MP Vaughan versus Sehwag ?

[honestbharani]

Sehwag. He may not be as good as his stats so far suggest, but at the same time he is underrated too. He has a wonderful record against Australia and most of the other stronger sides of his era. When he gets going he will demolish a bowling attack by himself at an unbelievable strike rate.

Vaughan is also a very good batsman with a picturesque technique but I think he hasn't scored enough runs consistently to compare.

Simply put, Sehwag would open for Australia whilst Vaughan would be bringing in drinks.

Imagine Hayden and Sehwag opening on a flat first day pitch like Chennai in a test match during March......



Even the West Indian fearsome foursome would be thrashed, I believe...

 

[superkingdave]

Sehwag by miles, Vaughan could have been better, but only if he hadn't left Manchester

 

[Goughy]

Both flawed.

I hate the angle of the bat when Sehwag plays and how his game is so suited to flat tracks. A player created for the modern age. I hate Vaughans lack of footwork and how he can look dreadful one game and majestic the next.

Id take Vaughan. A lot based on the fact that I feel when Sehwag scores runs its often (not always) when runs are pretty easy to score.

Also, Sehwag has scored centuries in 14 games and India have only won 2

 

[Richard]

Every batsman has the fortune of catches being dropped-hell the aussies won a world cup because of a dropped catch-I wouldnt consider it at all.

I see the dropped catches as an irrelevant argument - every player in history has benefited from dropped catches, its part and parcel of the game , you cant cherrypick the stats to say "oh if he had been caught....".

Good players make the most of their chances and you don't get to average 51 after 57 tests unless you are a reasonably good player. Sorry, luck by itself or in a major way does not get you numbers like those after that number of matches as well.

It's very stupid to say dropped catches don't matter at all, IMO, nothing short of. Of course some batsmen have more good fortune than others, and of course you cannot possibly consider scorebook records as equally valid when one batsman has notably more fortune than another.

Sehwag has of course been far more fortunate with dropped catches (mostly against Pakistan but also against Australia and others) than almost all batsmen are, and I don't think he's all that good a Test match opener. I do think he could be quite a good middle-order batsman, though. And funnily enough the same thing is true of Vaughan - as an opener, he's received a fair amount of good fortune which makes a pretty poor record look rather good. But as a middle-order batsman, he's good.

Sadly, though, as has been pointed-out, Vaughan has been nowhere near as good as he could've been. Started his Test career aged 25 (even that was perhaps a bit premature) and didn't really kick-on until he was nearly 27. Then wasted most of his best years (and another 6 months later) opening, and had another 18 months taken by injury. Vaughan, in my view, is someone who could've averaged 50+ had he batted at three and four all his Test career. Sadly, though, he didn't, and he'll have to settle for being merely good - barring a remarkable twilight to his career.

So really, I don't think you can offer much of a comparison. Sehwag is someone who has been extremely fortunate (not just with dropped catches but with rarely playing on a seaming pitch) to make it good as a Test opener, Vaughan is someone who looked like the same was going to happen but the fortune dried-up.

As middle-order batsmen, Sehwag has barely had a chance to show his skills, Vaughan has been just a little disappointing. It's not really a comparison I'm willing to be making.

 

[Richard]

Sehwag. He may not be as good as his stats so far suggest, but at the same time he is underrated too. He has a wonderful record against Australia and most of the other stronger sides of his era. When he gets going he will demolish a bowling attack by himself at an unbelievable strike rate.

A good seam-attack will demolish him before he gets the chance to have much of a strike-rate.

 

[sledger]

Vaughan has a much nicer style than Sehwag and is far better to watch, but i'd say that both underachieve. Sehwag's style is pretty much just attempt to butcher every bowler with a variety of fairly ugly shots it seems to me, Vaughan has a nice classic style, but at the same time neither are particularly consistant.

If I had to pick which one I would want in my side I would go for Vaughan tbh.

 

[steds]

George is back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Manee]

In Tests: Virender Sehwag in the Asian subcontinent and Australia, Michael Vaughan in England, West Indies, New Zealand, South Africa and any other places which I may have missed.

In ODIs: No contest.

 

[Ikki]

A good seam-attack will demolish him before he gets the chance to have much of a strike-rate.

So Nasser Hussein > Sehwag too I am guessing.

BTW, Australia/S.Africa/Pakistan are bad seaming teams now?

