Sehwag up there with Bradman in his ability to score quickly - Ian Chappell

[Avada Kedavra]

Ian Chappell: The three S's of Sehwag | Opinion | Cricinfo Magazine | Cricinfo.com

Once again the irrepressible Virender Sehwag has made a valuable contribution to an Indian Test victory, this time a series-tying win over Sri Lanka.

S is for Sehwag and also for scintillating strokeplay, the perfect description for how he goes about his business. However, you can add another S - for smart. The crucial factor in Sehwag being a smart cricketer is the fact that he's always been his own man as a batsman. Many people talk about his lack of footwork and other supposed flaws in his technique, but Sehwag just shrugs and smiles, as if to say, "Just watch me bat next time."

In this regard he reminds me of my former team-mate Doug Walters. Walters was a match-winner and an extremely aggressive batsman but he resided in the middle order. Many people harped on his crooked back-lift and how this stopped him reaching his full potential.

During a day of golf in Brisbane, after Walters had made a century in a Test match, former England fast bowler Frank "Typhoon" Tyson came up to him. "Doug, your technique is a disgrace," he began in provocative fashion. "If I was bowling, I'd give you a couple of bouncers and then an offcutter which would go right between your bat and pad."

Walters took a sip of his beer, looked at the retired fast bowler and replied: "That's not a problem, Typhoon. I won't have to face you in this series."

Judging by Sehwag's highly entertaining press conference earlier this year, where he bluntly stated: "Bangladesh are an ordinary side. They can't beat India because they can't take 20 wickets," it's not just his approach to batting that he has in common with Walters. Sehwag is a breath of fresh air, both on and off the field. He plays with gay abandon and speaks with refreshing honesty.

To bat as fearlessly as him, you need to have great confidence in your ability, and the self-belief that you're better than any bowler, any attack. His comments were not arrogance; rather, an honest reflection of the way he sizes up an attack.

I played with a like-minded opener - South Australia's Les Favell. He was the most confident - some would say over-confident - player I ever encountered. He once opened in a Sheffield Shield match against the top-class Australian fast bowler Graham McKenzie and missed an attempted cut shot on the first ball of the match. Favell top-edged the next cut shot to the boundary, and was out third ball, caught behind attempting yet another cut. On his return to the dressing room he tossed his bat in disgust and declared, "Jeez I was seein' 'em like footballs."

Favell never encountered a prolonged slump; to play in that manner you have to believe the next boundary will have you back in prime form. Sehwag's Test career follows a similar pattern. The nearest he's come to a prolonged poor patch was prior to the 2007-08 tour of Australia, when he was really struggling, even at the first-class level, and some were ready to write him off. He has satisfactorily answered those critics and since returning to the Indian side he's been far and away their best batsman.

Excluding matches against Bangladesh, he has scored more runs and more centuries than anyone else, and at a higher average than all but Gautam Gambhir (among those who have scored over 250 runs in this period). However, when it comes to run-rate, he leaves them all in his slipstream; astonishingly, he's more than two runs an over quicker than all the others.


That is what sets Sehwag apart from all other openers: his run-rate, allied with his amazing ability to post mammoth scores. Sir Donald Bradman is the only other player who has combined those two incredibly difficult batting tasks, scoring extraordinarily quickly for long periods, and even he didn't do it facing the new ball.

Whichever way you look at it, Sehwag has either had the misfortune or the good luck to play in the same side as Sachin Tendulkar. It either deprives him of publicity or allows him to float along in the background, almost unimpeded.
Sehwag has had an exceptional career. He's been the most dangerous batsman in world cricket for a long time. He's done it by adhering to another S: keeping it simple to be successful.

 

[Hurricane]

I tried to run a listing of test players ordered by SR Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

It lists Bradman as 58 which is an estimate I guess. So a fair few people have beaten Bradman for SR if 58 is accurate. Bradman is quoted as saying that he batted within himself and not as he would have liked to have batted so goodness knows what SR he could have had if he hadn't been so interested in scoring 100s.

Think Sehwag is a great player. I like his quote after he scored another 300 - he said I think I have figured out where I have been going wrong in ODI cricket. I have been too positive.

Anyways good article and to be compared to Bradman is an honour.

 

[GotSpin]

I tried to run a listing of test players ordered by SR Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

It lists Bradman as 58 which is an estimate I guess. So a fair few people have beaten Bradman for SR if 58 is accurate. Bradman is quoted as saying that he batted within himself and not as he would have liked to have batted so goodness knows what SR he could have had if he hadn't been so interested in scoring 100s.

Think Sehwag is a great player. I like his quote after he scored another 300 - he said I think I have figured out where I have been going wrong in ODI cricket. I have been too positive.

Anyways good article and to be compared to Bradman is an honour.

You do realise though that Bradman batted in a completely different era where the normal strikerate would have been in the 20s or low 30s.

 

[pasag]

Need to analyse Bradman's strike rate pre-war and post-war ftr.

 

[Julian87]

More people need to just take Chappelli's word for gospel itbt.

 

[GotSpin]

We need more Sehwag threads clearly.

 

[honestbharani]

We need more Sehwag threads clearly.

SA to bring up Sachin's SR in 5.......

 

[marc71178]

You do realise though that Bradman batted in a completely different era where the normal strikerate would have been in the 20s or low 30s.

Not quite that low surely - that's 2 an over.

 

[TumTum]

Not quite that low surely - that's 2 an over.

