*Official* 4th Test - England v India - Keep all Discussion Here Please!

[Anil]

He's actually played 9 Tests, with an average of 45. Opening he has only played 4 Tests, and averages 39. Incidentally he's opened this summer only on batsman friendly wickets, and failed really.

Nottingham and Leeds were both wickets that helped the bowlers while Lords and the Oval were batsman-friendly. So, that statement is incorrect. His overall average of 45.50 in 9 tests is still impressive with a century and a 50 in SA and another century and a 50 in England(The significance is that he did this in away matches). 39.50 in the last series is definitely not a great average, neither is it a poor one. Exactly what do you mean by saying he has failed? Are you talking about the hype surrounding Sehwag before the start of the series, the comparisons with Sachin and all that? That should be treated as just so much sound and fury signifying nothing. The fact is that he is an exciting stroke player who likes to take on the bowlers. He will develop consistency and better shot selection with more experience and has the potential to be an exceptional player(whether as an opener or in the middle order remains to be seen). Don't write him off after one moderate series.

 

[luckyeddie]

I think there's no doubt that he (Sehwag) is a luxury which India CAN afford. Sure, there will be times when he doesn't produce match-winning performances, but now is not the time for a knee-jerk reaction.

After all, if England had ditched Michael Vaughan after a desperately mediocre series in New Zealand, we could well have been in a pretty sorry state this summer.

 

[aussie_beater]

...Incidentally he's opened this summer only on batsman friendly wickets, and failed really.

He has opened for India this summer in England in all of the test matches.Out of those four matches, two were played in batsman friendly wickets and two were in "not so batsman friendly" wickets.

Sure Sehwag hasn't been a great success in this series but cannot be termed a failure either.With a hundred and a fifty to his name and an average of about forty, he deserves more chances.He has got the right stuff in him as far as technique and attitude is concerned but has to improve in his shot selection and be a little more judicious in opening up his shoulders too early while playing in seaming conditions.I am sure he will gain in confidence and mature as a test cricketer given a long run and with the kind of explosive batting that he is capable of, he can be a matchwinner on his day.

[Edited on 9/10/02 by aussie_beater]

 

[marc71178]

A series where the average score was 46 runs per wicket is a batsman friendly series - and there's no-way anyone can deny that.

In context, that does make Shewags 39.5 (bettered by 6 Indians and 8 Englishmen) a relative failure.

 

[luckyeddie]

A series where the average score was 46 runs per wicket is a batsman friendly series - and there's no-way anyone can deny that.

I'll deny it to a certain extent - more like batsman-friendly bowling in half of the games.

Headingley might have been a 250-275 wicket if you were lucky, Trent Bridge maybe 350.

Whilst I would not in any way take anything away from the Indian batsmen, I thing that a decent attack would have made life a little more 'interesting' for them, to say the least.

 

[aussie_beater]

A series where the average score was 46 runs per wicket is a batsman friendly series - and there's no-way anyone can deny that.

Your statement exemplifies the pitfalls of looking at the stats too much.Yes, two tests were played in batsman friendly conditions, but the other two were not.That's a fact and if you watched the matches you will vouch for that.

Headingley wasn't a batsman friendly wicket by any stretch of imagination.Yes, the English bowling made it look like one when they conceded 600 odd runs to the Indians.And that's where your stats get skewed.Trent Bridge was not in the same league as Headingley, but wasn't a flat bed either.

As LE put it, the case could have been more of batsman-friendly bowling rather then batsman-friendly conditions all through the series.

 

[marc71178]

Fair enought, I should have said Batsman friendly series as supposed to wickets, but that doesn't change my point about Sehwag underperforming.

 

[luckyeddie]

So?

As I intimated earlier, Michael Vaughan under-performed for 2 years then hit paydirt.

 

[Anil]

Fair enought, I should have said Batsman friendly series as supposed to wickets, but that doesn't change my point about Sehwag underperforming.

Let me repeat the point I was trying to make earlier.
Don't go by the hype surrounding him before the start of the series. No one denies that he had a moderate series, but he didn't perform so badly that you can write him off based on that.

 

[aussie_beater]

Fair enought, I should have said Batsman friendly series as supposed to wickets, but that doesn't change my point about Sehwag underperforming.

Lot of batsman underperform at some point or the other specially at the start of their career.Sehwag was opening in tests for the first time and that too in a tour and not in home conditions.That he could get a century and a fifty and finish the series with an average of forty says that he has got the goods and will improve and that's all that matters right now.

Time will tell, but there is no point at jumping up and down because he didn't slam the English attack all over the place to score four centuries.

[Edited on 9/11/02 by aussie_beater]

 

[Neil Pickup]

I don't recall any jumping up and down.

Sehwag got himself out, stupidly, a few times for low scores. Thereby underperformed this series...