 

[silentstriker]

Sehwag cannot score runs in the second innings. It's a huge flaw that he has. There are few better when you put a flat track in front of them, but on the vast majority of fast seaming tracks, you need more. Because he just hits the ball no matter what, from time to time, he'll make runs in any conditions, but its much more hit and miss. There are few people in the history of cricket who have scored two triple centuries, and its amazing to do it just once, let alone twice. However, the fact is that is that while he makes his centuries count (last 5-6 of his centuries have been above 150+), he tends to score them when its going to be a draw anyway.

On the other hand, there are few better sights in international cricker than watching Vaughan in full flow, but there are few bigger dissapointments as well. It's a tough one personally, but I'd go for Vaughan on most pitches.

 

[silentstriker]

Also, Sehwag has scored centuries in 14 games and India have only won 2

Slightly misleading. When you take into account all the games India have produced a result, he averages 41 with five centuries from 35 matches. Vaughan averages 37 but has 10 centuries, though he has played 20 more matches which have produced a result.

It's almost identical there.

 

[Richard]

So Nasser Hussein > Sehwag too I am guessing.

Oh, if Sehwag opens the innings, most certainly, yes.

BTW, Australia/S.Africa/Pakistan are bad seaming teams now?

There's no such thing as "a bad seaming team". Teams do not stay the same every cricket match. In any case, good seam-bowling is useless without good-quality catching.

 

[fredfertang]

Up until I read this thread it never occurred to me that over the duration of a career of any substance that dropped catches could do anything other than even themselves out and were, therefore, irrelevant but thinking about it I suppose that’s a very sweeping, and perhaps flawed, assumption to make.

Now Mr Sehwag is most definitely of the “biff bang boys” school of opening batsmen and I suppose is going to get dropped more than most simply because of the fact that the aerial route is one he frequently takes – it would be interesting to know what his average would fall by if the first chance he gave was always held and to then compare that with a similar exercise for Bradman who would habitually eschew the aerial route. Some statto should do a study of it perhaps!

I do like watching Sehwag bat and on a purely statistical measure he must be regarded as a better batsman than Vaughan but there is an imperious quality to Vaughan’s batting when he is on song that is beautiful to watch – a bit like Viv Richards without the brute strength!

Sadly of course he is rarely on song these days – My own suspicion is that, like Atherton, he is simply not 100% fit and never will be and that while 98% fit might well be enough to do a decent job at international level that that missing 2% is the difference between the merely good and the nearly great.

 

[Craig]

In Tests: Virender Sehwag in the Asian subcontinent and Australia, Michael Vaughan in England, West Indies, New Zealand, South Africa and any other places which I may have missed.

In ODIs: No contest.

Australia in 02/03, averaging over 63, he went alright.

 

[steds]

Sadly of course he is rarely on song these days – My own suspicion is that, like Atherton, he is simply not 100% fit and never will be and that while 98% fit might well be enough to do a decent job at international level that that missing 2% is the difference between the merely good and the nearly great.

Vaughan was struggling with his knee during the 02/03 Ashes iirc. Did alright there.

 

[pasag]

Up until I read this thread it never occurred to me that over the duration of a career of any substance that dropped catches could do anything other than even themselves out and were, therefore, irrelevant but thinking about it I suppose that’s a very sweeping, and perhaps flawed, assumption to make.

Lol, welcome to CW, you'll love the first chance average then

 

[Manee]

Australia in 02/03, averaging over 63, he went alright.

I already stated that I would prefer Sehwag in Australia.

 

[Goughy]

Slightly misleading. When you take into account all the games India have produced a result, he averages 41 with five centuries from 35 matches. Vaughan averages 37 but has 10 centuries, though he has played 20 more matches which have produced a result.

It's almost identical there.

Its not really identical but Ill try something.

It could be wrong (Ill check) but here is my hypothosis

There are far more hundreds scored in games where Sehwag scores a century than when Vaughan does

Ill report back in a while with my findings

 

[silentstriker]

Its not really identical but Ill try something.

It could be wrong (Ill check) but here is my hypothosis

There are far more hundreds scored in games where Sehwag scores a century than when Vaughan does

Ill report back in a while with my findings

You're undoubtedly right. It's one of the reasons I said I rated Vaughan the better player (scoring on non-flat pitches).

 

[silentstriker]

Ah, I just checked for Vaughan's centuries in a game that produced a result: He has never scored a century in a game that has produced a result where he was the only one to score a century.

I'm sure its similar for Sehwag though.

EDIT: Yup, exactly the same with Sehwag.