Sehwag proves once again: Batting Strike rate matters a heck in tests.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

Patriot - glad you enjoyed the articles. Yes, I have the greatest respect for Sehwag although it was dented a bit by his senseless act of kicking the ball over the boundary in the last Test against South Africa. To me, he is more of a phenomenon, somebody who has brought about a paradigm change in how cricket is approached in this era. A catalyst for Test cricket in the truest sense. And more. I intend to write about him and his effect on cricket (not just Indian) sometime in the future. Opinions are subjective I agree. And I have no qualms in criticizing Tendulkar although I do believe it is very hard to criticize him as he leaves so little room to find flaw in. I find the arguments of people like Ian Chappell and Daryll Cullinan to be patently hollow. Individuals do not win you matches. Team performances do. And no matter how much they would like for Ponting to be placed above Tendulkar, he will never be. He is not a complete batsman in my book. At any rate nowhere near as complete as Tendulkar. Reasons are many and probably call for a different thread. It is but natural for people to rate Sehwag above Tendulkar if you see them both playing today. The former has more 'crease presence' right now. But when we are comparing players, we are comparing lifetimes and careers. I would only suggest that we let Sehwag alone for another 2 seasons and see what heights he conquers. Then we can compare him with Tendulkar. The only aspect I rate Sehwag high above Tendulkar is his entertainment quotient when he holds the microphone. No comparison whatever. Sehwag's dry humour never fails to crack me up. People talk about Kumble being one of the best captains we did not get to experience for a longer time. But I think Sehwag is among the greater cricketing minds of today who is being kept away from the captaincy. I think he is better suited tactically to lead a dominant team, a team that is trying to retain its No.1 position, than anybody else in this team.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[patriot]

read that post carefully again ... you said cashed in when McGrath wasnt playing ...and I presented you two full series when he was fit and did quite well ... and I dont even want to mention how bad the umpiring was.

As lame as arguments can get. :laugh:. Mcgrath has owned him like his daddy, his avg against Australia when Mcgrath is playing drops by a whopping 20 points. ( to 37 ) And you gone on making an ar$e of yourself by justifying it with a zillion excuses. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;player_involve=2101;template=results;type=batting BTW, did your idol averages 32 against SOuth Africa, when Donald is involved ? Ab kya excuse hai. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;player_involve=2011;template=results;type=batting

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[graphic23]

Patriot - glad you enjoyed the articles. Yes, I have the greatest respect for Sehwag although it was dented a bit by his senseless act of kicking the ball over the boundary in the last Test against South Africa. To me, he is more of a phenomenon, somebody who has brought about a paradigm change in how cricket is approached in this era. A catalyst for Test cricket in the truest sense. And more. I intend to write about him and his effect on cricket (not just Indian) sometime in the future. Opinions are subjective I agree. And I have no qualms in criticizing Tendulkar although I do believe it is very hard to criticize him as he leaves so little room to find flaw in. I find the arguments of people like Ian Chappell and Daryll Cullinan to be patently hollow. Individuals do not win you matches. Team performances do. And no matter how much they would like for Ponting to be placed above Tendulkar, he will never be. He is not a complete batsman in my book. At any rate nowhere near as complete as Tendulkar. Reasons are many and probably call for a different thread. It is but natural for people to rate Sehwag above Tendulkar if you see them both playing today. The former has more 'crease presence' right now. But when we are comparing players, we are comparing lifetimes and careers. I would only suggest that we let Sehwag alone for another 2 seasons and see what heights he conquers. Then we can compare him with Tendulkar. The only aspect I rate Sehwag high above Tendulkar is his entertainment quotient when he holds the microphone. No comparison whatever. Sehwag's dry humour never fails to crack me up. People talk about Kumble being one of the best captains we did not get to experience for a longer time. But I think Sehwag is among the greater cricketing minds of today who is being kept away from the captaincy. I think he is better suited tactically to lead a dominant team, a team that is trying to retain its No.1 position, than anybody else in this team.

