MP Vaughan versus Sehwag ?

[Goughy]

Some interesting numbers. Some expected and some not so.

Sehwag- Games with a century into Centuries scored by others in the same games

= 35/14
= 2.5 centuries scored by others in games Sehwag scores a century

Vaughan- Games with a century into Centuries scored by others in the same games

= 32/17
= 1.88 centuries scored by others in games Vaughan scores a century

Also interesting
- Sehwag has never been the only centurian in a game.
- Vaughan doesnt fare much better. Only once has he been a lone centurian.
- In 43% of games in which Sehwag scores 100 or more, there have been at least 3 other centuries.
- Sehwag has 13 hundreds in his teams first innings of a match and amazingly only one in Indias second innings of a game.
- Vaughan is far more balances with 10 in the first innings and 8 in Englands second

 

[Richard]

Up until I read this thread it never occurred to me that over the duration of a career of any substance that dropped catches could do anything other than even themselves out and were, therefore, irrelevant but thinking about it I suppose that’s a very sweeping, and perhaps flawed, assumption to make.

(And that's absolutely 100% genuine, no sarcasm)

Now Mr Sehwag is most definitely of the “biff bang boys” school of opening batsmen and I suppose is going to get dropped more than most simply because of the fact that the aerial route is one he frequently takes – it would be interesting to know what his average would fall by if the first chance he gave was always held and to then compare that with a similar exercise for Bradman who would habitually eschew the aerial route. Some statto should do a study of it perhaps!

It'd be almost impossible to do with Bradman, though I'd love to see someone give it a crack. With Sehwag, though, I've long since intended to do his entire career as an opening-batsman on first-chance.

I don't actually think the "Sehwag [or other if applicable] takes the aerial route more often so will get dropped more" really holds much water though TBH, it remains true that far, far the majority of catches are held. Many batsmen try the aerial route regularly at the current time, and most still don't get anywhere near as many drops as Sehwag has pretty much all his opening career.

 

[Richard]

Vaughan was struggling with his knee during the 02/03 Ashes iirc. Did alright there.

Almost missed the Second Test, indeed. He said he was icing it pretty much every time he was sitting in the dressing-room in 2005, too, IIRR.

 

[Richard]

- Sehwag has 13 hundreds in his teams first innings of a match and amazingly only one in Indias second innings of a game.
- Vaughan is far more balances with 10 in the first innings and 8 in Englands second

This is a particularly interesting thing, because of the fact that different people try to spin it different ways. Some take the absurd (IMO) line of reasoning that first-innings runs are virtually the only important ones. I've even heard a few people suggest that only first-innings runs should count to batting-averages. Can't remember who it was.

Thinking about it, I'd say run-scoring is often more difficult second time around as far more wickets deteriorate than improve, even these days. That doesn't mean that runs in either innings are automatically worth more, but it does mean that scoring second is often more difficult.

Basically, though, it's the same as always - look at the match in question to deduce how much the runs were worth, rather than say "first-innings, so that was better" or "second-innings, so that was better".

 

[ret]

common-sense tells that if others are hitting 100s in a game then you need to hit one too to make your team compete and he does that with high strike rate so as to give the bowlers a chance .... and when few guys /no one are/is scoring 100s, it's a bowlers game so a crafty 50 will do *duh*

take any batsmen and most would not have many 100s when others have not scored in a game

 

[Ikki]

Something to exonerate Sehwag for his easy floggings in his centuries shared is that the way Sehwag destroys an attack it makes it easier for others after him to come in and score them. In innings of 100+ runs Sehwag averages 185 at an SR of 78. Quite outstanding for Test Cricket. After you've deflated the opposition like that then I am sure it made it somewhat easier for the others.

Another thing to add: Sehwag's teammates have been much better than Vaughan's. When you're talking guys like Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman (among others) it mitigates the stat Goughy presented somewhat.

 

[sledger]

Something to exonerate Sehwag for his easy floggings in his centuries shared is that the way Sehwag destroys an attack it makes it easier for others after him to come in and score them. In innings of 100+ runs Sehwag averages 185 at an SR of 78. Quite outstanding for Test Cricket. After you've deflated the opposition like that then I am sure it made it somewhat easier for the others.

Tbh where thats true, its not exactly a common occurance.

 

[Manee]

Another thing to add: Sehwag's teammates have been much better than Vaughan's. When you're talking guys like Tendulkar, Dravid and Laxman (among others) it mitigates the stat Goughy presented somewhat.

Ganguly is not gonna be happy!

 

[Jono]

Sehwag.

I like watching Vaughan, but he is seriously overrated on this board.

 

[Richard]

He is?

 

[Goughy]

He is?

Yeah. Im suprised by the comment as well.

A think Vaughan is a good player but he has been a major disappointment

 

[Jono]

Yes, because he is spoken about as if he is a far better batsman than a Strauss, or Bell. He may be more classy then them, but when it comes to the results, its six of one, half a dozen of the other.

In this era, and against these attacks, if Vaughan was for real he should have accomplished so much more, and hence be so much better than he is. Sure he's had some horrible knee injuries and bad luck overall, but he's hardly a class above some other batsmen who get slaughtered on here.

I'd watch him all day if I could, problem is he's very rarely in all day .

 

[Richard]

The reason he's considered better than Strauss and Bell is because he is. Bell so far in his career has produced plenty when the pump is off (be it the advantage having only to be rammed home or the game already lost) and not anywhere near enough when the game is more in the balance. Strauss was sensational for his first year but then did next to nothing of note for the next two, and only in the last 3 Tests has he started to look once again like he's actually going to amount to something.

