-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Analyzing Sehwag's batting
- Thread starter honestbharani
- Start date
Black_Warrior
Cricketer Of The Year
oh my...when I brought in Kevin Pieterson into the discussion, I didnt realize it would end up like this...so much analysis?? Kevin Pieterson is a fantastic player of spin bowling. Anyone who has seen him play Warne or Murali would agree with that.
He might have had a poor series in Lanka in 07, but he is just 30, give him another series and I am sure he will rectify that.
The reason I mentioned Pieterson was to suggest that even the top players like Pieterson struggle at times when the ball is seaming around a bit and he is up against a top quality fast bowler. My point was not to suggest that he is a bad player or anything, it was infact in support of Sehwag against arguments that he cant perform in unfavourable conditions.
He might have had a poor series in Lanka in 07, but he is just 30, give him another series and I am sure he will rectify that.
The reason I mentioned Pieterson was to suggest that even the top players like Pieterson struggle at times when the ball is seaming around a bit and he is up against a top quality fast bowler. My point was not to suggest that he is a bad player or anything, it was infact in support of Sehwag against arguments that he cant perform in unfavourable conditions.
Black_Warrior
Cricketer Of The Year
The whole sentence..I didnt quite understand what you meant sorry
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Whatever I said, it should be fairly obvious that I didn't mean "no Pakistani batsman has ever been much good against spin". Your run-of-the-mill Pakistan batsman doesn't tend to be that good against it, and there have been many examples of Pakistan batsmen who've made it to Test level with considerable weakness against spin.
All bowlers get wickets thus. In my book, a batsman has a weakness against a certain type of bowling only if they can get him out by doing something he, with his game, has no power to counter. Pietersen has regular trouble with getting himself out to balls that should not get him out, against both seam and spin, and there is no bias towards one nor the other. Nor is there a flaw in his game which allows spinners to penetrate it, as I say.
There is no way either pitch was a turner. If someone described it as such - or predicted it would become such - they were wrong, plain-and-simple. I watched not that far short of every over of both games and while the odd ball turned in the Chepauk match (Kaneria being a wristspinner BTW doesn't need a turning deck to make it go so he's irrelevant - no fingerspinner got it off the straight at all at Multan) there is no way there was significant assistance for spin in either match. In any case, Pietersen's dismissals were as much due to seam as spin - especially his woeful shot against Mohammad Sami in the second-innings at Multan.
He is a master against any bowling when he plays well enough to do so - and he is well capable, and has several times, played both attacking and defensive innings', of substantial length, against seam and spin. However, against seam and spin he often comes a-cropper due to over-aggressiveness - and sometimes even over-passiveness.
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
awesome stuff, SJS.. But as I said in the comments there, I feel Lara is the better suited modern great for your point than Sachin..Here is an analysis that some of you may love and others may hate.
Bradman to Sehwag : Redefining Great Batsmanship by Defying Tradition
Apart frm that, agree completely with every single thing you have said in the article...
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Sure, but next time make sure you dont take Tendy's words out of context..Hi Richard with all due respect to you I would take Sachin Tendulkar's words ahead of yours anyday.
aussie
Hall of Fame Member
Black_Warrior said:
Well all i was saying there in reference to your orginial point. Was the small 15% of modern day batsmen that show adaptability to score runs in not only the large amount of flat decks today - but also when conditions are difficult for batting (even though that has not been a regular in this 2000s era). That small 15% have to be rated higher than the general 85 % of FTBs.me said:
.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
That's great - all Tendulkar actually said was there was a bit of uneven bounce, which is not all that far short of inevitable on a fifth-day deck (there was still far less in that pitch than there will be in many BTW). Tendulkar mentioned nothing about any turn or otherwise. All the rest was written by journalists who, frankly, are absolutely no better judges of the game than me.Hi Richard with all due respect to you I would take Sachin Tendulkar's words ahead of yours anyday.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Well the article is not about Sachin or Lara, it is about unorthodox and aggressive batting. Lara was more orthodox than Sachin in his technique with a perfect grip and exemplary footwork. Sachin has very good technique but it is not classical like Lara's that's why Sachin is mentioned in the passing in that feature not for his otherwise undisputed greatness.awesome stuff, SJS.. But as I said in the comments there, I feel Lara is the better suited modern great for your point than Sachin..
Apart frm that, agree completely with every single thing you have said in the article...
honestbharani
Whatever it takes!!!
