Viru’s confusion affected his batting: Chauhan

[Muloghonto]

Its a little different comparing Lankans at home vs Indians at home. Lankans have only 3 venues they utilize regularly. India has over a dozen. if you keep playing on the same 3 pitches over and over again, it does give you a decisive advantage- atleast, it should. For all the talk of 'home bullies', it should be kept in mind that almost every single Aussie batsman of any note in the last 20 years have massively better averages at home than away. IIRC, Gilly, Hayden, Ponting average like 10 more runs at home than away. Steve Waugh was probably the only exception.

[Vijy]

Its a little different comparing Lankans at home vs Indians at home. Lankans have only 3 venues they utilize regularly. India has over a dozen. if you keep playing on the same 3 pitches over and over again, it does give you a decisive advantage- atleast, it should. For all the talk of 'home bullies', it should be kept in mind that almost every single Aussie batsman of any note in the last 20 years have massively better averages at home than away. IIRC, Gilly, Hayden, Ponting average like 10 more runs at home than away. Steve Waugh was probably the only exception.

Gilly averages 46 at home and 50 abroad. Damien Martyn averaged nearly the same home and away. Steve Waugh averaged 48 at home and 56 abroad. Lehmann was kept out by others, but he averaged roughly 40 at home and 50 away.

[Vijy]

Sehwag may or may not be an ATG. He certainly brought a thrill to many of us thanks to his aggressive batting and penchant for big scores. And he would make it to an Indian All-time Test XI. I'm certainly not trying to knock him down, but it's also important to recognize his limitations.

[putrevus]

Sehwag is the best opener in sub continent period he is greater than Gavaskar also in SC .He has his flaws but even with his flaws he is an ATG. He was a maverick who needed a constant reminder about his importance to the team and also someone to rein him in a bit.He broke the stereotypical English definition of an opener ingrained in our minds. Batting average is most overrated stat in cricket IMO it hardly portrays true reflection of player's ability.If Cricket had any stat like WARP (Wins Above Replacement player) which gives more accurate info on player and his position in the batting order, Sehwag would be leading it. Sehwag is an opener who can accentuate a strong middle order but without strong middle order he would be a luxury.Indian middle order rarely showed any spine in overseas.

[Vijy]

Sehwag is the best opener in sub continent period he is greater than Gavaskar also in SC .He has his flaws but even with his flaws he is an ATG. He was a maverick who needed a constant reminder about his importance to the team and also someone to rein him in a bit.He broke the stereotypical English definition of an opener ingrained in our minds. Batting average is most overrated stat in cricket IMO it hardly portrays true reflection of player's ability.If Cricket had any stat like WARP (Wins Above Replacement player) which gives more accurate info on player and his position in the batting order, Sehwag would be leading it. Sehwag is an opener who can accentuate a strong middle order but without strong middle order he would be a luxury.Indian middle order rarely showed any spine in overseas.

I think the likes of Tendu and esp Dravid showed enough spine overseas. Dravid in particular played a much more significant role in overseas wins - Headingley, Adelaide, Perth, Pakistan, etc.

[putrevus]

I think the likes of Tendu and esp Dravid showed enough spine overseas. Dravid in particular played a much more significant role in overseas wins - Headingley' date=' Adelaide, Perth, Pakistan, etc.[/quote'] I dont think so, if they had showed up enough spine we would being not counting wins on fingers for careers lasting more than 15 years.

[adi B]

Some interesting stats: Sehwag: Avg in Asia - 57.39 (18 out of 23 centuries), Avg at home - 54.13, Avg away - 44.65 Sangakkara: Avg in Asia - 62.06 (25 out of 33 centuries), Avg at home - 63.27, Avg away - 47.30 Jayawardene: Avg in Asia - 55.64 (25 out of 31 centuries), Avg at home - 61.12, Avg away - 39.35 Samaraweera: Avg in Asia - 54.11 (11 out of 14 centuries), Avg at home - 53.84, Avg away - 43.31 Younis Khan: Avg in Asia - 55.93 (18 out of 23 centuries), Avg at home - 59.31, Avg away - 50.41, neutral venues - 47.41

viru avges 28 in eng from 6 tests,25 in saf from 8 tests, sanga avges 35 in saf from 8 tests,30 in england from 9 tests,34 in windies from 4 tests..these are ordinary stats but then so are viru's..both viru and nanga avg good in aus although nanga has played only 5 tests.. meanwhile younis has played less tests in aus,eng(8 tests combined) compared to the above 2,we will have a clear picture when pak will tour their again.. in saf yk avges 32 in 8 tests,in windies yk avges 23 in 5 tests so each of these batsman have their flaws in a couple of countries while they are magnificent in others..viru avgs 51 in windies,48 in aus,sanga avgs 60 in aus,yk avgs 50+ in eng and aus

[Vijy]

^ Yep, lots of subtleties here. Of course Viru scores his runs faster, but it is clear than he has/had quite a few weak areas. But then, so does virtually every international batsman. Still, there are some cricketers who do tend to have a more balanced spectrum.

