Originally Posted by Woodster
He is a good enough player to have success at times in conditions he is not entirely comfortable with. He has played enough cricket to score runs on occasions when it is swinging around or seaming about a bit, but his record in England where he averages 27.80, South Africa 25.47, and New Zealand 20.00 suggest he generally finds the going much more difficult, and that isn't surprising with the way he plays. He has had success in Australia to his credit where there's more bounce around, but his record is so impeccable because once he is in in his own comfortable conditions, he cashes in.
His record in England & New Zealand is a bit misleading - he clearly wasn't fit when picked to play in England in 2011 and averaged a reasonable 40 on his maiden tour there in 2002.
His failures in NZ in 2009 isn't because of the swinging ball. I'm always amused that people qualify Gambhir's success on that tour as due to the flat wickets and Sehwag's failure as due to the swinging and seaming conditions
. So which is it ?
His other tour to NZ in 2002 was that rather infamous series in which the batsmen on both sides failed.
I think India's next round of tours in 2013/2014 (to RSA, England, NZ and AUstralia) are gonna be crucial in judging how he is ultimately viewed. .
He has the innate ability (contrary to what a lot of his detractors think) to score runs on picthes where their is some juice for the seamers - he showed it at Bloiemforntein in 2001 , Trent Bridge 2002 and Chennai 2004). Question is how badly does he want the success ?