Why Sehwag Has Tasted More Success In Tests

[Richard]

Possibly because everyone knows how important it is to hold onto him, because you can take the game away from you so quickly.

I don't really believe that, slip-catches mostly come fast enough for you not to have time to think.

 

[Jono]

Are you going to reply to Jack's post regarding team transition? Was a great point.

 

[Richard]

OK, if you want... didn't think I'd ever see someone encouraging me to post another post...

WRT players who won't be at the 2011 World Cup, they definitely have a very important role to play through transition. You don't want a large chuck of your side not playing suddenly after a WC, you need to keep the core of your team over the next two years and phase in change. This provides a reasonably stable set-up for young players to come into, and allows the senior players to be able to mentor and help the younger players as they come through and help them manage the rigours of international cricket.

I see what you mean, but I've never been a 100% believer in that. IMO if the players who are going to come in are good enough, they'll do the job, if they're not, they won't. Playing with senior players, especially in ODIs (is it helpful to come in at six with 4 overs left?), cannot either disguise the shortcomings of would-be replacements or help someone who's got the talent. Sure, it's nice to be around them for a time, and Liam said something similar about Lara a little while ago - but it doesn't mean actually playing in the same match.

 

[adharcric]

Playing with senior players, especially in ODIs (is it helpful to come in at six with 4 overs left?), cannot either disguise the shortcomings of would-be replacements or help someone who's got the talent. Sure, it's nice to be around them for a time, and Liam said something similar about Lara a little while ago - but it doesn't mean actually playing in the same match.

Regardless of the talent that a new cricketer does or does not have, there is a fair chance that he will have a tough time adapting early on. Having senior players around just reduces the pressure on you. On the other hand, it limits the opportunities somewhat as the top-order spots are preoccupied and the newcomer can't really build an innings.

 

[Richard]

All the more reason, then, for the player to be a part of squads without playing for a time, before he starts his career.

And isn't the adaptibility a rather vital talent? One that if you lack, you have no chance of succeeding?

Many, many players, though, are brought into international cricket too early (it can be stupidly too early age-wise, like Derek Pringle and Hasan Raza, or just before the player has acquired the skills he needs) and that's one reason so many struggle in their first few games. And, of course, many struggle through an entire career. They're what's know as "players who didn't make the grade".

 

[C_C]

It is ridiculous to think that players should just play for world cups and promptly retire if they arn't gonna be around 4 years till the next world cup.
Jack's point about team-building is bang on target and Richard, i think your argument reeks of someone without much feel for competetive team sports.
Its not just 'hanging around the oldies in the dressing room' factor- its also the 'oldies will pull your arse out of the fire' factor when the going gets tough. Often players with experience and getting on in age tend to be less consistent than their late 20s counterparts but the added experience brings in the 'steel' that sees them bail out their sides in crunch situations more often.
Whether you like it or not, people's reputations do make a difference and if you think it doesn't, then try playing against an alltime great even in a practice match, let alone real one and see if you are nervous or not. Similarly, the reputation of a great player serves as a calming influence to the young and impetuous ones in the lineup - not just hanging around in the backroom alleys but the fact that these 'oldies' will 'come after ya and bail you out should you screw it up'.
This is one reason why oldies progress down the order and bowl 1st change instead of opening as time passes.

 

[Arjun]

Not surprisingly, this thread runs into more than a few pages.

Looking at the third post here, this is my take on the issue. Sehwag is more successful in Tests despite his style, because Tests actually give him more time to play a big innings. He can afford to take a break for a few balls in a Test innings, because a four-ball or six-ball is always around the corner. That's not possible in one-dayers, as a dot ball is a wasted opportunity, which can haunt the team a lot.

Maybe he knows this, and that's why he bats this way, but he isn't taking enough singles. He's trying to hit a boundary off nearly every ball. If he played an ODI innings like in a Test, he may have been a lot more successful.

What hampered him further was that there was nobody in the Indian side in the year 2004 who could hit the big shots with the regularity that he could. That put excess pressure on him to play the extra big shots to make up for the lack of power in the team, and it triggerred a long slump in form. Although we saw Dhoni come in the team and Irfan put the long handle to good use, and even Powar or JP Yadav getting a game at times, he played like a pinch-hitter for far too long. Frankly, no batsman can be successful in ODI's if he's averse to running extra singles.

 

[shortpitched713]

Frankly, no batsman can be successful in ODI's if he's averse to running extra singles.

Inzi, discuss.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Inzi, discuss.

Rinsed!!

 

[silentstriker]

Inzamam is a freak. You cannot judge anyone or anything by how he plays the game.

 

[silentstriker]

Its funny because if I had to pick one guy to emulate if I made it to international cricket...it would be Inzy. For the sheer hilariousness and the fact that he averages 50 in Tests despite forgetting that quick singles are within the rules in the game of cricket.