[Muloghonto]

I dont think so' date=' if they had showed up enough spine we would being not counting wins on fingers for careers lasting more than 15 years.[/quote'] Using batsmen and their fortitude (or the lack thereof) to measure wins, which is far more the domain of bowlers, speaks of ignorance really. The old adage 'batsmen save matches, bowlers win them' is still mostly true. Not even Bradman would've won many more matches outside of India in the Tendu-Dravid years, where our two best bowlers averaged 35+ and almost 30+ outside of India.

[Muloghonto]

Sehwag is the best opener in sub continent period he is greater than Gavaskar also in SC .He has his flaws but even with his flaws he is an ATG. He was a maverick who needed a constant reminder about his importance to the team and also someone to rein him in a bit.He broke the stereotypical English definition of an opener ingrained in our minds. Batting average is most overrated stat in cricket IMO it hardly portrays true reflection of player's ability.If Cricket had any stat like WARP (Wins Above Replacement player) which gives more accurate info on player and his position in the batting order, Sehwag would be leading it. Sehwag is an opener who can accentuate a strong middle order but without strong middle order he would be a luxury.Indian middle order rarely showed any spine in overseas.

If you think Sehwag is a greater opener than the greatest opener in the last 50 years ( Gavaskar), then i got nothing more to say. Sehwag is a luxury- a batsman, due to his 'jeet kun do attitude' ( frigg blocking, hit them before they hit you, type of aggression) who can go through a string of low scores or score a massive one. Gavaskar is a necessity- a batsman, who will eat up balls first up, thus denting the shine on the ball before the middle order comes out, 9 times out of 10. Add to that, we have a batsman who was fully capable of converting his starts to big scores ( Gavaskar almost never got out for 'well made 20s/30s') and capable of acceleration near the end, he is the 'absolute must' type of a player to have open the batting. IE, when we talk about ATG lineups, with ATG middle orders, Sehwag's inclusion can be easily justified- for 'if he fails, we have Dravid/Bradman, then Sachin, Lara/Viv, Sobers etc. to follow' and 'if he succeeds, then its sheer murder'. In an ATG lineup, the likes of Gavaskar is also a necessity. For exposing #3s and #4s with the ball being less than 5-6 overs old is more often than not, disastrous. But in a weak lineup, the likes of Gavaskar is mandatory, the likes of Sehwag can be counter-productive.

[Vijy]

^ Why would an ATG World XI have both Sehwag and Gavaskar? The latter might merit selection, but there are better openers in WC history than these two.

[Muloghonto]

^ Why would an ATG World XI have both Sehwag and Gavaskar? The latter might merit selection, but there are better openers in WC history than these two.

There isnt a better opener in world history than Gavaskar. Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe simply do not qualify- they did not have the misfortune of facing 90mph bowlers who were ruthless enough to try and knock their heads off every other ball. They played in an era where amatuerism and 'fair play' was the norm, not ruthless targetting of the batsmen. Bouncers in that era were as rare from a fast bowler as they were from Shane Warne ( ie, once a year type of stuff). Pre 1960s ( ie, amatuer era) openers were in general better at facing slow bowlers than openers in the professional era, owing to the uncovered pitches of that era and the lack of quality fast bowlers who would bowl at batsmen's bodies. But given that Gavaskar was one of the most accomplished players-ever- against spin, this is not a criteria where Hobbs/Hutton/Sutcliffe fares better. Gavaskar was also clearly superior to Gooch, Greenidge, Haynes, etc. as openers. Statistically, his nearest rivals are Boycott and Smith. Yet, Smith is a far more technically limited batsman who hasnt faced half as challenging bowling units as Gavaskar did. Boycott was plodder par excellance but even his plodding was not good enough to match the sheer consistency of runs Gavaskar churned out. Boycott was a bit better at facing the moving ball than Gavaskar, Gavaskar was noticably better against sheer pace & bounce but most importantly, Gavaskar was miles and miles better than Boycott against quality spin on spinning tracks. As for Sehwag, in an ATG lineup, he is the luxury I'd choose to have over more technically robust openers, since i give Sehwag the best chance of absolutely destroying any new ball attack on his day than any other opener. And if Sehwag doesn't, no biggie, there are 5 other ATG batsmen to pick up the slack.