That's all the point was!

 

[full_length]

Neil, on the other hand, I would say that Sehwag has done very well in a difficult position.

You must remember that top players, very experienced ones play for a few years with an average in the thirties, in mid career! I don't want to pull up stats and compare, because that will derail the arguement. (I can if anyone wants names )

I consider this series a success for sehwag because he got an 80+ score and a century as an opener. If he had got a bunch 40s and a couple of 50s for a 45 average, it could have meant anything. But those high scores show you that he is indeed able to bat on and make big ones. Early days, ofcourse

Another player who had an excellent start to his test career as an opener for India in recent times was Ramesh.
Sure, there's no saying Virender will be in the team in two years (Ramesh isn't!) but if you look at some of the big names, even in contemperory cricket, most didnt have such a good start to their career. And, again, he is an attacking option at the very top of the order- so I'd stick with him even if he had only scored that one 100 and a bunch of zeros in his second major test tour! Ofcourse, the moment he got his century on debut in SA, he became a terrific option for India.

I really think that Slater is the barometer to use for Sehwag.. I'll be dissapointed if he ends up with a lesser career than the Aussie!

Think Kallis, Atapattu ... and you wont complain about this series for Sehwag

[Edited on 9/11/02 by full_length]

 

[aussie_beater]

I don't recall any jumping up and down.

Sehwag got himself out, stupidly, a few times for low scores. Thereby underperformed this series...

That's all the point was!

For underperformance to be measured you need to have a yardstick of previous performance against which you can say whether someone underperformed or overperformed.For Sehwag as an opener, this was the first series and so you don't have a yardstick.So this "underperformed" argument is moot.Yes he didn't have a series like Gavaskar did in the 1971 tour of the Windies, but he showed that he has the goods and given some chance and some improvements on his part, he can become an exciting prospect at test level too.

That's the whole point, mate.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Agreed, the 80+ and 100 were superb innings but I wasn't saying that he had 'failed' - merely that he has not done himself justice on a number of occasions by playing injudicious shots..

 

[Anil]

Agreed, the 80+ and 100 were superb innings but I wasn't saying that he had 'failed' - merely that he has not done himself justice on a number of occasions by playing injudicious shots..

Marc very clearly said he has failed and that's what started this argument. However, let's put that aside. His adventurous style of play, his attitude all ensure that he will take a little too much risk every now and then. The point is that with more experience, he can iron out these faults. These are faults of youthful impetuosity rather than lack of talent.

 

[marc71178]

Marc very clearly said he has failed and that's what started this argument.

I actually said that relatively speaking he'd failed - there is a distinct difference.

 

[aussie_beater]

Relative to what ? His previous performances or the performances of the other Indian players ? There is no previous performance for him as an opener, so that can be discounted.And coming to the relativity with other Indian players, surely he wasn't expected to outperform the big three.

And he is the only other player to have scored a hundred and a fifty other then the big three and ended up with an average which was pretty decent.

Surely neither he nor his fans are satisfied with what he achieved in this series.Everybody can see the promise of greater things from him.Time will tell the rest.


[Edited on 9/12/02 by aussie_beater]

 

[Anil]

He's actually played 9 Tests, with an average of 45. Opening he has only played 4 Tests, and averages 39. Incidentally he's opened this summer only on batsman friendly wickets, and failed really.

This was an absolute statement which was countered by a_b, le and myself. Then, you came out with the statement given below.

A series where the average score was 46 runs per wicket is a batsman friendly series - and there's no-way anyone can deny that.

In context, that does make Shewags 39.5 (bettered by 6 Indians and 8 Englishmen) a relative failure.

The first part of this statement was an over-simplification and was disproved(see earlier posts by a_b, le...). As to the second part, did you expect him to top the averages for both the sides or atleast the Indian side? If so, on what basis? I told you in an earlier post not to go by the hype surrounding him at the start of the series.
There are some valid reasons why he had a moderate series:

He is still raw in that he has just started his test career.

He was opening for the first time in his budding career(in tests).

Two of the pitches were definitely bowler-friendly(and he did get a ton in one of them).

His approach to the game(Wright clearly said that he was to play his natural game as opener and they were willing to experiment with that to get the Indian innings off to a flyer) ensures that he will get out every now and then to indiscreet shots(repeating myself over here).

Considering the odds, he was not a failure in relative or absolute terms.

 

[luckyeddie]

My final words on the subject :

He's very promising.
He could be good.
He just might become very good.
He's unlikely to become 'great' but you never know...

A good prospect making his way in a tough arena, and he doesn't look out of place.

 

[Anil]

My final words on the subject :

He's very promising.
He could be good.
He just might become very good.
He's unlikely to become 'great' but you never know...

A good prospect making his way in a tough arena, and he doesn't look out of place.

Thanks. That sums it up nicely.