More devastating...Richards or Gilchrist??

[Eclipse]

Sehwag = on path to becoming all time great i.e. give him time

i don't think so. it's to early to say that.

 

[SJS]

. it's like Afridi was amazing consistency

No. Its not Afridi with amazing consistency. It is Afridi with all the strokes in the game (not just the front foot drive of anything between good length to half volley) PLUS amazing consistency.

Speaking of Gilchrist and Afridi in the same breath is blasphemy.

 

[Isolator]

Yeah, especially since I much prefer watching Afridi.
No, I don't think they can be compared. Gilchrist has the ability to hit balls that most people can't. But, unlike Afridi, he's not looking to hit everything for four or six. He just has a very good eye for boundary opportunities. Whereas Afridi is pretty much a brute-force player, with a good eye and good timing. Personally, I don't like Gilchrist's batting style, but it's good to see him destroy teams I don't support.

 

[social]

i don't think so. it's to early to say that.

Extrapolate Sehwag's current record to 75 tests and you have an all-time great.

Guaranteed - no

Potential - yes

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Again, irrelevant. Most accurate comparision for current players is to compare upto-date record and for past players is to compare the whole thing...for the cumulative record takes into account any ups and downs and balances em out. Or else, going by your assertion, we cannot say that McGrath is a better bowler than Irfan Pathan NOW because who knows-McGrath may average 40 with the ball for the next 3 years and end with a 23-24 ave and 550 wickets and Irfan could average 19 with the ball for the next 15 years and end with 550-600 wickets @ 21..right ?

What gilly was two years ago or what sehwag will be two years ago is irrelevant. What is relevant is how good he is cumulatively TODAY and how good Sehwag is cumulatively TODAY.

Err, no. What you are saying would be valid if Sehwag had a record that had undergone a few years at the top, but he doesn't, which is exactly my point. Gilchrist two years ago had been in test cricket for roughly four years and played around 50 tests and had a superlative record. Sehwag two years ago had only played around a dozen tests and was averaging about 40. After that, Sehwag has had a very good START to his international career, and he's certainly proven as an international talent, but to call him potentially the most devastating batsman of all time based on a short good period is ludicrous. Even ignoring direct comparison of their value as players, he simply cannot compare to Gilchrist because Gilchrist has been doing it for years now and come out of the inevitable period of lesser form that every player faces at some point and continued after it. Sehwag was averaging 40 fifteen months ago, and has since had a very good run of form and improved his average dramatically. Fifteen months however does NOT put you in contention for any sort of "all time" title, and to claim that it does is rather biased and out of character for you. Gilchrist started his career well but more importantly has maintained his amazing record for a long period of time, and as I said if Sehwag is still averaging in the 55 range in a few years time with a strike rate similar to what he has now I will be surprised, as pretty much every player in test history with a Richards/Gilchrist temprament EXCEPT for Richards and Gilchrist has gone through big patches of poor form because of the risky style of game they play. The thing that seperates Richards and Gilchrist from the pack is the fact that they manage to play in the devastating fashion that they do without throwing their wicket away regularly or slipping into long patches of poor form.

Richards for me was unquestionably the better batter (as good as Gilchrist is), but Gilchrist is the most devastating batsman to ever play the game. Sehwag based on 15 months of good form isn't even in the same league.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Extrapolate Sehwag's current record to 75 tests and you have an all-time great.

Guaranteed - no

Potential - yes

Agreed, but he isn't an all-time great YET. Gilchrist is.

 

[marc71178]

what he does i doubt anyone else could do, maybe he wouldn't be that good as an opener but who is to say Shewag would be anygood batting at number 7..

Didn't Sehwag start out batting down there and do well?

 

[chekmeout]

As president of the VSAS, I wish to address this issue

Virender Sehwag has been a middle order batsman all his life. He has been consistently batting at nos. 5 and 6 throughout his career, right from his school days to club to Ranji Trophy.. He was suddenly asked to open the innings by Saurav Ganguly...

I do not wish to compare Sehwag and Gilchrist because in my mind they are the two best test batsmen in world cricket today. Not only because of the runs they make but how they set the opposition back instantly. Irrespective of who Sehwag is playing, he gets India of to a start of 5-6 runs an over. Who has the harder job? Gilchrist because he wicketkeeps obviously but opening the innings also has its own significance. Sehwag has been extremely successful even playing away from home in seaming conditions in England. In New Zealand, during the famous 2002-03 tour where the entire batting lineups of both teams failed in ODIs Sehwag scored 2 hundreds and a 44* opening the innings and in matches where the scores rarely reached 200 that showed us what Sehwag is all about...

Sehwag & Gilly are the best batsmen in the world right now IMO...

 

[marc71178]

2 of the best yes, but the 2 best?

For start there's an Indian better than both of them.

 

[chekmeout]

2 of the best yes, but the 2 best?

For start there's an Indian better than both of them.

In the long run of course Tendulkar & Dravid are better.. I'm talking about right now.. simply because of the way they bat

 

[marc71178]

Yes, right now Dravid is far better than them.