[Vijy]

There isnt a better opener in world history than Gavaskar. Hobbs' date=' Hutton, Sutcliffe simply do not qualify- they did not have the misfortune of facing 90mph bowlers who were ruthless enough to try and knock their heads off every other ball. They played in an era where amatuerism and 'fair play' was the norm, not ruthless targetting of the batsmen. [b']Bouncers in that era were as rare from a fast bowler as they were from Shane Warne ( ie, once a year type of stuff). Pre 1960s ( ie, amatuer era) openers were in general better at facing slow bowlers than openers in the professional era, owing to the uncovered pitches of that era and the lack of quality fast bowlers who would bowl at batsmen's bodies. But given that Gavaskar was one of the most accomplished players-ever- against spin, this is not a criteria where Hobbs/Hutton/Sutcliffe fares better. Gavaskar was also clearly superior to Gooch, Greenidge, Haynes, etc. as openers. Statistically, his nearest rivals are Boycott and Smith. Yet, Smith is a far more technically limited batsman who hasnt faced half as challenging bowling units as Gavaskar did. Boycott was plodder par excellance but even his plodding was not good enough to match the sheer consistency of runs Gavaskar churned out. Boycott was a bit better at facing the moving ball than Gavaskar, Gavaskar was noticably better against sheer pace & bounce but most importantly, Gavaskar was miles and miles better than Boycott against quality spin on spinning tracks. As for Sehwag, in an ATG lineup, he is the luxury I'd choose to have over more technically robust openers, since i give Sehwag the best chance of absolutely destroying any new ball attack on his day than any other opener. And if Sehwag doesn't, no biggie, there are 5 other ATG batsmen to pick up the slack.

Just one word: Bodyline Larwood nearly killed Oldfield. Speed guns were absent, and perhaps contemporary witnesses exaggerate, but there were some pretty quick bowlers around - Larwood, Tyson, etc. There were also bowlers who are currently extinct in this era - Sydney Barnes bowled at around 75 mph and spun the ball. Spinners as you mentioned were kings thanks the uncovered pitches. Even if we buy the argument that there were no genuine pacers, uncovered pitches could help pacers too. Variable bounce, cracks, etc would all contribute. The only major argument that holds up against the yesteryear greats is that they did not face as many bowling attacks as people do today, and with that much variety. And Sehwag's selection wouldn't be a luxury - it would be more of a guarantee that he will fail against top quality pace in pace-friendly conditions. If he plays against another world XI, I'd bet on him scoring a quick 20-30. And Sehwag's entire career was played during the 2000s, which were statistically one of most batting friendly decades in the history of cricket. Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe and Barry Richards have stronger cases. Barry Richards also scored extremely quickly.

[putrevus]

Using batsmen and their fortitude (or the lack thereof) to measure wins, which is far more the domain of bowlers, speaks of ignorance really. The old adage 'batsmen save matches, bowlers win them' is still mostly true. Not even Bradman would've won many more matches outside of India in the Tendu-Dravid years, where our two best bowlers averaged 35+ and almost 30+ outside of India.

Bowlers win matches but if batsmen don't provide enough run support no bowlers can win matches let alone the poor ones which India had thru out their history. You don't need to posses a single 22 below avg bowler to be a dominant side, India has no 22 below avg bowlers at home but they were dominant side.Likewise to win few more matches you don't need bowlers to avg under 30. when your batsmen have trouble scoring 300 to 350 on regular basis it is hard to put blame entirely on bowlers. India had one of best batting line ups statistically with two of top highest run scores in history of the game.So just blaming bowlers for lack of wins is ignorance.So if our batting had showed up to the fight more often,India would have eked out more than handful wins it has to show for during this golden generation. When your start studded batting line up is not able to chase 120 runs you blame batting more than bowling.

[Muloghonto]

Just one word: Bodyline Larwood nearly killed Oldfield. Speed guns were absent, and perhaps contemporary witnesses exaggerate, but there were some pretty quick bowlers around - Larwood, Tyson, etc. There were also bowlers who are currently extinct in this era - Sydney Barnes bowled at around 75 mph and spun the ball. Spinners as you mentioned were kings thanks the uncovered pitches. Even if we buy the argument that there were no genuine pacers, uncovered pitches could help pacers too. Variable bounce, cracks, etc would all contribute. The only major argument that holds up against the yesteryear greats is that they did not face as many bowling attacks as people do today, and with that much variety. And Sehwag's selection wouldn't be a luxury - it would be more of a guarantee that he will fail against top quality pace in pace-friendly conditions. If he plays against another world XI, I'd bet on him scoring a quick 20-30. And Sehwag's entire career was played during the 2000s, which were statistically one of most batting friendly decades in the history of cricket. Hobbs, Hutton, Sutcliffe and Barry Richards have stronger cases. Barry Richards also scored extremely quickly.