Superb post, vortex. Thanks for posting this! Though I think we very much differ on the issue of captaincy (I believe we've got the best captain in India at the moment, but its a personal thing, and Sehwag's captaincy at Napier earlier last year didn't do much to change that opinion) Coming back to the topic, I have disagreed with Patriot (and in much more colorful language than has been seen in this thread :winky:) with his evaluation of Tendulkar's greatness and completeness as a batsman. But, having witnessed some of the arguments in this thread, I found it very surprising that even Dhondy has come to the same conclusion about Sehwag being a better "matchwinner" and a bigger influence on Indian cricket than Tendulkar has been. When Tendulkar first came out on the scene (and by his own admission), he was seen as someone who was able to defend like Gavaskar and attack like Richards, which in my mind makes him greater than these individuals when an head-to-head comparison is made. Though cricket had not changed significantly from Gavaskar and Richards' age to Tendulkar's (apart from what I consider trivial changes such as the 60-over game being reduced to a 50-over one, etc), here was a guy who was completely different in his approach to the game. Though Lara, Jayasuriya, and other modern greats played alongside Tendulkar, Bradman thought that Sachin was the one closest to his approach to the game - which was to make lots of runs and quickly, and he did it with an excellent technique, and was not unorthodox (speaking just of batting technique, as I have said earlier, his approach to the game was very different). Over the past 20 years, in both the prominent formats of the game, he has left his mark, and has been absolutely phenomenal in terms of run scoring. And if we consider one-dayers, there is not a better batsman in a few light years away from here (and I sincerely believe this). Nevertheless, coming back to the topic about Tendulkar, what I want(ed) to say was that he was a player who's approach to the game evolved from that of Gavaskar and Richards (though I guess Richards can be called as a pioneer of an attacking game - but the Tendulkar fan me tells me that Sachin was more balanced, and thats why he has been so consistent over a much longer span (in terms of years and matches played)). Now, I would like to consider the issue of Sehwag. Though Newton was limiting his context to science when he said that he stood on the shoulders of giants, we can use that quote in this text. Tendulkar's achievements are excellent in isolation, but he also has stood on the shoulders of Gavaskar and Richards, and has evolved past them. Briefly, moving on to Sehwag: Sehwag has modeled his batting after Tendulkar's technique. The balance, the stillness of his head when he drives the ball, etc. However, Tendulkar can and has survived and dominated in a variety of conditions and against a variety of attacks (Mumbai 2004, anyone? or perhaps, '92 Perth, or even when he walked in at 62/5 and smashed a 169 against Donald and co in SA?). This does not mean that he does not have holes in his resume - as every single batsman does - even Bradman was out to a left arm spinner more than a few times. Viru debuted about 10 years after Tendulkar did, and the game did change a lot (particularly in India - and a lot of that credit needs to go to the man being so vehemently attacked in this thread by the OP). So it is understandable that Sehwag's approach to the game is much more different than Tendulkar's, and personally, to keep cricket interesting, it ought to be - cant have everyone try to play in the same manner. The cricketers need to evolve to keep the game interesting, and contrary to ICC's idiotic thinking, I think the game's rules (particularly that of test cricket) can stay the same if the cricketers continue to evolve as Tendulkar and Sehwag have. In an article by Suresh Menon on CI, it was mentioned that a Tendulkar might not have existed without a Gavaskar. In similar vein, I dont think a Sehwag would've existed without Tendulkar (and coming back to that Newton quote, Sehwag has stood on the shoulders of Tendulkar). That Sachin still warrants a comparison 20 years into his career with the most aggressive batsman in Test cricket shows that he's no ordinary batsman, and deserves every accolade that he gets. Having said all this, in spite of Patriot's continual disagreement, Sehwag has gained a lot from playing alongside some of the best batsman in the history of the game - in that he has the license to go all out almost every single time (particularly since that Adelaide knock in 2008 January). Tendulkar never had that freedom until Dravid, Laxman, and Ganguly came along and started contributing significantly to Indian wins. Any one of the "Tendulkar brigade" can name numerous games where Sachin was brilliant and the rest of the team didn't do much to support him, and India lost in the end (none worse than the game vs. Pakistan at Chennai in '99). But since the emergence of all these guys, Sachin has changed his batting style, and is still scoring runs at the same pace that he was when he was at his prime. And since the WC '07, we see a completely new Tendulkar than we have seen from 2002-07 - he has been absolutely phenomenal. (P.S: My post might be rather incoherent due to the timing of the post, but nevertheless, just wanted to make it clear).

[thevortex]

All this talk of second innings centuries and all that is something I do not understand. How these experts make first innings centuries out to be inferior than second innings' ones is something which will remain a mystery to me. Yes, the bounce is different, behaviour is different, things are inching closer to a result. But it is not as if batting first up is far easier. You are countering a different set of circumstances then. The pitch is fresh, the bowlers are fresh and you are required to set a tone for the innings. If you dont get a total in the first innings, no amount of centuries in the second innings is going to save your team. Why the experts lose sight of this fact will, as I have said repeatedly, will remain a mystery.

