View Poll Results: Vote Off for the # 2 Opener between 1986-2006

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • Anwar

    30 50.00%
  • Sehwag

    30 50.00%
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 85

Thread: Re-Vote for # 2 Opener 1986-2006 (Previous Poll Tied)

  1. #31
    International Debutant aussie tragic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,272
    Quote Originally Posted by silentstriker
    They would make an excellent opening pair (Sehwag and Anwar). However, Hayden is/was better than either of them...so you can't really boot him.
    Maybe we could bat Matty at # 3

    Just kidding, so for all of the people that havn't voted yet, you've goty about 24 hours to vote a clear winner so that we can move onto # 3 which should produce an even more exciting contest between Lara, Ponting and Dravid....of course being an aussie maybe Deano and Boonie might figure (somehow, I don't think so)
    Last edited by aussie tragic; 31-08-2006 at 12:51 PM.

  2. #32
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,911
    Quote Originally Posted by aussie tragic
    Maybe we could bat Matty at # 3

    Just kidding, so for all of the people that havn't voted yet, you've goty about 24 hours to vote a clear winner so that we can move onto # 3 which should produce an even more exciting contest between Lara, Ponting and Dravid....of course being an aussie maybe Deano and Boonie might figure (somehow, I don't think so)

    For #3, can you post a poll with five people max? I think it just clutters thing up. I mean, the chances of anyone besides the top five winning, is basically nill.
    Quote Originally Posted by KungFu_Kallis View Post
    Peter Siddle top scores in both innings....... Matthew Wade gets out twice in one ball
    "The future light cone of the next Indian fast bowler is exactly the same as the past light cone of the previous one"
    -My beliefs summarized in words much more eloquent than I could come up with

    How the Universe came from nothing

  3. #33
    School Boy/Girl Captain Hodgo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Calgary, Canada (from Oz)
    Posts
    115
    Look at Sehwag's conversion rate and his average compared to Anwar ? That is one of the best conversion rates the game has seen.

    I'd take Sehwag over Anwar. I'm always wary when comparing a player from yesteryear against a current one. Usually what happens is a person's stature increases after they retire and sometimes can get rated better than they actually were.
    Aussies to win back the Ashes in '07

  4. #34
    School Boy/Girl Captain Hodgo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Calgary, Canada (from Oz)
    Posts
    115
    Quote Originally Posted by R_D
    Sehwag has really cashed in when he's got going. Which could be due to the poor bowlers and flat pitches so once a batsman is set, chances of him going are pretty low.
    .
    Depends which way you look at it. It could also show that Sehwag is mentally tougher than Anwar as he has gone on with the job more frequently than Anwar.


  5. #35
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Hodgo7
    Look at Sehwag's conversion rate and his average compared to Anwar ? That is one of the best conversion rates the game has seen.

    I'd take Sehwag over Anwar. I'm always wary when comparing a player from yesteryear against a current one. Usually what happens is a person's stature increases after they retire and sometimes can get rated better than they actually were.
    Or what happens is people are more favourably looked at as they're most recent in peoples' minds.
    MSN Messenger: minardineil2000 at hotmail dot com | AAAS Chairman
    CricketWeb Black | CricketWeb XI Captain
    ClarkeWatch: We're Watching Rikki - Are You?

    Up The Grecians - Exeter City FC

    Completing the Square: My Cricket Web Blog

  6. #36
    The Wheel is Forever silentstriker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    37,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Pickup
    Or what happens is people are more favourably looked at as they're most recent in peoples' minds.

    I think that the stature definatly grows, because people tend to remember the greatness, and they are almost put into the 'legend' category, whereas current players are constantly reminding us of their last defeat.

  7. #37
    Hall of Fame Member grecian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Moeen is a perfectly fine bowler FFS.
    Posts
    15,643
    Tied again, you've gotta laugh
    Do I contradict myself?
    Very well then I contradict myself,
    (I am large, I contain multitudes.
    Walt Whitman

  8. #38
    International Captain luffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    ****
    Posts
    5,356
    And there is only another day yet to vote.

  9. #39
    Cricketer Of The Year Turbinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    7,558
    I wish i cud vote twice!!
    GO SEHWAG!!!!!!!