Bodyline was the only exception to what I've said and that created a near-national incident. The simple fact is, opening in the amatuer era was far less challenging, since batsmen's bodies were not targetted. That was 'unsportsmanlike' and I am yet to hear ANY series description till the rise of Trueman where bowlers bowled bouncers aimed at batsmen's head with any regularity. Hobbs and Sutcliffe especially, did not face anything more challenging than a Bhuvaneshwar Kumar type fast bowler- takes lots of skill to counter but without the threat to body to clutter the mind. They have no case whatsoever, unless we are putting them to open an attack against the likes of Murali, Warne, Kumble & Underwood. Barry Richards- well, he could've been great but fact remains none of those Saffers were proven in test match condition for long. Azhar had a great start before petering away, we have the Hicks and Ramprakashes of the world, who could look like ATGs against Ambrose or Akram in a county match but had no clue against them in tests. It is patently unfair to the achievers in test cricket to have them compared to what were talented but players lacking more than 10-15 tests at best. As for Hutton, again, he did face some serious pace (unlike Hobbs or Sutcliffe) but I've never heard of Lindwall or Miller or Davidson bowling at batsmen's heads or bowling leg stump line from around the wicket either. These are common tactics that virtually every opener has to succeed against and simple fact is, rules of opening were changed, first by Wes Hall and Charlie Griffiths, when Worrell realized that 'banned leg theory' does not specifically ban bowling a leg stump line into batsmen's bodies but doing so with the leg side field being packed. This trend continued under practically every single major pace attack since: Lillee-Thompson to the WI batteries, Imran, two Ws, hell, even Gillespie was more vicious early in his career than anything Hutton had to face. To put it bluntly, none of the openers before the 1960s had been tested by fast bowlers bowling into their bodies and heads on a regular basis and this is a mandatory skill for any opener in contention to ATG categories. As for Sehwag failing being a garantee- i dont think he would succeed consistently against an ATG pace attack unless it was being played in the subcontinent with any consistency. But he certainly is capable of demolishing any attack on his day, for Sehwag has some of the best centuries scored overseas as well. They are infrequent, but there.

[putrevus]

If you think Sehwag is a greater opener than the greatest opener in the last 50 years ( Gavaskar), then i got nothing more to say. Sehwag is a luxury- a batsman, due to his 'jeet kun do attitude' ( frigg blocking, hit them before they hit you, type of aggression) who can go through a string of low scores or score a massive one. Gavaskar is a necessity- a batsman, who will eat up balls first up, thus denting the shine on the ball before the middle order comes out, 9 times out of 10. Add to that, we have a batsman who was fully capable of converting his starts to big scores ( Gavaskar almost never got out for 'well made 20s/30s') and capable of acceleration near the end, he is the 'absolute must' type of a player to have open the batting. IE, when we talk about ATG lineups, with ATG middle orders, Sehwag's inclusion can be easily justified- for 'if he fails, we have Dravid/Bradman, then Sachin, Lara/Viv, Sobers etc. to follow' and 'if he succeeds, then its sheer murder'. In an ATG lineup, the likes of Gavaskar is also a necessity. For exposing #3s and #4s with the ball being less than 5-6 overs old is more often than not, disastrous. But in a weak lineup, the likes of Gavaskar is mandatory, the likes of Sehwag can be counter-productive.

if any match is played in sub continent , I want Sehwag first then Gavaskar next, Gavaskar scoring was too slow to have any major impact on the match, Sehwag scoring big means he gave bowlers lot of time to take 20 wickets. Sehwag scored more runs at better pace than Gavaskar in subcontinent in fewer matches.

[Marut]

Sehwag would be an automatic selection in any Asia XI. But a World XI contender must have the skills to play under all conditions, and Sehwag does not score highly here. Sehwag can bully good attacks under favourable conditions, but he can rarely do that under unfavourable conditions.

[CG]

Sehwag would be an automatic selection in any Asia XI. But a World XI contender must have the skills to play under all conditions' date=' and Sehwag does not score highly here. Sehwag can bully good attacks under favourable conditions, but he can rarely do that under unfavourable conditions.[/quote'] His performances on turning tracks against muruli,mends stand out.