Graeme Smith vs Virender Sehwag.

[Jakester1288]

No comparison for mine, Smith by a long way.

Sehwag for his bowling option ?

But for me, Smith.

Smith can bowl some handy offies as well when required. Neither should be used as a frontline bowler, and no wickets should be expected, but to get through a few overs and rest the quicks they are both handy.

 

[vic_orthdox]

No comparison for mine, Smith by a long way.



Smith can bowl some handy offies as well when required. Neither should be used as a frontline bowler, and no wickets should be expected, but to get through a few overs and rest the quicks they are both handy.

They're OK, but Sehwag's are much better.

 

[Top_Cat]

They're OK, but Sehwag's are much better.

Legitimate case to be in the side as a batting-allrounder if he wasn't such a good batter, really.

 

[0RI0N]

Biff Smith for those match winning 4th innings 100's.and captaincy.and slip fielding.and not scoring only in the first innings.and smith just better allround

 

[Jono]

No comparison for mine, Smith by a long way.

Long way? Can't see how you can justify that. They're both very very close.

Can't help but think this is a perfect case of "he hit runs against my team the last time I saw him, so he must be better."

What's fresh is best.

 

[Top_Cat]

Long way? Can't see how you can justify that. They're both very very close.

Can't help but think this is a perfect case of "he hit runs against my team the last time I saw him, so he must be better."

What's fresh is best.

Bully.

 

[Evermind]

Smith 75 132 8 6271 277 50.57 10247 61.19 18 24
Sehwag 66 114 4 5617 319 51.06 7188 78.14 15 18

Almost inseparable.

Sehwag >> strike rate by far. When he scores centuries, he scores huge (150+).

But Smith's propensity to score 4th innings and under-pressure centuries is astounding.

They've both scored centuries against top opposition (all of the top 7), however, while Sehwag doesn't have a single century against Zim and Bang, Smith has 4.

Filtered without minnows:

Smith 65 5366 277 47.48 14
Sehwag 61 5418 319 51.60 15

Still close, but Sehwag wins.

Home (minnowless)

Smith 31 2057 151 38.81 4
Sehwag 30 2637 319 50.71 7

Bizarre stat for Smith! He performs a lot worse at home than away, where his average shoots up to 55, while Sehwag's away average is 52.

There's very little between them: Sehwag is a far superior bowler, but Smith brings captaincy and slip-catching. Batting wise, I'd say the former is more destructive. It would have to depend on who else is in the team, and whether you already have an Imran or a Waugh as a captain, and whether you lack a decent fifth bowler/spin options.

Ultimately, Sehwag's brilliance was prophesied by his very name (sehWAG), and for his name, I'll pick SehWAG. Smith is a little too workman-like.

 

[Evermind]

What's surprising is that in the post-packer openers' poll, Sehwag got 18 votes, and Smith got 2. Yet, Smith beats Sehwag by a comfortable margin in this poll. Hmm?

 

[BoyBrumby]

As cricket isn't played in stasis as of now (20th Feb, year of our lord 2009) I'd have to go for my old chum Fat Gray if I were selecting a world XI (tbh they'd both be most people's choice of opening partnership, I imagine?), but I suspect Sehwag will have the better career overall. He has a fairly simple weight-transference technique (which is my polite way of saying eff all foot movement), but tends to play striaghter on the whole. Smith's bottom-hand dominance means he could always struggle against early swing when he's not in prime nick like he has been of late. Hoggy owned him in 04/05 to such an extent he went and hid in the middle order.

 

[adharcric]

What's surprising is that in the post-packer openers' poll, Sehwag got 18 votes, and Smith got 2. Yet, Smith beats Sehwag by a comfortable margin in this poll. Hmm?

Perhaps it's because that poll was based on overall career performance whereas this one may be based on current form.

 

[sanga1337]

Purely as a batsman I would have to go with Sehwag, just for his ability to score runs very quickly and also make huge scores. Also dislike Smith's bottom handed technique. As an all round package however I would go with Smith because of his capataincy and slip catching. Mind you Sehwag's offies are also more than handy I guess.

 

[Prince EWS]

Purely as a batsman I would have to go with Sehwag, just for his ability to score runs very quickly and also make huge scores. Also dislike Smith's bottom handed technique. As an all round package however I would go with Smith because of his capataincy and slip catching. Mind you Sehwag's offies are also more than handy I guess.

Sehwag's actually pretty highly rated as a captain as well.

 

[G.I.Joe]

You are only as good as your last innings. How can you compare an opener with a number 11? Absurd.

 

[Nutter]

Smith.

But TBH, would love to have both opening.

 

[Richard]

Can't help but think this is a perfect case of "he hit runs against my team the last time I saw him, so he must be better."

What's fresh is best.

Ind33d.

 

[Richard]

As cricket isn't played in stasis as of now (20th Feb, year of our lord 2009) I'd have to go for my old chum Fat Gray if I were selecting a world XI (tbh they'd both be most people's choice of opening partnership, I imagine?), but I suspect Sehwag will have the better career overall. He has a fairly simple weight-transference technique (which is my polite way of saying eff all foot movement), but tends to play striaghter on the whole. Smith's bottom-hand dominance means he could always struggle against early swing when he's not in prime nick like he has been of late. Hoggy owned him in 04/05 to such an extent he went and hid in the middle order.

Good swing bowlers with good fielders have always and will always own Sehwag at the top of the order too. Difference is, him hiding in the middle-order would not only be best for the team but best for himself as well.

 

[Jakester1288]

Smith.

But TBH, would love to have both opening.

At the moment, they would be great but I would prefer Hayden over Sehwag when both were in there prime, and from before 2008 I would take Hayden over Sehwag as well.

 

[Prince EWS]

I would prefer Hayden over Sehwag when both were in there prime.

You could say the same about Hobbs.

Like the Hobbs example, though, it's not really relevant to who you'd pick now.

 

[ret]

Good swing bowlers with good fielders have always and will always own Sehwag at the top of the order too. Difference is, him hiding in the middle-order would not only be best for the team but best for himself as well.

that would be true for most batsmen. it's probably like saying that when it rains, things get wet .... Smith would struggle too in such conditions

coming back to Sehwag, i think he is pretty good in most conditions. playing him in tough batting conditions helps as when he gets going he makes things easy for the guy at the other end as he has the ability to spoil a bowler's rhythm and a captain's plan

PS would to add to the above that Smith has had periods where he has scored heavily like when he got two [back-to-back iirc] doubles against England and then he has had ordinary periods too .... Sehwag is fairly consistent. only bad period that he has had from what i recall is the time before he was dropped. Apart from that he has been superb, winning games on his own or having a key role to play

 

[Richard]

that would be true for most batsmen. it's probably like saying that when it rains, things get wet .... Smith would struggle too in such conditions

Of course he would - the precise point I was making is that Smith would not be alone in struggling in said conditions.

Good swing bowlers will cause problems for any batsmen, simple as.