No offence, SJS.. I agree about Lara's footwork and that Sachin is not as good in that. But I was talking about the backlift and that arc that is created and Lara's jumping around during the initial part.. Far more prone to danger than Sachin's technique, IMHO. But yeah, I agree that was not the point. I was juz referring it mostly in jest.. Hence the smiley..
The article is wonderful though.. I seriously didn't have any idea that Bradman was ridiculed for his technique so much back then. Even in the books you had sent me, they refer to him in a pretty reverential tone.. So hard to imagine him, of all people, copping it so much. I mean, I have heard that people commented his technique was not perfect, but never thought it was to such an extent.
And I agree completely about Sehwag.. The main thing is his aggressive intent. He thinks of defending a ball ONLY when he cannot hit an attacking shot to it. There are so many around the world, including some all timers like Sachin and Ponting, who resort to defence first and then attack... I mean, you can say he is premeditated in his attacking intent but that is just as true for an Atherton or Boycott or Gavaskar who were premeditated in their defensive intent. And we don't criticize them for that, do we? Even Ponting and Tendulkar tend to be pre meditated in defence so many times.. And so was Lara when he was around. We never hold that against them.. Why hold this against Sehwag?
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
No offence taken HB
Just to clarify that Lara Sachin point. Its not about being technically stronger or deficient. Both have wonderful techniques. I was talking about deviation from the classical orthodoxy. That's all. So starting with grip, stance, backlift the classically orthodox has its confines of footwork, body positioning etc. The top hand is the dominant hand, the body for most part is side on, head is over the ball, toes and shoulders are pointing roughly in the direction of the shot and so on.
Sachin deviates more in this than Lara. Tha's all. Its no big deal really because the basic technique remains solid but it is noticeable and will also affect some of your play. To take just one example, Sachin's swing is restricted by his right hand dominated grip so in his atempt to keep the bat from turning as it does for someone like Graham Smith, he will control the at at the end of the swing as in the picture below.
Lara on the other hand is able to swing his bat the complete 360 degrees and will end up like this.
Being the great players that they are, they both get great results its just that Lara's is a bit more natural and unrestrained whereas Sachin's is cultivated and controlled.
One could deviate more from the orthodox like Bradman and end up with this. . .
Bradman does not bother to control his right handed swing, allows his wrists to naturally fold early and uses his great hands and fractionally late driving to keep the ball on the ground.
Finally there is Sobers whose grip is completely devoid of any influence (in the power he generates) from the bottom hand. So he ends up like this.
Now these four are on everyone's shortlist of the greatest batsmen of all time yet they cover a spectrum of grips from most orthodox Sobers , through, Lara onto Sachin and the Bradman.
It would be silly to say that any of them were technically deficient but its easy to see how they vary from the classical.
Thats all there is to it.
Unfortunately, the traditionalists can tend to be a bit fanatical and miss the overall package for the specific details which is sad because if every player on the planet played in exactly the same manner, even if it was perfectly correct, the game would lose most of its charm.
Migara
Cricketer Of The Year
aCnnot agree with you. His patience was worked over by Vaas, technique by Murali and killer blow by Malinga. KP was pushing and prodding against Murali in the whole tour.
Sooy I beg to differ. Even in that ENG tour when Murali overcame the initial shock, he was bowling beautifully at KP. By the time of 3rd test KP vs Murali was an Equal contest. But in SL with bit of extra support from the pitch Murali totally dominated KP. To compound problems Vaas was also praying on his patience. Malinga kept sending quick stuff at him at aggressive lengths.
Not even close. Azhar and Sidhu gone after Murali multiple times, and Murali never dominated them. But KP was struggling against Murali.
Sidhu played only few times against Warne. Not as often as Murali, so lesser chance of being smoked regularly.
1997-2001 era Ganguly was supreme against spin. Warne did not come across him regularly, possibly once or twice in ODIs he went after Warne. (I have to check that out)
In first SL-AUS series away and home, Ranatunga treated Warne with disdain. In Aussie tour he kept getting out to fast bowlers, but when ever he met Warne, he did smoked some boundaries.
Vinod Kambli at Sharjah went berserk against Warne, 25 runs off 7 balls IIRC. Kambli never played Warne after that IIRC. But that burst was as good as any assault on Warne by anyone.
Sir Alex
Banned
Migara
Cricketer Of The Year
That was how English played spin. Needless to say it is [/innings].