  10. #40
    Global Moderator Fusion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    11,518
    And Sehwag pulls ahead by one. This is some exciting race!

  11. #41
    International Captain luffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    ****
    Posts
    5,356
    Not anymore tied again!!

  12. #42
    International Regular JBH001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Perry Mason
    Considering that Anwar played just 6 tests more than Sehwag already has, could you outline exactly what he has achieved that Sehwag has yet to ?
    I wondered if someone would pick up on that as I typed it - but decided to go ahead with it as Anwars career spanned 10 - 11 years or so at test level, whilst Sehwag has been around on the test scene for about 5 years or so. I figure that longevity does matter, as it means that you do get to face a larger number of bowlers, along with a diversity and variety of environmental and pitch conditions. This is especially so when you consider that pitches have been flatter post 2001.
    Of course, some of what I say would be weighted against me by the fact that some of the discrepancy in test matches played is due to injuries Anwar suffered - but perhaps not so much if you consider that there were less test matches played at the time as well.

    I did have a cursory look at the players though, and almost changed my mind to Sehwag! LOL! But on a second and deeper look I decided to go with my gut and favour Anwar.

    Why? Hmmmm...difficult to explain in brief but here goes:

    Anwar played 91 innings and scored 11 Centuries and 25 Half Centuries.
    Sehwag has played 81 innings with 12 C and 12 HC.

    Sehwag's conversion rate is excellent, outstanding in fact whilst Anwar's is merely good.
    However Anwar is more consistent, in that he tends to reach 50 every 2.5 innings or so whilst Sehwag reaches the mark every 3.25 innings or so.

    Sehwag however, once in tends to go on and on and on as evinced by his 300, and 2 double hundreds, and high hundred scores. Anwar however has never reached 200. And many of his scores are in the lower to mid hundred range. This is counterbalanced though by the realisation that Anwar then, tends to make more runs that even while not resulting in a 50, still give Pak a good start. Say a good 30 - 45 which though not outstanding does tend to see off the new ball and give the middle order a bit of a platform to work with. Sehwag on the other hand, inbetween his massive scores has a larger complement of low scores. This is even more pertinent when you consider that they have the same number of ducks, albeit that Anwar has played 10 more innings.

    Finally I had a brief look at the opposition when each batsman scored their hundreds.

    (I - at least for this little discussion - consider a good attack as one with at least 2 - 3 good bowlers, or 1 great bowler and a good bowler and by this, I am specifically referring to pace bowlers first as they are the bowlers openers are predominantly concerned about, and spinners second. Though again there is a degree of subjectivity attached to this regarding judgement of 'good bowler' - but I hope my assessment is sound. We must also make allowance for bowlers who got better and/or faded - for example facing SA in 2001 was more or less facing Pollock as Ntini had not matured, while facing facing SA in 2006 is more or less facing Ntini - and I suppose Nel - as Pollock declines)

    This was quite interesting, as - by and large - neither of them could say that they scored large numbers of hundreds against real quality (by this an attack composed of great and good bowlers) attacks. If I recall right Sehwag has done it only once, in India at Chennai against McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and Kasper. The majority of his other hundreds have been scored against nothing attacks or attacks with only one great or good bowler, backed up by perhaps competent, mediocre, or just poor bowlers.

    Anwar though not having scored a hundred against a real quality attack (viz. similar to the Aussie attack above) has made more hundreds against good and very good attacks. Therefore hundreds against SA in SA (Pollock/Donald/De Villiers) and Australia (McGrath/Fleming/MacGill) in Pak and Australia in Australia (McGrath/Fleming/Warne).

    Also, the higher proportion of 50's for Anwar again means that he has probably scored more meaningful runs against good attacks on probably more diverse pitches than has Sehwag.
    (though this is something I did not look at)

    We also need to consider that Sehwag has only passed 50 4 times in the second innings, none of which he converted into a hundred. Anwar has a better record in that respect having scored 4 hundreds in the second innings of a test match. Again his higher proportion of 50s means that he has probably scored more worthwhile runs in the second innings than has Sehwag.