Plus he has the best comment in the history of the game, "I can't understand the rule, because in Faisalabad I left the ball and was out and this time I hit the ball and was out."

 

[open365]

On the point of players only playing for world cups;

The game of cricket is not just an excuse for deciding which country is best.

It is a spectacle, it is an art form, it is entertainment. And Tendulkar, Dravid and Ganguly are some of the most entertaining players in the Indian side, you drop them while they can still play and all hell will break lose because the fans want to see them play.

They are idols and heroes, they are the reason people watch the game, especialy Tendulkar who is the best batsman of his generation and an absolute joy to watch.

Cricket is about more than winning world trophies.

 

[Richard]

It is ridiculous to think that players should just play for world cups and promptly retire if they arn't gonna be around 4 years till the next world cup.
Jack's point about team-building is bang on target and Richard, i think your argument reeks of someone without much feel for competetive team sports.
Its not just 'hanging around the oldies in the dressing room' factor- its also the 'oldies will pull your arse out of the fire' factor when the going gets tough. Often players with experience and getting on in age tend to be less consistent than their late 20s counterparts but the added experience brings in the 'steel' that sees them bail out their sides in crunch situations more often.
Whether you like it or not, people's reputations do make a difference and if you think it doesn't, then try playing against an alltime great even in a practice match, let alone real one and see if you are nervous or not. Similarly, the reputation of a great player serves as a calming influence to the young and impetuous ones in the lineup - not just hanging around in the backroom alleys but the fact that these 'oldies' will 'come after ya and bail you out should you screw it up'.
This is one reason why oldies progress down the order and bowl 1st change instead of opening as time passes.

Err, where on Earth did I say reputations don't make a difference?

I have a perfectly decent feel for "competetive team sports" - simple fact, though, is that ODIs are far more competetive on an individual basis outside the World Cup (and maybe Champions Trophy) because for the most part you can lost every single game for all anyone cares if you win the Cup.

 

[Richard]

On the point of players only playing for world cups;

The game of cricket is not just an excuse for deciding which country is best.

It is a spectacle, it is an art form, it is entertainment. And Tendulkar, Dravid and Ganguly are some of the most entertaining players in the Indian side, you drop them while they can still play and all hell will break lose because the fans want to see them play.

They are idols and heroes, they are the reason people watch the game, especialy Tendulkar who is the best batsman of his generation and an absolute joy to watch.

Cricket is about more than winning world trophies.

Depending on your POV, ODIs aren't. I'm of the POV that ODIs are about winning one trophy - the World Cup (and maybe a 2nd, the Champions Trophy).

What do the fans really want more - to see Ganguly, Dravid and Tendulkar for one more year, or to win the 2011 WC?

The answer is: they'll probably want both at the times they're the current event.

 

[adharcric]

You don't need 4 years to groom players for the World Cup. That said, the Indian seniors shouldn't stay beyond 2009 unless they plan to play in WC 2001.

 

[Richard]

Why not?

England have, four times in a row, failed to manage such a thing in 4 years.

OK, India play more games than us, but even so - why give yourself less time than you could?

 

[shortpitched713]

OK, India play more games than us, but even so - why give yourself less time than you could?

Because they would be the best players available at the time and would help you win more ODIs, and you don't need 4 years to prepare for the World Cup. I mean while we're at it why don't we just cleanse the team of all but under 15s so we can better prepare for the 2019 World Cup?

 

[Jono]

Its funny because if I had to pick one guy to emulate if I made it to international cricket...it would be Inzy. For the sheer hilariousness and the fact that he averages 50 in Tests despite forgetting that quick singles are within the rules in the game of cricket.

Plus he has the best comment in the history of the game, "I can't understand the rule, because in Faisalabad I left the ball and was out and this time I hit the ball and was out."

Haha, it is possibly the single greatest unintentional comedic line to come from a cricketer ever.

Particularly when you put it into context, I mean there was a period when Inzy had freak dismissal after freak dismissal.

Best one would have to be him knocking the bails over with his gut.

 

[silentstriker]

Why not?

England have, four times in a row, failed to manage such a thing in 4 years.

OK, India play more games than us, but even so - why give yourself less time than you could?

Because I don't buy this 'train for the WC' BS. Same thing about tests. 'Train someone for the next Ashes.'

You play whoever that gives you the best chance to win. Period. I don't care what it is. At the international level, you play the game to win.

 

[Richard]

Because they would be the best players available at the time and would help you win more ODIs, and you don't need 4 years to prepare for the World Cup. I mean while we're at it why don't we just cleanse the team of all but under 15s so we can better prepare for the 2019 World Cup?

I've had those sorts of thoughts when people talk about "preparing" in Tests - but in ODIs there's a very specific target - the next World Cup. The next one after that can go hang.