Vaughan hasn't performed anything like as well as everyone who saw him making strides between 1999/2000 and 2001/02 hoped, least of all me. But he has done far more than Strauss and Bell have so far. Hopefully, those two will up their game, and end-up better players than Vaughan. But they sure as hell aren't yet.

And yes, I do think Vaughan's a class above someone like Hayden. Who else are you thinking of who "gets slaughtered on here"? And remember - don't fall into the Sean Fuller trap of thinking that because someone on one occasion says "so-and-so's good" then another totally and completely separate occasion says "so-and-so isn't really all that good" that this means they think one is better than the other. I feel Sehwag is woefully flattered by his Test record and think Vaughan is a decent batsman, but as demonstrated - that doesn't mean I'm saying Vaughan > Sehwag.

 

[Jono]

What's he done again that makes him so much better? Or are you just going to make statements and I'm supposed to be convinced?

 

[Goughy]

Bell = Vaughan

Bell has accomplished virtually nothing in Test cricket. Of the tp of my head I cant think of a guy (batsman) that is more irrelevant to the overall performance of the team than Bell

 

[Jono]

They're all three fairly airy fairy as far as I'm concerned, though Vaughan's terrific to watch when he's on, but is very rarely on for a series, let alone a few months, Strauss goes through periods of consistent crap and consistent solidity, and Bell scores when there's no need too.

 

[Jono]

Bell = Vaughan

Bell has accomplished virtually nothing in Test cricket. Of the tp of my head I cant think of a guy (batsman) that is more irrelevant to the overall performance of the team than Bell

And this backs up my point even further. No I didn't say Tendulkar, no I didn't say Hayden, and hell no I didn't say Younis Khan.

I said Vaughan, and even though I'd rather him in my team than Ian Bell, its hardly jaw dropping putting them in the same sentence.

 

[Richard]

What's he done again that makes him so much better? Or are you just going to make statements and I'm supposed to be convinced?

Right, what has Vaughan done? Well, let's have a quick look...

In his very first Test innings, he scored 33 when the board read 2 for 4 shortly after he came to the crease. Not a great deal, but it's certainly pretty damn impressive in the circumstances.

In his first home summer, he scored a quite superlative 76, against Ambrose and Walsh (and yes, King and McLean too but most of the rest didn't last long enough against Ambrose and Walsh to be able to cash-in) on a pitch where virtually no batsman had a prayer against seam-bowling of the very highest class.

In Sri Lanka in 2000/01, he had been left-out of the first two Tests with justification that could roughly be described as zero. Graeme Hick, who had performed poorly in the previous series in Pakistan when merely standing-in for Vaughan when he was injured, played instead. Vaughan, having had next to no practice, came in to bat against Vaas (at the very top of his game) and Muralitharan (not quite at the very top of his game but in good fettle and as we know - he doesn't need to be to be a huge, huge threat) on a pitch doing plenty for both seam and spin. He scored 26, and this doesn't convey the incredible importance of the knock, as he partnered Graham Thorpe in dragging England towards Sri Lanka's total. Had they fallen short by all that much (even 30 or 40) they would almost certainly have lost the game.

In 2004, he scored twin centuries against West Indies at Lord's. Yes, he was dropped on 87 in the second of these, but even a century and 87 is hardly something to sniff at. It was a flat wicket and a woeful bowling-attack, but scoring very big in both innings is still an excellent achievement.

In 2004/05, he scored a match double of 80-odd* and 50-odd. This was on a pitch offering a little to the seamers and, in the first dig, with the team in deep strife. The match was won in the end, and with it the series, thanks in no small part to his knocks. I'd go so far as to say they were as important as Strauss and Trescothick's first-innings 147 and 180 respectively.

In 2007, he returned to the Test team after missing 18 months with more people than not saying he had no right to. The attack was friendly (though the pitch offered not a little) but the pressure was immense. He responded with a century to quell all the doubts just like that. Later in the summer he played a far better knock, with his team having conceded a collossal first-innings deficit, and but for a deflection off the thigh-pad might have saved the game.

There's also of course his dead-match centuries that played the biggest part in turning an utter debacle into a slightly more respectable defeat in 2002/03.

If Strauss and Bell have played knocks of this calibre three times each I'll be surprised. Vaughan has also cashed-in on some more mundane fare on other occasions, as have Strauss and Bell. But Vaughan has played the difficult knocks plenty more times, even though, as I say - nowhere near as often as I'd have hoped (and not all of that has been his fault).

 

[Richard]

And this backs up my point even further. No I didn't say Tendulkar, no I didn't say Hayden, and hell no I didn't say Younis Khan.

I said Vaughan, and even though I'd rather him in my team than Ian Bell, its hardly jaw dropping putting them in the same sentence.

It is, really. I'd have not the slightest of hesitation in putting Younis Khan ahead of Vaughan, but Bell ahead of him makes precisely zero sense, for the reasons detailed above, I'm afraid.

 

[Goughy]

Vaughan has 18 Test hundreds in 79 Tests.

Do you know where that puts him in terms of English batsmen?

English greats like Gooch and Gower has 20 in 119 and 18 in 117 resectively.

Hell, he is even more prolific than Compton (17 in 78).

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.

Vaughan may share a similar average to Bell but he is a far superior player that has accomplshed far more.