave, were the ones that Veeru scored a lot of runs from.  There's a reason even the world's best pace bowlers and bowling attacks resorted to putting up deep point  and cover sweeper with the new ball when bowling to him.

 

But sure, you can choose to believe whatever you want.  I don't have the motivation to read the bhaagwat in front of a bhains.

[sandeep]

5 minutes ago, Majestic said:

He is in same tier as Warner and Langer in Test cricket

Warner is a sasta sehwag on his best day, and he'd happily admit it.  

[zen]

12 minutes ago, Majestic said:

Lone warrior on many occasions?? Which ones in Tests outside Asia? I can't recall any in SEN. In the Adelaide 2008 test, Tendulkar was the man of match. Only Melbourne 2003 was a great knock from him. But when his team needed him to excel in 2011 England and Australia tour, he went missing completely.

 

I will pick Laxman over him too. Perth, Adelaide, Johannesburg and Sydney, VVS had far more memorable performances overseas than Sehwag had.

 

 

195 Melbourne, 150 odd Adelaide 

What overseas? What SEN? No one is picking a team to play for India here

 

Any team would love to have Sehwag to help it dominate in Asia and Aus

 

 

 

 

[Adamant]

20 minutes ago, Majestic said:

 

He is in same tier as Warner and Langer in Test cricket and below Smith, Hayden and Cook as far as longer format is concerned.

I have read many forums but have hardly come across many who rate Warner/Langer on par with Sehwag. 

 

Yes Sehwag was not great when the ball swung but when it didn't there was no one who could match his demolition power. 

 

 

Smith was an all conditions batsman and also a better player under pressure than Sehwag but he doesn't have a good record against the best bowling attacks of his time. He also has minore flaws but obviously his flaws are lesser than Sehwag's so many people chose him over Sehwag and that's completely fair. 

 

Just remember 

Haydens odi strike rate is less than Sehwag's test strike rate. 

 

And people call Hayden a destructive test batsman. 

 

I would rate the following openers as :

 

1.Smith

2.Hayden/Sehwag

3.Sehwag/hayden

4.Cook 

5.Langer

[Majestic]

22 minutes ago, sandeep said:

 

That's making 22 out of 2 + 2.   Deliveries that most batsmen preferred to leave, were the ones that Veeru scored a lot of runs from.  There's a reason even the world's best pace bowlers and bowling attacks resorted to putting up deep point  and cover sweeper with the new ball when bowling to him.

 

But sure, you can choose to believe whatever you want.  I don't have the motivation to read the bhaagwat in front of a bhains.

You are assuming that this worked for Sehwag everywhere. But not it didn't worked for him wherever there was lateral movement. He has numerous scores of failures and that tells that when it didn't worked for him, he didn't bothered to change his style even though he was failing continuously series by series.

 

2006 South Africa tour he failed completely, 2009 NZ tour, remember the Napier test, everyone battled to save the test match except one man who threw his wicket at a cheap score. 2011 South Africa tour, Australia tour and England tour where he got a couple of ducks in the hope that he will come and change things for India in that series, he was no better than Warner in Test cricket.

[Majestic]

7 minutes ago, Adamant said:

I have read many forums but have hardly come across many who rate Warner/Langer on par with Sehwag. 

 

Yes Sehwag was not great when the ball swung but when it didn't there was no one who could match his demolition power. 

 

 

Smith was an all conditions batsman and also a better player under pressure than Sehwag but he doesn't have a good record against the best bowling attacks of his time. He also has minore flaws but obviously his flaws are lesser than Sehwag's so many people chose him over Sehwag and that's completely fair. 

 

Just remember 

Haydens odi strike rate is less than Sehwag's test strike rate. 

 

And people call Hayden a destructive test batsman. 

 

I would rate the following openers as :

 

1.Smith

2.Hayden/Sehwag

3.Sehwag/hayden

4.Cook 

5.Langer

Sehwag was outright poor when the ball swung , let alone great. His average is in 20s in SEN conditions. 