 

[Eclipse]

Didn't Sehwag start out batting down there and do well?

he may have batted at six not seven, you can prove me wrong if you want, i havn't looked this up.

and he did alright over a short period of time, gilly's been great over a long period of time.

 

[Deja moo]

Sehwags played 34 tests, Gillys played 66, Vivs played 121.

If Sehwag cant be compared to Gilly now since they're not at similar stages of their careers, I dont se how Gilly can be compared to Viv.

Besides, talking of sub-40 averages, Sehwag averages 27 in 4 tests vs New Zealand (including the two tests in the pre WC tour), and Gilchrist averages 35 in 5 vs Sri Lanka and astonishingly, just 29 in 14 tests vs India. The worst King Viv could do was to average 41 vs New Zealand.

Its easy to get carried away after a good knock, isnt it ?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Sehwags played 34 tests, Gillys played 66, Vivs played 121.

If Sehwag cant be compared to Gilly now since they're not at similar stages of their careers, I dont se how Gilly can be compared to Viv.

It's not about matches played, it's about time. Sehwag has been in top form for 15 months now after a slow start to his career, Gilchrist has been performing consistently aside from one slump for six years. For me, the criteria for being devastating is obviously scoring plenty of runs at a significant rate, and doing it regularly enough and with enough consistency that it's not simply a fluke or a day where things went your way. If Sehwag keeps up his mid 50s average for a few more years he can be spoken about in the same breath as Gilchrist, but not on 15 months of good form.

 

[Deja moo]

It's not about matches played, it's about time. Sehwag has been in top form for 15 months now after a slow start to his career, Gilchrist has been performing consistently aside from one slump for six years. For me, the criteria for being devastating is obviously scoring plenty of runs at a significant rate, and doing it regularly enough and with enough consistency that it's not simply a fluke or a day where things went your way. If Sehwag keeps up his mid 50s average for a few more years he can be spoken about in the same breath as Gilchrist, but not on 15 months of good form.

Scoring a century on debut on a Bloemfontein pitch that had a lot (and I mean a lot) in it for the quicks is certainly not a slow start.

Virender Sehwag:
Matches(cumulative average)(100s,50s):
5 (51.50)(1,2)
10(53.30)(3,3)
15(40.95)(3,4)<-------Includes 2 tests vs NZ in NZ.
20(45.81)(5,5)
25(53.62)(7,6)
30(52.60)(8,8)
33(53.58)(9,9)

Wheres the slow start ? If anything, hes been very consistent.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Scoring a century on debut on a Bloemfontein pitch that had a lot (and I mean a lot) in it for the quicks is certainly not a slow start.

Virender Sehwag:
Matches(cumulative average)(100s,50s):
5 (51.50)(1,2)
10(53.30)(3,3)
15(40.95)(3,4)<-------Includes 2 tests vs NZ in NZ.
20(45.81)(5,5)
25(53.62)(7,6)
30(52.60)(8,8)
33(53.58)(9,9)

Wheres the slow start ? If anything, hes been very consistent.

I meant a slow start in comparison to his current record. 15 months ago Sehwag was averaging 40, and Gilchrist was averaging around 60, now their averages are closer together, but Sehwag has only had 15 months of top form.

 

[Jono]

I agree with Faaip here. Its too early to compare Sehwag to Gilchrist, and definitely to Viv, but it is my belief that Sehwag definitely has the ability to be just as devastating. He is playing amazingly, and his average continues to improve. If he keeps this up for another 2-3 years, he will definitely be there with Gilly.

Comparing Sehwag to Viv reminds me a lot of people comparing Flintoff to the fab 4 all-rounders. 12-18 months of playing brilliantly is great, but it doesn't warrant a direct comparison to some legends of the game, and especially doesn't warrant the idea that one (Flintoff, Sehwag etc.) is 'better' than the other. You may believe they will be, or have more talent etc. but you'd find it hard pressed convincing me that Sehwag is any where close to Viv's league yet.

Back to the Gilly argument, its very easy to make comparisons with Gilly and Viv, and it all depends on the definition of 'destructive', I mean are there different levels? If so, the difference between Gilly and Viv is very thin.

 

[Swervy]

Comparing Sehwag to Viv reminds me a lot of people comparing Flintoff to the fab 4 all-rounders. 12-18 months of playing brilliantly is great, but it doesn't warrant a direct comparison to some legends of the game, and especially doesn't warrant the idea that one (Flintoff, Sehwag etc.) is 'better' than the other. You may believe they will be, or have more talent etc. but you'd find it hard pressed convincing me that Sehwag is any where close to Viv's league yet.

