Sehwag more destructive than Richards

[Dhondy]

Dont think anyone said that^ But facing Gul/Asif and Haurtiz/Siddle/Johnson and Herath/Weledegra is much easier than whoever from the 70's...

Actually we looked at this, rather Boss did, bless him, the stats genius, badly missed, and as you can imagine, the whole thing about the superiority of bowlers in the 70s and 80s, is a myth. Here, take a look at the laverages of the top ten bowlers from various decades: 1930s 24.88 1940s 29.02 1950s 23.43 1960s 28.32 1970s 27.32 1980s 24.81 1990s 23.98 2000s 25.90 Statistically, the best bowlers populated the 90s- Richards long retired, Sehwag not yet started- rather annoying for proponents of both sides, isn't it? However, as you can see, the top bowlers in 2000s were in no way inferior to those in the 70s in 80s. Does that tell the whole story? Don't bet your house on it. Statistically, the five greatest bowlers of all time are McGrath, Ambrose, Hadlee, Murali & Marshall. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=10578 Richards faced only one of those five in his career, Sewhag had to countenance two. No evidence of Richards being disadvantaged in any way there.

[akshayxyz]

Another way to look at the statement- Batting today is easier because 80's bowlers were better - is - Batsmen of 80's (majority of them) were not good enough and hence bloating the apparent effectiveness of 80's bowlers. Most of those batsmen were lazy ( slow) and hence relatively Richards looked better (more destructive). With few exceptions like Bradman, overall statistics for across all departments have improved. No wonder Murli has almost double #wkts than Kapil/Hadlee. he is 20% better than next all times best, when it comes to #wkts per match, similarly with the destructiveness criteria defined as - strike rate for batsmen with 6000+ runs - Sehwag's numbers are 14% better than Richards.... so far.

[Guest Gunner]

Statistically, the five greatest bowlers of all time are McGrath, Ambrose, Hadlee, Murali & Marshall.

Âs an aside, statistically wouldn't you say Holding, Waqar and Warne should be in the top 5 bowlers of all times?

[Sooda]

Actually we looked at this, rather Boss did, bless him, the stats genius, badly missed, and as you can imagine, the whole thing about the superiority of bowlers in the 70s and 80s, is a myth. Here, take a look at the laverages of the top ten bowlers from various decades: 1930s 24.88 1940s 29.02 1950s 23.43 1960s 28.32 1970s 27.32 1980s 24.81 1990s 23.98 2000s 25.90 Statistically, the best bowlers populated the 90s- Richards long retired, Sehwag not yet started- rather annoying for proponents of both sides, isn't it? However, as you can see, the top bowlers in 2000s were in no way inferior to those in the 70s in 80s. Does that tell the whole story? Don't bet your house on it. Statistically, the five greatest bowlers of all time are McGrath, Ambrose, Hadlee, Murali & Marshall. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=10578 Richards faced only one of those five in his career, Sewhag had to countenance two. No evidence of Richards being disadvantaged in any way there.

The best bowling era being the 90's isnt so surprising Naming, just off the top off your head, the best bowlers from that decade vs the best from the 70's/whenever gives you that feeling. The strength across all bowling departments in particular- i.e very few great spinners in the 80's and 70s The 2000s average being as low as that IS a surprise. Particularly given the number of 50+ averages around and number of high scores being churned out the world over. In short- youve made things worse Dhondy not helped this debate either way :P

[Dhondy]

Âs an aside' date=' statistically wouldn't you say Holding, Waqar and Warne should be in the top 5 bowlers of all times?[/quote'] It's all in that article and the one that preceded it, Gunner. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=10579 The problem is to separate hype and sentiment from cold statistics. McGrath was top dog in a very comprehensive official ranking on 42 occasions in his career, Warne on 10 occasions, Waqar 8 and Holding, none. No comparison there. Unfortunately, the same argument works against Sehwag. For all his genius, Sehwag has never been the top ranked batsman in his career, if I recall correctly. Viv was tops on something like 40 occasions, the batting equivalent of McGrath. If standing head and shoulders above ones peers counts as the arbiter, I'm afraid Sehwag is not even within shouting distance. However, as just demonstrated, you can't use the quality of bowling in this era to disparage his achievements. That's the wrong argument used to arrive at the right conclusion.

[Guest Gunner]

It's all in that article and the one that preceded it, Gunner. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=10579 The problem is to separate hype and sentiment from cold statistics. McGrath was top dog in a very comprehensive official ranking on 42 occasions in his career, Warne on 10 occasions, Waqar 8 and Holding, none. No comparison there. Unfortunately, the same argument works against Sehwag. For all his genius, Sehwag has never been the top ranked batsman in his career, if I recall correctly. Viv was tops on something like 40 occasions, the batting equivalent of McGrath. If standing head and shoulders above ones peers counts as the arbiter, I'm afraid Sehwag is not even within shouting distance. However, as just demonstrated, you can't use the quality of bowling in this era to disparage his achievements. That's the wrong argument used to arrive at the right conclusion.