    One aspect is clear, Anwar is the more consistent batsman, whilst Sehwag has the happy knack of filling up the barn when the sun shines. However, this issue of consistency comes down to the kind of opener we want, do we want an opener who whilst perhaps not making big smashing hundreds will make consistent good scores and give the team a good start against the new ball? Or do we want an opener who will make a really big score, but then have a string of really low scores? This comes down to a matter of opinion and subjective judgement, but as for me I would prefer in an opener someone who makes (say in the course of a Test Series) a hundred and a couple of 50s, rather than one who makes a big hundred and then not much else.

    Second, taken for all in all Anwar has scored his runs against better attacks on - in all likelihood - more testing pitches, and this has to count for something, especially in an opening batsman. Sehwag, like all batsman post 2001 has had a comparatively easier time.

    Third, as I said, there is too much of a sameness with Hayden. Anwar and Hayden, or Sehwag and Anwar, would complement each other beautifully, but Sehwag and Hayden? I think not.

    For all these reasons, I think Anwar is the better batsman and opener (at least at the present time) and should get the vote ahead of Sehwag. Besides I like watching Anwar more than Sehwag!
    Last edited by JBH001; 31-08-2006 at 10:38 PM.

  13. #43
    Hall of Fame Member NZTailender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand
    Posts
    19,532
    Quote Originally Posted by JBH001
    I wondered if someone would pick up on that as I typed it - but decided to go ahead with it as Anwars career spanned 10 - 11 years or so at test level, whilst Sehwag has been around on the test scene for about 5 years or so. I figure that longevity does matter, as it means that you do get to face a larger number of bowlers, along with a diversity and variety of environmental and pitch conditions. This is especially so when you consider that pitches have been flatter post 2001.
    Of course, some of what I say would be weighted against me by the fact that some of the discrepancy in test matches played is due to injuries Anwar suffered - but perhaps not so much if you consider that there were less test matches played at the time as well.

    I did have a cursory look at the players though, and almost changed my mind to Sehwag! LOL! But on a second and deeper look I decided to go with my gut and favour Anwar.

    Why? Hmmmm...difficult to explain in brief but here goes:

    Anwar played 91 innings and scored 11 Centuries and 25 Half Centuries.
    Sehwag has played 81 innings with 12 C and 12 HC.

    Sehwag's conversion rate is excellent, outstanding in fact whilst Anwar's is merely good.
    However Anwar is more consistent, in that he tends to reach 50 every 2.5 innings or so whilst Sehwag reaches the mark every 3.25 innings or so.

    Sehwag however, once in tends to go on and on and on as evinced by his 300, and 2 double hundreds, and high hundred scores. Anwar however has never reached 200. And many of his scores are in the lower to mid hundred range. This is counterbalanced though by the realisation that Anwar then, tends to make more runs that while not resulting in a 50, still give Pak a good start. Say a good 30 - 45 which though not outstanding does tend to see off the new ball and give the middle order a bit of a platform to work with. Sehwag on the other hand, inbetween his massive scores has a larger complement of low scores. This is even more pertinent when you consider that they have the same number of ducks, albeit that Anwar has played 10 more innings.

    Finally I had a brief look at the opposition when each batsman scored their hundreds.

    (I - at least for this little discussion - consider a good attack as one with at least 2 - 3 good bowlers, or 1 great bowler and a good bowler and by this, I am specifically referring to pace bowlers first as they are the bowlers openers are predominantly concerned about, and spinners second. Though again there is a degree of subjectivity attached to this regarding judgement of 'good bowler' - but I hope my assessment is sound. We must also make allowance for bowlers who got better and/or faded - for example facing SA in 2001 was more or less facing Pollock as Ntini had not matured, while facing facing SA in 2006 is more or less facing Ntini - and I suppose Nel - as Pollock declines)

    This was quite interesting, as - by and large - neither of them could say that they scored large numbers of hundreds against real quality (by this an attack composed of great and good bowlers) attacks. If I recall right Sehwag has done it only once, in India at Chennai against McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and Kasper. The majority of his other hundreds have been scored against nothing attacks or attacks with only one great or good bowler, backed up by perhaps competent, mediocre, or just poor bowlers.