I think there is a difference (I will back myself up on the Flintoff one, coz I was probably the only one to suggest that Flintoff has the ability at playing this game in the same way with the same results as the 'Big 4' as long as injuries or fitness dont hamper him too much))

having seen all the players mentioned here(Hadlee,Dev,Botham,Imran,Flintoff,Sehwag and Richards), I think I am in a fair position to give an opinion.(and thats all it is..an opinion)

With regards to the Flintoff debate,Flintoff IS as good a batsman Imran,Botham and Dev, that much is apparent by watching them play..and he is light years ahead of hadlee with the bat... with the ball he is as good as Dev for most of his career,and the non glory days of Botham,but is still miles behing Imran and hadlee when they were in there pomp...of course most people will dismiss that because Flintoff had a slow (very slow in fact) start to his career for one reason or another, but there is absolutely no reason why Flintoff shouldnt be considered to be as good an all rounder as those 4 (when balancing all the talents each player has/had) in years to come.

Regarding Sehwag and Richards..well it only takes watching the two of them play for it to become blatently obvious that as a batsman Sehwag just doesnt come close to Richards..and I would be of that opinion even if Sehwag plays 80 tests and averages over 50. Richards at times was simply a player it was impossible to bowl to,if he didnt want to give up his wicket, he wouldnt..simple as that...it was only very rarely that when he was in the zone, that he would be beaten in anyway.

Sehwag, I feel, even when he is scoring runs, is ripe for being got out by a good ball alot more than Richards ever was. I always feel that with sehwag, he is only one ball from being dismissed (please tell me if I am being unfair)..with richards, it really didnt feel like that.

Of course Richards probably played on a bit too long as as a consequence, his average probably doesnt do justice to the immense talent he had, whereas I do feel (and again sehwag may well prove me wrong) Sehwag will encounter a fair few more dips in his career than Richards ever did.

Sehwag is no doubt one of the more exciting batsmen to play the game at the moment, but it doesnt quite feel as natural as the way Richards or Gilchrist played/plays.

 

[Jono]

Lol Swervy I knew you'd reply to my post

Well we've sort of had this discussion before (although the Sehwag/Viv discussion spices it up a bit) and from the looks of it you've seen more cricket than I have. I personally feel Flintoff has more to prove (and I believe the Ashes will have a lot to do with that) before he is stated as being as good as the big 4, particularly Imran for me. But from your view (and that's what counts to each person, their view/interpretation of the cricket they see) you can see similarities between Flintoff and the other 4 (on overall talent) whilst Sehwag doesn't give you the same impression when compared to Viv. That's a fair statment.

I think Sehwag is his own player personally. Comparisons can be made with Gilly (on mode, not overall career) but I feel he's like no other, and am thus very reluctant to compare him to Gilly or even Viv. I think the similarities in terms of their attacking style will result in comparions made (if Sehwag continues his blistering form for 2-3 more years) but for me, he'll always be different to Viv. Sort of for the reasons you gave, but I also believe his frame of mind is quite different to that of Viv's.

 

[Swervy]

Lol Swervy I knew you'd reply to my post

Well we've sort of had this discussion before (although the Sehwag/Viv discussion spices it up a bit) and from the looks of it you've seen more cricket than I have. I personally feel Flintoff has more to prove (and I believe the Ashes will have a lot to do with that) before he is stated as being as good as the big 4, particularly Imran for me. But from your view (and that's what counts to each person, their view/interpretation of the cricket they see) you can see similarities between Flintoff and the other 4 (on overall talent) whilst Sehwag doesn't give you the same impression when compared to Viv. That's a fair statment.

I think Sehwag is his own player personally. Comparisons can be made with Gilly (on mode, not overall career) but I feel he's like no other, and am thus very reluctant to compare him to Gilly or even Viv. I think the similarities in terms of their attacking style will result in comparions made (if Sehwag continues his blistering form for 2-3 more years) but for me, he'll always be different to Viv. Sort of for the reasons you gave, but I also believe his frame of mind is quite different to that of Viv's.

I knew you would know I would reply to your post

I agree,Flintoffs real time to prove his abilities to those who have not seen that much of him (by that I mean those who dont live in England and never have gotten to watch him play for Lancashire.....and yeah I am a big lancashire supporter so maybe I am a tad biased regarding Freddies abilities) is against Australia.

The problem is, if he doesnt perform in a way that people now expect him to,people will straight away write the guy off as a fraudulant bad team bully.....the pressure of public expectation I hope wont affect his game adversely...3 years ago I would have thought it would do, now I think he thrives in pressure situations...so i dont think that will be the issue.

Flintoff is notoriously vunerable early on in an innings, and I think Australia may have the bowlers to really exploit that (especially McGrath)...so really the key for Flintoff to really buid on his reputation on a world wide stage is for him to really knuckle down in the first 20 minutes of each innings he plays..that could be the difference between him being considered truely one of the great players of the last 20 years or another also ran produced by England in the last 20 years.

Personally, I really hope that Flintoff plays to his fullest vs Australia (despite me wanting Australia to win), because more than anything, I think that is what this up coming series needs.

Flintoff certain has the ability to be considered one of the most destructive batsmen in the world at the moment (back to the topic ) but the difference between Flintoff and Gilchrist is that Gilly can do it vs top bowling from ball one..Freddie cant