Firstly, thanks for the article and the statistical analysis. Thât was really quite useful for the pupose of understanding how the bowlers stacked up. Interestingly the bowlers which I have always felt were the most dangerous were in the top 5. The presumption that the sheer feeling of a knot in one stomach when the bowler is about to deliver can never fully be explained by statistics has been routed by that analysis. Secondly, I have always felt that Sehwag has been short changed by the purists and the adjudicators of test cricket sitting in England and Australia. Initially Sehwag was dismissed as some kind of happy go lucky pinch hitter then questions were raised about his footwork and technique now there is just sheer defiance of his achievements. In reality Sehwag will be an enigma in the annals of test cricket. He is methodical and ruthless in his elimination of the opposition. His balance in stroke making is unmatched and his appetite for runs in test matches only by the Don himself. The average of runs scored above 100 with a minimum qualification of 5000 test runs places Sehwag only 2nd to the Don. http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=194611

[vvvslaxman]

It is very very difficult to compare these two players based on assumptions. I really hate to take a dig at King viv just to prove a point. He was one of a kind in his era. Sehwag is one of a kind in his era. Every cricketer has a legacy. Even Krishnamachari srikkanth had a legacy in the 80s. There are some unique players that will come once in a while.

[Dhondy]

Shane, the creator of those fantastic stats is online now. Bossbhai, living ICF legend, stats genius, and dear friend. :adore: :adore:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Hello Doc .... :giggle: To the title in the OP ... yes absolutely ... Sehwag owns Viv in matters of destruction. How ? Well lets ask ourselves how does a batsman go about destruction ? Make runs and make them fast and make a lot of them ( atleast 150+ else we get into the Afridi > * business but I digress ). There is no other way ( Well there is the Geoff Boycott way of doing it but lets not go there :-D ) . Now how does one make runs faster than is the norm ? ( Norm these days is a SR of about 55 % ) back in Vivs days it was closer to 40% ... Now take Sehwags top 5 innings by runs scored the combined SR is 97% ! ( 1376 runs in 1411 balls ) . http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35263.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;runsmin1=201;runsval1=runs;template=results;type=batting A similar stat for Viv yields 1105 runs at a SR of 72.5 % assuming he batted at a run a ball in the 192* innings which is doubtfull given the no.of minutes) http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35263.html?class=1;orderby=batted_score;template=results;type=batting;view=innings Right there you have a 25% difference in the Strike rates and this difference remains pretty much thruought their entire careers ... And on the subject of destruction ... nothing hurts a bowler more than him being hit for boundaries and sixes ... again here Sehwag leaves Viv in a heap of dust ... he is almost up there with Vivs career tally of boundaries and sixes ... So whoever thinks that Viv was more destructive will fall into one of the following categories : 1. Old foggies like Lurker mian who refuse to accept that things were not really as good as they seem to during their prime :-D 2. The ones who saw that 56 ball 100 by Viv 3. Pakistanis ( No explanation needed here :-D ) 4. Those who watched Boycott and Viv bat on the same day ( Matter of relativity ) 5. Those that get taken in by the "Swagger" PS: There is far more many points that I can come up with but in the interest of time I thought this would suffice. And yes I did see Viv Bat.

Haven't read the post yet as I am "mobile" , but :adore::adore:

[varun]

BossBhai :woot: :adore: !!!! Aapke swagat mein maine ek stats thread daala hai http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=194805

[Dhondy]

Smokin' Joe Frazier of ICF is back! Blown 'em to smithereens!:two_thumbs_up: Maaan, it's been a long time, pardner. You've been badly missed.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Bumper]

Boss, welcome man! Very very happy to see you back here again. Hope to see you post more often.

[Mr. Wicket]

Welcome back Boss! :--D

[akshayxyz]

For swagger worshipers - 20 years later, how do you explain "destructivenes = func(swagger)" to someone who did not watch neither Sehwag nor Viv. Then you have to resort to stats like - strike rate in big innings etc. For people like Afridi ( higher strike rate but lower avg), we have another term - explosive.. i.e. short bursts of destruction. When Afridi goes boom boom, bowlers know - he wont sustain that for long (more often than not). Btw i do not know whether he is 'permanent' member of Test team. I guess we are all talking test matches here.

[Dhondy]

For swagger worshipers - 20 years later, how do you explain "destructivenes = func(swagger)" to someone who did not watch neither Sehwag nor Viv. Then you have to resort to stats like - strike rate in big innings etc. For people like Afridi ( higher strike rate but lower avg), we have another term - explosive.. i.e. short bursts of destruction. When Afridi goes boom boom, bowlers know - he wont sustain that for long (more often than not). Btw i do not know whether he is 'permanent' member of Test team. I guess we are all talking test matches here.

We have other words to describe Afridi. You wouldn't want to know pal, believe you me.

[King Tendulkar]

Out of the 10 fastest double hundreds, Sehwag has 5 of them!!!!! Viv Richards(big fan him of him by the way, an idol of mine) does not even have one entry in the list. Sehwag is most destructive batsman ever!

[The Outsider]

Tony Greig of the view Sehwag is the most destructive batsman since Bradman :

Shewag falls short of history Virender Sehwag was on the verge of becoming the only batsman in Test cricket history to make three triple centuries in Tests before he was dismissed for 293 in the third Test against Sri Lanka. Apart from Don Bradman, Sehwag has to be the most destructive batsman the game has seen. The combination of his average and strike rate vouches for this to a degree, but if we were to ask the Test bowlers, they, I am certain would confirm that Sehwag on his day is nothing short of a bowlers worst nightmare. Having said this, any batsman who goes about his business in such an attacking fashion is on occasions going to disappoint. Sachin Tendulkar and Ricky Ponting are great players, but they are more orthodox than Sehwag. As a result, there will be many who would rather watch Sehwag go about his business than anyone else.

http://www.cricinfo.com/talk/content/multimedia/439301.html