Herbert Sutcliffe vs Virender Sehwag

[a massive zebra]

The only thing these guys have in common is they were both top class opening batsmen. Otherwise their styles couldn't be more different. But who was better?

 

[Patience and Accuracy+Gut]

Sutcliffe easily.No.3 in my list of openers after the 2Hs. Perfect example of being Sandwiched, firstly between Hobbs and Hammond then Bradman comes along.

 

[Coronis]

What an insulting thread.

 

[shortpitched713]

I have Sutcliffe and Hutton as the top openers of all time, over Gavaskar and Hobbs IF we can compare all eras, which I'm not sure we can.

Sehwag is outside ATG status, but the second best of his time. So anyway, Sutcliffe easily.

 

[ma1978]

Seriously?

 

[a massive zebra]

Interesting to see Sutcliffe winning this easily. Sure, he has a better record but the standard of fast bowling in Test cricket during his era wasn't as high as in most other eras. I suppose you could say Sehwag also played in a relatively high scoring era after several ATG bowlers retired, but there were still a few top class fast bowlers in his era. Sehwag also played some of the most destructive innings in the history of Test cricket, almost making 300 runs in a day, whilst Sutcliffe never even made a double century. But Sutcliffe was far more reliable and less conditions dependent, averaging over 60 for his entire career and playing some of the best ever wet wicket innings, such as during his legendary partnership with Jack Hobbs at the Oval in 1926. So that's a long way of saying you could argue either way. I'll go for Sutcliffe because he would have been more successful under any conditions than Sehwag would in somewhere like England.

 

[BazBall21]

You'd do well to find one Sehwag hundred outside Asia (as an opener) that came in tough conditions or against a good attack. I'd have Saeed Anwar over him.

 

[ma1978]

You'd do well to find one Sehwag hundred outside Asia (as an opener) that came in tough conditions or against a good attack. I'd have Saeed Anwar over him.

cricket is played in Asia as well and that matters, and Sehwag could arguably have been the greatest batsman ever in Asia

there was the hundred on debut In SA and the 195 in Melbourne and the 155 as well

that said, Sutcliffe has the case tobe the second greatest opener of all time

 

[BazBall21]

cricket is played in Asia as well and that matters, and Sehwag could arguably have been the greatest batsman ever in Asia

there was the hundred on debut In SA and the 195 in Melbourne and the 155 as well

that said, Sutcliffe has the case tobe the second greatest opener of all time

Of course it matters. I'm saying cricket outside Asia also matters.

 

[ma1978]

Of course it matters. I'm saying cricket outside Asia also matters.

Sehwag also has a better record outside of Asia than Anwar

 

[BazBall21]

Sehwag also has a better record outside of Asia than Anwar

Anwar has a hundred in Brisbane against McGrath. Sehwag's hundreds in Australia were good but he faced weaker attacks there. I know that touring England and NZ in the 90s wasn't exactly difficult but I would say Anwar was a better player of lateral movement on merit.