MP Vaughan versus Sehwag ?

[Jono]

Wow, what Vaughan did anytime prior to 2003/04 is absolutely irrelevant, because no where (and I mean no where) have I stated that Bell and Strauss have had better careers than Vaughan. When I asked what has Vaughan done, that may have implied that I mean his career isn't any better than Bell or Strauss, and if so my bad, but that was unintentional.

Vaughan is currently a solid test batsman, nothing more. And his past 3-4 years prove that.

I'd love to see both his record from 2004 onwards, and additionally his record from his return 2007 onwards. I'm currently studying for my exam on Friday ( ) so can't be bothered looking it up, however I doubt its any good.

Frankly, for someone that had such a brilliant run of form and became the no. 1 ranked batsman around 2002/03, his overall stats are ordinary, which suggests he has had a large part of his career where he was ordinary.

 

[Jono]

Putting him in the same sentance as Bell is laughable. He has been a disappointment a lot of the time with injuries and sometimes terrible form. However, one of the reason s he is a disappointment so much is that his wicket holds value.

And Sehwag's wicket is worth even more. That goes unnoticed because he's been surrounded by Tendulkar and Dravid his whole career, but from 2004- early 2006 Sehwag was THE MAN, and would pulverise attacks, at a far better rate. He' went through a lean patch (a very lean patch), and yet his stats and frequency of big knocks are still far more frequent than Vaughan.

And with regards to Sehwag scoring on flat decks, Vaughan would too, if he stopped going out on them.

 

[Richard]

Wow, what Vaughan did anytime prior to 2003/04 is absolutely irrelevant, because no where (and I mean no where) have I stated that Bell and Strauss have had better careers than Vaughan. When I asked what has Vaughan done, that may have implied that I mean his career isn't any better than Bell or Strauss, and if so my bad, but that was unintentional.

Vaughan is currently a solid test batsman, nothing more. And his past 3-4 years prove that.

I'd love to see both his record from 2004 onwards, and additionally his record from his return 2007 onwards. I'm currently studying for my exam on Friday ( ) so can't be bothered looking it up, however I doubt its any good.

Frankly, for someone that had such a brilliant run of form and became the no. 1 ranked batsman around 2002/03, his overall stats are ordinary, which suggests he has had a large part of his career where he was ordinary.

As a middle-order batsman, Vaughan averages 40.53 from 2004 onwards, and 53.28 from 2007 onwards. These have been, for mine, the best times of his career. Far better than 2002 when he scored heaps of runs as an opener thanks to let-off after let-off.

 

[Richard]

And Sehwag's wicket is worth even more. That goes unnoticed because he's been surrounded by Tendulkar and Dravid his whole career, but from 2004- early 2006 Sehwag was THE MAN, and would pulverise attacks, at a far better rate. He' went through a lean patch (a very lean patch), and yet his stats and frequency of big knocks are still far more frequent than Vaughan.

And with regards to Sehwag scoring on flat decks, Vaughan would too, if he stopped going out on them.

Hang on, hang on - are you telling us that Vaughan isn't comparable to Sehwag, or he is comparable to Bell? You can't just switch between the two.

 

[Jono]

Yeah, I apologise for talking about the thread's topic at hand. I'll stop doing that Richard.

My point is, Sehwag is better, Strauss (nowadays) and Bell wouldn't be argued to be better than Sehwag, so why is Vaughan, who whilst a more valuable wicket than those two, at the end of the day, doesn't produce the results that a premium test batsman should.

 

[Goughy]

And Sehwag's wicket is worth even more. That goes unnoticed because he's been surrounded by Tendulkar and Dravid his whole career, but from 2004- early 2006 Sehwag was THE MAN, and would pulverise attacks, at a far better rate. He' went through a lean patch (a very lean patch), and yet his stats and frequency of big knocks are still far more frequent than Vaughan.

And with regards to Sehwag scoring on flat decks, Vaughan would too, if he stopped going out on them.

Is it?

When Sehwag has scored less then double figues in a game India have won 5 of 14 games.

When he has scored a century India have won 2 out of 14.

Irony is that, statistically at least, India are more likely to win if Sehwag is dismissed cheaply than score a century.

 

[Jono]

As a middle-order batsman, Vaughan averages 40.53 from 2004 onwards, and 53.28 from 2007 onwards. These have been, for mine, the best times of his career. Far better than 2002 when he scored heaps of runs as an opener thanks to let-off after let-off.

Ridiculous. Then he's even less of a good batsman if you're going to remove the period where he was actually brilliant.

 

[Jono]

Is it?

When Sehwag has scored less then double figues in a game India have won 5 of 14 games.

When he has scored a century India have won 2 out of 14.

Irony is that, statistically at least, India are more likely to win if Sehwag is dismissed cheaply than score a century.

Its amazing how many other factors will come in to play with this stat, but I don't have time to analyse this now unfortunately (soft, I know) , however I will be back on Friday afternoon.

I will close with this: I don't think its as simple as that, and watching Indian test cricket between 2004 and 2006 will show prove this.

 

[Goughy]

Its amazing how many other factors will come in to play with this stat, but I don't have time to analyse this now unfortunately (soft, I know) , however I will be back on Friday afternoon.