[thevortex]

Yes, graphic23 - we agree absolutely on this subject. As to whether we have the best captain I will only hasten to say that I do not want Dhoni removed from the post as he has done anywhere near enough to justify any talks of him being ousted from the captaincy. My criticism has a lot to do with him not utilizing the full potential of this team. We can win and win consistently now - at home and away. Such is the wealth of talent that we have - particularly on the batting front. He is not doing enough to attack and is displaying an alarming tendency to defend. Personally I feel Sehwag is much more suited to lead today's Indian team and take it to its rightful spot and keep it there - No.1.

[patriot]

Opinions are subjective I agree. And I have no qualms in criticizing Tendulkar although I do believe it is very hard to criticize him as he leaves so little room to find flaw in. I find the arguments of people like Ian Chappell and Daryll Cullinan to be patently hollow. Individuals do not win you matches. Team performances do. And no matter how much they would like for Ponting to be placed above Tendulkar, he will never be. He is not a complete batsman in my book. At any rate nowhere near as complete as Tendulkar. Reasons are many and probably call for a different thread.

I disgree. Ian Chappell can be accused of anything, but being biased and unfair in opinions. He din't even hesitate to criticize Bradman ( something thats blasphemous in Oz) for being a miserly administrator. He has not even spared Steve Waugh There was a time when he was full praise for SRT. One of the greatest attacking captains of all time, surely he understands the game better than you and I. Forget Ian Chappell, even Tony Greig and Ravi Shastri din't vote for SRT at the cricinfo round table conference as the greatest modern batsman - That unanimous vote went to Lara. for the obvious reason. SRT has dominated bowlers only for a few years in his career. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=490978601065903138# Infact Warne is the only great bowler that SRT has dominated.

It is but natural for people to rate Sehwag above Tendulkar if you see them both playing today. The former has more 'crease presence' right now. But when we are comparing players, we are comparing lifetimes and careers. I would only suggest that we let Sehwag alone for another 2 seasons and see what heights he conquers. Then we can compare him with Tendulkar.

Never has SRT even in his very best days been close to the destructiveness that Sehwag is dishing out. Forget SRT. No batsmen ever. Not even Viv Richards.

graphic23 says: Sehwag has gained a lot from playing alongside some of the best batsman in the history of the game - in that he has the license to go all out almost every single time (particularly since that Adelaide knock in 2008 January). Tendulkar never had that freedom until Dravid, Laxman, and Ganguly came along and started contributing significantly to Indian wins.

How ironic. Can i turn around and say that SRT and the middle order benefit a great deal as they face Sehwag pulverized bowlers ?

[teacup]

To add to what Vortex and Graphic23 have said, this thread should have been about how important strike rate is in the Test Match context but sadly it had drifted towards mudslinging. In my opinion strike rate is a nice-to-have in Test Matches but consistency is paramount for the success of a team. I believe most people will agree with that opinion.

[graphic23]

Except for the fact that Tendulkar has been scoring runs at an efficient pace even before Sehwag arrived on the scene. Up until 2001-02, he was seen as the best batsman on the earth - and for this, you dont have to take my word. Since you have mentioned that Tendulkar has a lower average vs. South Africa, do you know whom Allan Donald considers as the best batsman he has bowled against? You can speak to Greg Chappell, Ian Chappell, Tony Greig, Bradman (:winky:), etc - and you will see that they wont disgaree. And Ian Chappell is unbiased.. locally. When you look globally at all his statements, they will be filled with hypocrisies.

[Mr Eintstein]

overdose of hysterical smileys, anyone?

[patriot]

Except for the fact that Tendulkar has been scoring runs at an efficient pace even before Sehwag arrived on the scene. .

Except for the fact, that that efficient pace at a strike rate of 54 amounts to RPO over of 3.2. Not nearly enough when the most successful test teams on the planet, Australia did it at 4 and over roughly. Enter Sehwag. Yet again, going back to the OP, what if ..Sehwag had scored at Tendlya's efficient rate. Would we have won the rain effected test against RSA ? Good night.

[graphic23]

Except for the fact, that that efficient pace at a strike rate of 54 amounts to RPO over of 3.2. Not nearly enough when the most successful test teams on the planet, Australia did it at 4 and over roughly. Enter Sehwag. Yet again, going back to the OP, what if ..Sehwag had scored at Tendlya's efficient rate. Would we have won the rain effected test against RSA ? Good night.

Something that might seem as an unrelated question, but how much risk is needed to play aggressively? Do you think Sehwag puts his wicket at risk more than Tendulkar does (then or now or ever) ?