    Anwar though not having scored a hundred against a real quality attack (viz. similar to the Aussie attack above) has made more hundreds against good and very good attacks. Therefore hundreds against SA in SA (Pollock/Donald/De Villiers) and Australia (McGrath/Fleming/MacGill) in Pak and Australia in Australia (McGrath/Fleming/Warne).

    Also, the higher proportion of 50's for Anwar again means that he has probably scored more meaningful runs against good attacks on probably more diverse pitches than has Sehwag.
    (though this is something I did not look at)

    We also need to consider that Sehwag has only passed 50 4 times in the second innings, none of which he converted into a hundred. Anwar has a better record in that respect having scored 4 hundreds in the second innings of a test match. Again his higher proportion of 50s means that he has probably scored more worthwhile runs in the second innings than has Sehwag.

    One aspect is clear, Anwar is the more consistent batsman, whilst Sehwag has the happy knack of filling up the barn when the sun shines. However, this issue of consistency comes down to the kind of opener we want, do we want an opener who whilst perhaps not making big smashing hundreds will make consistent good scores and give the team a good start against the new ball? Or do we want an opener who will make a really big score, but then have a string of really low scores? This comes down to a matter of opinion and subjective judgement, but as for me I would prefer in an opener someone who makes (say in the course of a Test Series) a hundred and a couple of 50s, rather than one who makes a big hundred and then not much else.

    Second, taken for all in all Anwar has scored his runs against better attacks on - in all likelihood - more testing pitches, and this has to count for something, especially in an opening batsman. Sehwag, like all batsman post 2001 has had a comparatively easier time.

    Third, as I said, there is too much of a sameness with Hayden. Anwar and Hayden, or Sehwag and Anwar, would complement each other beautifully, but Sehwag and Hayden? I think not.

    For all these reasons, I think Anwar is the better batsman and opener (at least at the present time) and should get the vote ahead of Sehwag. Besides I like watching Anwar more than Sehwag!

    Great post.
    President of SKAS - Kat is King | Proud member of CVAAS - One of the best | LRPLTAS - Rosco rocks!
    The NZTailender Supporting XI:
    H Rutherford, T Latham, N Broom, M Bracewell, D Brownlie, BJ Watling, D de Boorder+, M Henry, B Wheeler, H Bennett, A Milne
    Go Tigers!
    R.I.P. Fardin & Craig

  14. #44
    International Captain luffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    ****
    Posts
    5,356
    Quote Originally Posted by JBH001
    I wondered if someone would pick up on that as I typed it - but decided to go ahead with it as Anwars career spanned 10 - 11 years or so at test level, whilst Sehwag has been around on the test scene for about 5 years or so. I figure that longevity does matter, as it means that you do get to face a larger number of bowlers, along with a diversity and variety of environmental and pitch conditions. This is especially so when you consider that pitches have been flatter post 2001.
    Of course, some of what I say would be weighted against me by the fact that some of the discrepancy in test matches played is due to injuries Anwar suffered - but perhaps not so much if you consider that there were less test matches played at the time as well.

    I did have a cursory look at the players though, and almost changed my mind to Sehwag! LOL! But on a second and deeper look I decided to go with my gut and favour Anwar.

    Why? Hmmmm...difficult to explain in brief but here goes:

    Anwar played 91 innings and scored 11 Centuries and 25 Half Centuries.
    Sehwag has played 81 innings with 12 C and 12 HC.

    Sehwag's conversion rate is excellent, outstanding in fact whilst Anwar's is merely good.
    However Anwar is more consistent, in that he tends to reach 50 every 2.5 innings or so whilst Sehwag reaches the mark every 3.25 innings or so.

    Sehwag however, once in tends to go on and on and on as evinced by his 300, and 2 double hundreds, and high hundred scores. Anwar however has never reached 200. And many of his scores are in the lower to mid hundred range. This is counterbalanced though by the realisation that Anwar then, tends to make more runs that even while not resulting in a 50, still give Pak a good start. Say a good 30 - 45 which though not outstanding does tend to see off the new ball and give the middle order a bit of a platform to work with. Sehwag on the other hand, inbetween his massive scores has a larger complement of low scores. This is even more pertinent when you consider that they have the same number of ducks, albeit that Anwar has played 10 more innings.