I will close with this: I don't think its as simple as that, and watching Indian test cricket between 2004 and 2006 will show prove this.

TBF, further looking shows Vaughan in single figures also means a fair chance of an England win as well. Though the difference between 100s and single figures isnt quite as dramatic as Sehwag.

 

[Richard]

Ridiculous. Then he's even less of a good batsman if you're going to remove the period where he was actually brilliant.

He wasn't brilliant, though, that's the point. He was merely fortunate.

And you have shifted goalposts again - first you say he was poor in 2004 and 2007. I show he was nothing of the sort, so now you turn to the fact that I'm saying this was better than the period you think best. I could have left that sentence out completely and the point would be the same.

 

[Richard]

Yeah, I apologise for talking about the thread's topic at hand. I'll stop doing that Richard.

My point is, Sehwag is better, Strauss (nowadays) and Bell wouldn't be argued to be better than Sehwag, so why is Vaughan, who whilst a more valuable wicket than those two, at the end of the day, doesn't produce the results that a premium test batsman should.

I've not once said Vaughan is better than Sehwag. I'm simply responding to a post of yours where you said Vaughan is not better than Bell. Not every single post in a thread has to be 100% exactly related to the title-topic. If that happened, most threads would be pretty boring.

All my recent posts have been addressing the notion that Vaughan = Bell. I've already said I see no real comparison possible between Sehwag and Vaughan, they're too dissimilar.

 

[ret]

Is it?

When Sehwag has scored less then double figues in a game India have won 5 of 14 games.

When he has scored a century India have won 2 out of 14.

Irony is that, statistically at least, India are more likely to win if Sehwag is dismissed cheaply than score a century.

let's see some of Sehwag's 100s where Ind have not won

1. match-saving 150 against OZ at Adelaide
2. getting Ind into the game with his 150 odd against Aus at Chennai [a game that rained off]
3. hitting 300 odd against RSA at Chennai and single-handedly saving the game for Ind, when others besides a struggling Dravid who chased out playing with Sehwag failed on a flat track
4. 190 odd against Australia at Melbourne, where the rest of the line up didn't live up to the expectations on a bowler friendly wkt, in a game that Ind lost
5. his 200 odd against Pak at B'lore, a game where Ind looked it would win as long as he was there. the moment he got run out in the 4th innings, the Ind line collapsed

so are you implying that if Sehwag had scored less than 10 at Chennai against RSA then India would have won that game .... Ind would probably have followed on if had not got that triple

the stats that you gave don't mean a thing to someone like me at-least

in short ----> Sehwag is the best opener in the world at the moment, along with Hayden period [end of sentence]

 

[JBH001]

Vaughan imo, but then I am a bit of a purist (and stylist) when it comes to opening bats.

Always thought Sehwag a little over-rated too, but I have recently begun to change my mind on that.

Why no poll option?

 

[Ikki]

And yes, I do think Vaughan's a class above someone like Hayden.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

 

[honestbharani]

I can understand why ppl have a problem rating the likes of Sehwag and Hayden as "real" openers and to be completely honest, against an all time bowling side on a difficult track even I would want better openers than them.. But to say someone like Vaughan is better than Sehwag and Hayden is just silly, AFAIC.



And all those stats show nothing about Sehwag. From late 2003- early 2006 he WAS the Indian batting. Rahul went through a real trough after his purple patch in Aus and Pak and the others were just there. It was always about Sehwag when it came to India in those seasons, esp. the 2004 series against Australia and the series against RSA and Pak after that. Anyone who watched Indian cricket and who is a balanced fan will agree that Sehwag carried the Indian batting in the said period. Pretty impressive when you consider the batting line up read (apart from him) Dravid, Tendulkar, GAnguly and Laxman. You just can't be that important to your side if you weren't that good.

 

[adharcric]

Sehwag.

 

[Precambrian]

Though Vaughan on song is simply delicious to watch, Sehwag overall would be a shoo-in to in any World XI today. He can cripple any attack in the mood, and has scored runs on non friendly pitches as well. Arguments that Sehwag benefited from dropped catches etc are at best childish.

 

[NUFAN]

I reckon Vaughan is overrated.

Sehwag for mine, in all forms of the game.

 

[_Ed_]

George Hinton? Itstl.

 

[Sanz]

Ridiculous. Then he's even less of a good batsman if you're going to remove the period where he was actually brilliant.

Just to make sure that you are getting the right stats (as opposed, pick-and-choose-stats-that-suit-my-argument kind of stats) . It is just so amazing how people pick/ignore certain stats if that suits their point. Vaughan's overall record looks respectable only because of his performance as an opener. If one takes out his opening stats, his sverage sinks to < 40. And here people are trying to filter his performance since 2007 as an opener as if he has not excelled there throughout his career. Vaughan's 10 (out of 18) 100s , 9 50s (out of 18) have come as an opener. More than half of his runs have come as an opener.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru...span;template=results;type=batting;view=match

Vaughan averages 41.69 since Jan 2007 with 3 100s and 4 50s.
Ian Bell Averages 39.70 during the same period.
Sehwag - 63.81 During that period


Sehwag As an Opener - 53.42
Vaughan as a Middle Order Batsman - 34.30, 45.48 as an opener, 45.43 @ 3.
Bell as a Middle order Batsman - 47.13