Which is about the rr South Africa manage these days

Nah really I am pretty sure SR 20s or 30s = RR 1.0s or 1.8s

 

[Hurricane]

You do realise though that Bradman batted in a completely different era where the normal strikerate would have been in the 20s or low 30s.

I didn't know this - I assumed that SRs would have been the same. An oversight by me - I did some double checking on this on cricinfo though. I don't really know how accurate their estimates are for players from earlier eras - but if you believe them here is the SRs of players prior to 1939 who have scored more than 1000 runs. The median player on this list has a SR of approx 44

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com


Here is a list of players post 1990 with greater than 2000 runs
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

The median player has a SR of approx 49

Like I said I don't know how accurate cricinfo is for its estimations - but thought this data was interesting.

 

[GotSpin]

I didn't know this - I assumed that SRs would have been the same. An oversight by me - I did some double checking on this on cricinfo though. I don't really know how accurate their estimates are for players from earlier eras - but if you believe them here is the SRs of players prior to 1939 who have scored more than 1000 runs. The median player on this list has a SR of approx 44

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com


Here is a list of players post 1990 with greater than 2000 runs
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

The median player has a SR of approx 49

Like I said I don't know how accurate cricinfo is for its estimations - but thought this data was interesting.

I have a feeling the data for the first half of the 20th century is a little exaggerated. A lot of the data are also guestimates. There are arguments that suggest Bradman had a s/r in the 70s but I personally believe high 50s/low 60s is a pretty good guess.

Regardless of exact figures for that era, Bradman was head and shoulders above in terms of S/R in relation to an age of cricket that wasn't hell bent on scoring runs as quickly as possible. I do still believe the average S/R would have been in the low 30s though. A S/R in the 40s just seems way too high. That's why Bradman will always have an edge in that department too. Despite not being in an era which demanded fast scoring, he could do it easily anyway

 

[Matt79]

The strike and economy rates of bowlers of the era might tell a tale in terms of the scoring. I think even 58 was quite exceptional for the day, especially given he was averaging 100 at the same time. And that's what Chappell has accurately pointed out re Sehwag's recent achievements - it's matched a high speed of scoring with big averages and big scores to an amazing degree.

 

[honestbharani]

The strike and economy rates of bowlers of the era might tell a tale in terms of the scoring. I think even 58 was quite exceptional for the day, especially given he was averaging 100 at the same time. And that's what Chappell has accurately pointed out re Sehwag's recent achievements - it's matched a high speed of scoring with big averages and big scores to an amazing degree.

yeah, for me Don = A Sehwag who averaged double, albeit at probably a SR of 10 or so lesser...

 

[Teja.]

Their approach to the game(Along with Sir Garry's) is also extremely similar.(and Simple)

See ball-Hit ball ftw.

 

[Matt79]

You left out the clause after hit ball - "away from fielder"

 

[vic_orthdox]

Their approach to the game(Along with Sir Garry's) is also extremely similar.(and Simple)

See ball-Hit ball ftw.

Hmm, don't know.

Bradman's ethos was, "You can't get caught if you hit the ball along the ground".
Sobers' was, "There aren't any fielders in the air".

They're fairly different ways of going about cricket, and there's no doubt in my mind that Sehwag would probably align himself with the second school of thought.

 

[Teja.]

Hmm, don't know.

Bradman's ethos was, "You can't get caught if you hit the ball along the ground".
Sobers' was, "There aren't any fielders in the air".

They're fairly different ways of going about cricket, and there's no doubt in my mind that Sehwag would probably align himself with the second school of thought.

Yeah, was thinking about the ball-ground tip Bradman gave Niel Harvey when I was posting that. I was referring more to the mental approach towards batting.

To quote from a previous Ian Chappell article,

Where other batsmen rely on visualising techniques, he prefers the tried and tested method of "see the ball, hit the ball".

Sehwag has often said he doesn't think too much when he's batting. A wise man. After years of speculation about what, apart from his enormous skill, made Sir Donald Bradman so great, I've come to the conclusion that a crucial attribute was his ability to bat with an uncluttered mind.

 

[marc71178]

I do still believe the average S/R would have been in the low 30s though. A S/R in the 40s just seems way too high. That's why Bradman will always have an edge in that department too. Despite not being in an era which demanded fast scoring, he could do it easily anyway

Lowest for a team in the 30s was 38-39

And the same for the 40s

 

[pskov]

You do realise though that Bradman batted in a completely different era where the normal strikerate would have been in the 20s or low 30s.

Nowhere near that slow. Scoring speeds in the 20s and 30s were roughly approximate to the 70s. It slowed down after WW2 before speeding up with the introduction of international one day cricket (I don't think it's a coincidence) and has been getting steadily quicker ever since.

Interestingly the 1950s was the slowest decade for test cricket scoring ever, even slower than the 19th century.

 

[vcs]

Nowhere near that slow. Scoring speeds in the 20s and 30s were roughly approximate to the 70s. It slowed down after WW2 before speeding up with the introduction of international one day cricket (I don't think it's a coincidence) and has been getting steadily quicker ever since.

Interestingly the 1950s was the slowest decade for test cricket scoring ever, even slower than the 19th century.

I also think so. I watched the Empire of Cricket series on youtube (highly recommended BTW) and I recollect it was mentioned that Gary Sobers lifted cricket and made it entertaining at a time when it was becoming boring to watch.