[patriot]

Something that might seem as an unrelated question' date=' but how much risk is needed to play aggressively? Do you think Sehwag puts his wicket at risk more than Tendulkar does (then or now or ever) ?[/quote'] He said in a recent interview, that if he places a defensive shot, he is taking a risk as he has poor defence :haha:, therefore he prefers to attack from the word go. I tend to agree with him. You can't score 2 triples ( nearly 3) , 6 doubles and such massive tons in general, if you don't put a price on your wicket. He just has a different way of putting price on his wicket.:winky:

[graphic23]

He said in a recent interview, that if he places a defensive shot, he is taking a risk as he has poor defence :haha:, therefore he prefers to attack from the word go. I tend to agree with him. You can't score 2 triples ( nearly 3) , 6 doubles and such massive tons in general, if you don't put a price on your wicket. He just has a different way of putting price on his wicket.:winky:

Agreed. So then, do you think Tendulkar could afford the same amount of risk during the 90s, where he was the sole pillar of the batting line up(and this coming from a huge Rahul Dravid fan)? In spite of all this, he has managed to score some scintillating hundreds. They might not be at 100+ S/R but are tremendous efforts given the situation of the team - the 155 at Chennai, the 177 at Bangalore (in the game right after that), or in the game at Calcutta, where he scored some 80-90 runs very quickly alongside an Azhar special., the aforementioned 169 vs. Donald and co, the 114 at Perth, the 148 at Sydney, the hundreds in England in the '96 tour, so much more - and this is all in tests by the way. Sehwag has been amazing but this is very very premature - comparing his efforts to that of Tendulkar. Tendulkar's career has been a tragedy for the most part of it, when he was at his supreme best, India was, arguably, at its worst. And when we saw a newer India that was fighting to win, his career took a hit with injuries and (for a brief while), form. And nothing is more showing of this fact than the recent 175 - a truly terrific innings, and the rest of the batsmen choked.

[CSK Fan]

Except for the fact, that that efficient pace at a strike rate of 54 amounts to RPO over of 3.2. Not nearly enough when the most successful test teams on the planet, Australia did it at 4 and over roughly. Enter Sehwag. Yet again, going back to the OP, what if ..Sehwag had scored at Tendlya's efficient rate. Would we have won the rain effected test against RSA ? Good night.

This very post is an excellent indication of the stupidity and lack of logic in all and every of your points. No consideration of match situtation, no consideration of relative strength of team, just a blind eyed approach to prove whatever u want using numbers which you have no idea how to analyze Upu take Sachin's career strike rate and compare it with team Australia's regardless of the fact that Sahcin had to put more price on his wicket throughout his career. What if Sehwag had tried to score at a lesser strike rate in the Nagpur test, wuld we have saved the test? What about so many otehr tests we lost where he threw away his wicket. Could a strike rate of 54 had helped him save/win those? You cannot bring an example of one or two rain hit tests to prove anything. If a rain hit ODI is converted into a 20 overs match and Yousuf Pathan wins it for us, does that mean every ODI player should play all ODI matches like 20/20s? Because thats exactly the conclusion you are drawing from this rain curtalied test.

[patriot]

Agreed. So then, do you think Tendulkar could afford the same amount of risk during the 90s, where he was the sole pillar of the batting line up(and this coming from a huge Rahul Dravid fan)?

That is the biggest myth. Infact if you have followed his career - he dominated and attacked the most during that phase in the 90's , when the Indian team was at its most pathetic. That alone won us matches, along with Kumble's bowling at home. He has infact mellowed down as a batter as the Indian team has gotten better ,which is a shame.

[patriot]

You cannot bring an example of one or two rain hit tests to prove anything

2 cents , Only this ? You only have to back by one more series http://www.cricinfo.com/indvsl2009/engine/match/430883.html 5th day, ***.end of the match result. A victory because of a near triple within a day. You can keep wondering about what if and what that..and about saving games, till the cows come home.

[thevortex]

Patriot - why is it mandatory for great batsmen to have dominated all the bowlers they have played against? When a batsman is overtly dominant it tells you any one of two things: - The pitch does not offer too much assistance to the bowlers - The bowlers are not good enough to consistently put doubt in the minds of the batsman There is, from time to time, also the chance that the batsman is in an all conquering mood and can banish the best of bowlers on the best of wickets to the boundary time and again. These performances are perforce few and far between. Dravid will depart this game as one of the greatest players ever to have graced the game. And he probably did not dominate too many attacks. Domination and strike rate alone do not, the greatness of the batsman, decide. In my opinion, I should add. But they are nice things to have, for sure. Lastly - Ian Chappell is an example of bias and of shooting off with his mouth more times than I care to recount. Remember his 'look in the mirror' article about Tendulkar (and Tendulkar's reply with the bat) and his comment about Sehwag not having a brain between his ears? If you support Chappell and Sehwag, you should consider how the former criticized the latter vehemently and pitliessly.