 

Hayden atleast maintained an acceptable average of 30+ which means that atleast he had some performances in all those countries and he dominated in Australia and India.

 

Cook was again an all format batsman.

 

Just wait for Warner to call his time off and people will rate him as highly as Sehwag too. He has good record with pink ball in Australia too.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Majestic

[Majestic]

The argument that pitches in 2000s era were flatter as compared to now should also go against Viru when compared with Warner. Both have failed in alien conditions.

[Trichromatic]

4 hours ago, zen said:

 

 

The above shows a lack of understanding of both cricket and stats.

 

WI have won without Malcolm Marshall, do we say he does not make an impact? Aus has won without McGrath, do we say he did not make an impact as any other bowler would too?  

 

W/L ratio is pointless as it depends upon a variety of factors including pitches, team composition, opponents, form, and so on. If Ind had a W/L ratio of 3.4 in 90s and 3.1 during Sehwag's career, would you say the team of 90s was better?

 

 

Seems like you're missing basic point.

 

Marshall played from 1978 to 1991

 

WI W/L ratio with Marshall - 4.77

WI WL ratio in 70s before Marshall's debut - 1.076

WI W/L ratio in 90s after Marshall's retirement - 1

 

Can you see the impact and difference?

 

Since you claimed rare match winning ability, can you show what difference was created in terms of result?

 

If you're trying to say that it is dependent on various factors then how are you claiming a player has rare match winning ability without showing difference in results?

 

Seems like you're confused on two parts of being explosive great opener and being rare match winner.

 

[zen]

16 minutes ago, Trichromatic said:

 

Seems like you're missing basic point.

 

Marshall played from 1978 to 1991

 

WI W/L ratio with Marshall - 4.77

WI WL ratio in 70s before Marshall's debut - 1.076

WI W/L ratio in 90s after Marshall's retirement - 1

 

Can you see the impact and difference?

 

Since you claimed rare match winning ability, can you show what difference was created in terms of result?

 

If you're trying to say that it is dependent on various factors then how are you claiming a player has rare match winning ability without showing difference in results?

 

Seems like you're confused on two parts of being explosive great opener and being rare match winner.

 

W/L ratio is pointless when discussing different teams (you are using half baked ideas). If I play SL more I will have a better W/L ratio at home, if I play an upcoming Aus, I may win more games at home, and so on … OTOH, if I play an ATG Aus of 2000s more, my W/L ratio will suffer. SA beat India too in India before Sehwag 

 

Note Marshall played for an ATG side. And besides Marshall, WI had other bowlers too (the point was on Marshall missing games in Marshall’s era). So did McGrath, who missed many games but Aus win. No one says that Marshall or McGrath did not create impact and anyone could do that  

 

I gave the examples like his 80 odd versus Eng, and so on, no? VVS made that 281 versus Aus, that is a match winning effort. No one can say that if other batsman would have played India would have won that series. Sehwag’s 165 against SA after being a test down and SA confident of winning a series in India immediately rocked SA bowler’s confidence, allowing India to draw the series. 
 

Proven match winner! 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by zen

[Trichromatic]

2 hours ago, zen said:

Not an issue if you want to pick Smith (the idea is that both these players get picked) 

 

Note that Sehwag has 2 100s in Aus, and a higher average than Smith iirc, playing lone warrior on many occasions 

Sehwag pluses include winning in Pak, a first for India 

 

 

Sehwag averages 46 in Australia and didn't faced McGrath, Warne, Lee together 2003, 2008 and 2012 series. 

 

Even Smith averaged 65 and 42 against weaker attacks in Aus. He also scored 7 50s+ scores in 12 innings. Sehwag did same in 20 innings for India.

 

Also scored at SR of 73 to chase big total of 400+. Why would not pick Smith even in Aus.