    Finally I had a brief look at the opposition when each batsman scored their hundreds.

    (I - at least for this little discussion - consider a good attack as one with at least 2 - 3 good bowlers, or 1 great bowler and a good bowler and by this, I am specifically referring to pace bowlers first as they are the bowlers openers are predominantly concerned about, and spinners second. Though again there is a degree of subjectivity attached to this regarding judgement of 'good bowler' - but I hope my assessment is sound. We must also make allowance for bowlers who got better and/or faded - for example facing SA in 2001 was more or less facing Pollock as Ntini had not matured, while facing facing SA in 2006 is more or less facing Ntini - and I suppose Nel - as Pollock declines)

    This was quite interesting, as - by and large - neither of them could say that they scored large numbers of hundreds against real quality (by this an attack composed of great and good bowlers) attacks. If I recall right Sehwag has done it only once, in India at Chennai against McGrath, Gillespie, Warne and Kasper. The majority of his other hundreds have been scored against nothing attacks or attacks with only one great or good bowler, backed up by perhaps competent, mediocre, or just poor bowlers.

    Anwar though not having scored a hundred against a real quality attack (viz. similar to the Aussie attack above) has made more hundreds against good and very good attacks. Therefore hundreds against SA in SA (Pollock/Donald/De Villiers) and Australia (McGrath/Fleming/MacGill) in Pak and Australia in Australia (McGrath/Fleming/Warne).

    Also, the higher proportion of 50's for Anwar again means that he has probably scored more meaningful runs against good attacks on probably more diverse pitches than has Sehwag.
    (though this is something I did not look at)

    We also need to consider that Sehwag has only passed 50 4 times in the second innings, none of which he converted into a hundred. Anwar has a better record in that respect having scored 4 hundreds in the second innings of a test match. Again his higher proportion of 50s means that he has probably scored more worthwhile runs in the second innings than has Sehwag.

    One aspect is clear, Anwar is the more consistent batsman, whilst Sehwag has the happy knack of filling up the barn when the sun shines. However, this issue of consistency comes down to the kind of opener we want, do we want an opener who whilst perhaps not making big smashing hundreds will make consistent good scores and give the team a good start against the new ball? Or do we want an opener who will make a really big score, but then have a string of really low scores? This comes down to a matter of opinion and subjective judgement, but as for me I would prefer in an opener someone who makes (say in the course of a Test Series) a hundred and a couple of 50s, rather than one who makes a big hundred and then not much else.

    Second, taken for all in all Anwar has scored his runs against better attacks on - in all likelihood - more testing pitches, and this has to count for something, especially in an opening batsman. Sehwag, like all batsman post 2001 has had a comparatively easier time.

    Third, as I said, there is too much of a sameness with Hayden. Anwar and Hayden, or Sehwag and Anwar, would complement each other beautifully, but Sehwag and Hayden? I think not.

    For all these reasons, I think Anwar is the better batsman and opener (at least at the present time) and should get the vote ahead of Sehwag. Besides I like watching Anwar more than Sehwag!
    Sometimes people just write too much

  15. #45
    School Boy/Girl Cricketer StumpMic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Karachi
    Posts
    99
    I would have liked to see Jayasuriya included in this poll. I think he's the best opener with a career (not just opening) avg of 41 in 105 matches and over 6700 runs, 14 tons and 30 fifties.

    Overall Career stats

    If somebody can point to his stats as an opener...

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. *Official* English Football Season 2006-07
    By luckyeddie in forum General Sports Forum
    Replies: 6889
    Last Post: 22-06-2007, 07:37 AM
  2. *Official* ICC Inter-continental cup 2006
    By TIF in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 137
    Last Post: 01-06-2007, 11:52 PM
  3. # 2 Opener between 1986-2006
    By aussie tragic in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 29-08-2006, 05:40 PM
  4. controversial
    By sledger in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 09-07-2006, 01:23 PM
  5. help meeeeee
    By ReallyCrazy in forum Site Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-04-2004, 07:27 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •