Saeed Anwar vs. Virender Sehwag

[Top_Cat]

Please, I saw both series. The series is South Africa from memory was the most bowler-friendly series you can think of. South Africa's pace attack was at his peak, the match in Durban when Anwar scored his century the ball was swinging corners.

Never mentioned that series.

As for the rest, cbf.

 

[aussie]

Utter bollocks that those series against OZ were in testing conditions for a batter. Seriously. Flat decks all. Perth was the quickest of all of them and two Aussie batsmen (one of whom was coming off three consecutive ducks) all but passed 150.

The pitches on the tour to PAK 98 was definately comparable to what Sehwag faced vs a similar quality AUS attack in 2004 on flat surfaces.

In AUS 99 the pitches where definately not all flat. I never seen a gabba test wicket flat since i starting watching tests their in 98 Ashes, the first day always has something for the bowler in very good bounce - even if like we saw in the recent test vs WI no real sideways movement & Anwar batted beautiful then. Hobart got flatter as the test progressed it was swinging all over the place for the first couple days. While yes Perth was the fastest wicket of the series.

Overall on Sehwag's tours to AUS in 2003/04 & 07/08 he the conditons where flat & neither of the bowling attacks where compared to what Anwar faced in 99/00.

This is so because based on my memory of Anwar in 90s & resaerch of his career. He had a bit of bad patch when SA toured PAK in 97. This was vindicated by another pakistan poster Xuhaib earlier in this thread.

Aww, just going through a bit of a bad patch? Excuse.

So if someone said Mark Taylor was poor againts quality pace & gave the examples of his failures vs WI & SA & him not scoring a test hundred for almost 2 years in the mid 90s. Would that be a fair assesment?

Also his record vs WI is hindered by the fact that on his debut he wasn't ready for test cricket in 1990.

Excuse.

Again if someone said Steve Waugh test record is hindered by the fact that for the first 7 years of his career he wasn't test quality or wasn't ready for test cricket. Would that be an excuse or fact describing the progression of his career?

Anwar missed the WI tour when he was at his peak in 2000 for whatever reasons (probably the death of his daughter), if Imran Nazir could score hundreds againts Walsh & Ambrose then, so would have Anwar.

Nothing but speculation.

Technically its is speculation yes. But its not a improbable prediction given how poor Nazir was/is & he scored a hundred. Its similar to saying if Warne had played in 2004 Mumbai test vs IND given the turn was on display, he would have taken a big haul.

 

[aussie]

The only fact I read was the tragic death of his daughter. Got a serious misunderstanding of the difference between fact and opinion if you think the above are facts.

Please explain to me how it isn't a fact that an AUS attack in 99/00 consisting McGrath/Fleming/Kasper/Warne isn't superior to the 03/04 attack of Gillespie/Lee/Bichel/Williams/MacGill & the 07/08 attack of Lee/Clark/Johnson/Hogg???

Again i dont know how much resaerch you have done of Anwar's career. But based on what i've read i would strongly say disputing Anwar was out of form when he faced SA & WI in home conditions circa 96/97. Would be like disputing Hussey wasn't out of form in test over the last 6 months. Which makes it another fact.


The only opinion is the strong speculation that he would/could have scored hundreds vs Walsh/Ambrose vs WI 2000 if he toured.

 

[honestbharani]

More cherry picking. The AUS attack that Sehwag smashed in 2003/04 was a poor attack on flat decks. It was worst AUS attack (outside the IND tour 98) during the glory years of 95 to 2006/07.

While on his only test in 07/08. It was on traditionally flat Adelaide deck where he scored that hundred.

Plus nobody is discrediting his runs againts great attacks on flat decks. This has been acknowledged by saying on flat decks he destroy any attack as shown by his two Chennai hundreds in 2004 & 2008. But the when those same attacks gets testing conditions, he has failed.

I dont want to get further involved in this ridiculous debate but it is funny that aussie is talking about others' "cherry picking" when he himself is busy pointng out excuses to every failure of the player he is supporting and pointing out further excuses for every success of the player he is opposing... Glass, house, stone, throw, others...

 

[Xuhaib]

haha..what a thread.

 

[Sanz]

Please, I saw both series. The series is South Africa from memory was the most bowler-friendly series you can think of. South Africa's pace attack was at his peak, the match in Durban when Anwar scored his century the ball was swinging corners.

Not saying that Anwar's century is any less valuable but what you are saying is totally incorrect and not true if one reads the reports from Cricinfo archives.

Trevor Chesterfield and Telegraph reported otherwise from Durban on Day3

"....Pakistan were then cruising away on the third day with an overall lead of 189 and plenty of wickets in hand. The odds were all against South Africa getting back into the contest. The ball was 64 overs old when Pollock made his first breakthrough, the pitch flat and the humidity intense......"

"....The game was drifting away from South Africa on a pitch of batting substance. A partnership of 101 between Saeed and Aamir in hot, sticky conditions more suited to relaxing at a nearby beach, found Hansie Cronje looking for answers....."

Not to forget the fact the fact that Donald was out after bowling 10 overs which means that SA attack was not at its peak with its main bowler out for most of the innings.

 

[honestbharani]

Not saying that Anwar's century is any less valuable but what you are saying is totally incorrect and not true if one reads the reports from Cricinfo archives.

Trevor Chesterfield and Telegraph reported otherwise from Durban on Day3

"....Pakistan were then cruising away on the third day with an overall lead of 189 and plenty of wickets in hand. The odds were all against South Africa getting back into the contest. The ball was 64 overs old when Pollock made his first breakthrough, the pitch flat and the humidity intense......"

"....The game was drifting away from South Africa on a pitch of batting substance. A partnership of 101 between Saeed and Aamir in hot, sticky conditions more suited to relaxing at a nearby beach, found Hansie Cronje looking for answers....."

Not to forget the fact the fact that Donald was out after bowling 10 overs which means that SA attack was not at its peak with its main bowler out for most of the innings.

why let facts get in the way of some seriously stupid Sehwag bashing?


I dont mind saying one would pick Anwar over Sehwag. As Sanz pointed out, it comes to personal preference. To me, I think Anwar could have been as good as SEhwag had he been playing today and I think Sehwag could have been as good as Anwar if he was playing then. But the denigration of one of the best players in the world today is appaling...


Now I know what Ikki feels in the Hayden threads...

 

[aussie]

I dont want to get further involved in this ridiculous debate but it is funny that aussie is talking about others' "cherry picking" when he himself is busy pointng out excuses to every failure of the player he is supporting and pointing out further excuses for every success of the player he is opposing... Glass, house, stone, throw, others...

Yes because then Anwar i saw i never saw any glaring technical flaws in his game, that was contiously exposed by opposition bowlers like what AUS did in 2004, ENG 05/06 & SA 08/09.

Anwar was like Damien Martyn. No real footwork but dynamite through the off-side. Which also could have been used as weakness since opposition captains could have set two gullys to try to get him out caught playing their favourite shots. But it didn't always work.

 

[aussie]

Not saying that Anwar's century is any less valuable but what you are saying is totally incorrect and not true if one reads the reports from Cricinfo archives

Trevor Chesterfield and Telegraph reported otherwise from Durban on Day3

"....Pakistan were then cruising away on the third day with an overall lead of 189 and plenty of wickets in hand. The odds were all against South Africa getting back into the contest. The ball was 64 overs old when Pollock made his first breakthrough, the pitch flat and the humidity intense......"

"....The game was drifting away from South Africa on a pitch of batting substance. A partnership of 101 between Saeed and Aamir in hot, sticky conditions more suited to relaxing at a nearby beach, found Hansie Cronje looking for answers.....".

All facts here. But the fact that they collapsed in seemingly flat conditions at that point in the test from a position from position of 159 for 1 to 226 all allot, highlights how good the SA attack was. Since only great bowlers can cause such batting collapses in non bowler friendly tracks.

Perfect similar examples would be Michael Holding superb performance at the Oval 1976. Plus this ENG collapse vs WI in Antigua 98

Not to forget the fact the fact that Donald was out after bowling 10 overs which means that SA attack was not at its peak with its main bowler out for most of the innings.

Yes but the SA attack still had no weaklinks even with Donald down in that second innings.

 

[Sanz]

The thread is not about who has better technique.

 

[aussie]

Now I know what Ikki feels in the Hayden threads...

And Ikki will tell you in the end Hayden eradicated his technical issues & proved himself in bowler friendly conditons vs quality attacks unlike Sehwag. Although me & him may disagree with some finite details about lawrence..

 

[honestbharani]

And Ikki will tell you in the end Hayden eradicated his technical issues & proved himself in bowler friendly conditons vs quality attacks unlike Sehwag. Although me & him may disagree with some finite details about lawrence..

Dravid has better technique than Ponting. So he is better?

 

[aussie]

Dravid has better technique than Ponting. So he is better?

How does Dravid have a better technique than Ponting?. News to me.

Probably Dravid slightly againts spin, but Ponting againts pace & the moving ball for sure.

 

[Sir Alex]

How does Dravid have a better technique than Ponting?. News to me.

Probably Dravid slightly againts spin, but Ponting againts pace & the moving ball for sure.

I love and prefer Ponting above Dravid. however when it comes to sheer technique, dravid is better than Ponting clearly playing spin and swing. But Ponting has definitely the better backfoot game and hence a better player on hard bouncy tracks.

 

[honestbharani]

Falling over to the offside, poking outside off.. Lunging at spinners..


The point is, most batsmen are great not BECAUSE of their technique, but because they find ways to overcome them and still score a lot more than others... I have no hesitation in saying Ponting > Dravid now, even though I had my doubts a couple of years earlier. But that doesn't mean Ponting necessarily has the better technique.

 

[Sanz]

only great bowlers can cause such batting collapses in non bowler friendly tracks.

Perfect similar examples would be Michael Holding superb performance at the Oval 1976. Plus this ENG collapse vs WI in Antigua 98

Yes, that is really convincing only thing left is to add Ajit Agarkar to this list of great bowlers, afterall only great bowlers can cause such batting collapses in non bowler friendly tracks.

2nd Test: Australia v India at Adelaide, Dec 12-16, 2003 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

How about Caddick the great fast bowler from england :- http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64013.html

 

[Sir Alex]

Falling over to the offside, poking outside off.. Lunging at spinners..


The point is, most batsmen are great not BECAUSE of their technique, but because they find ways to overcome them and still score a lot more than others... I have no hesitation in saying Ponting > Dravid now, even though I had my doubts a couple of years earlier. But that doesn't mean Ponting necessarily has the better technique.

I agree with lunging at spinners but falling to the offside is actually an inherent part of his game not a limitation exactly. we tend to think he gets a lot of lbwz in that way but the fact is different. Ponting uses that falling to the off to take the ball on the full or even slightly short of length to the legside. It actually gives him a unique balance to despatch it over square leg. Poking outside off is common to boht dravid and Ponting but Dravid tends to do that lesser because he is a defensive batsman.

 

[aussie]

Yes, that is really convincing only thing left is to add Ajit Agarkar to this list of great bowlers, afterall only great bowlers can cause such batting collapses in non bowler friendly tracks.

2nd Test: Australia v India at Adelaide, Dec 12-16, 2003 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Man there has always been the unusual stuff in cricket. Hirwani spun out the WI team, Ganga scored back to back centuries vs AUS, Lawson took 7 wickets vs AUS, Massie 16 wickets in a test etc etc. None are known as great players.

Generally only very good/great fast bowlers or fast bowling attacks have the ability to do such things. This is pretty much proven that in this 2000s era of flat pitches only the AUS attack (2000 to 2006/07) generally has been able to be a continous wicket taking force.

How about Caddick the great fast bowler from england :- 5th Test: Australia v England at Sydney, Jan 2-6, 2003 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

This is not an example of team collapsing on flat deck againts great fast bowlers like Durban 97, Adelaide 03, Holding 76, Antigua 98. So this is an incorrect choice my friend.

 

[tooextracool]

How about Caddick the great fast bowler from england :- 5th Test: Australia v England at Sydney, Jan 2-6, 2003 | Cricket Scorecard | Cricinfo.com

Tbf that was a crumbling deck that was custom made for Caddick's customary 2nd inning destruction.

 

[Pratters]

Caddick was a superb second inning bowler.

In other news, this thread is a load of bull crap.