Virender Sehwag vs Geoffrey Boycott

[PlayerComparisons]

Two similar bats

 

[Socerer 01]

yes yes very similar

 

[Coronis]

fwiw CW voted Boycott #5 opener of all time and Sehwag #9 (Smith, Simpson, Greenidge inbetween)

 

[subshakerz]

Sehwag. Boycott can survive most spells but there is no point if he isn't scoring runs.

 

[BazBall21]

Boycott. Better cross-conditions player. Sehwag averages like 20 outside Asia in tests with a below-average RPW. Don't think his explosive upsides can facilitate that.

 

[shortpitched713]

Sehwag easy, for most modern conditions. For all time, well I won't pretend to know old timey conditions, but I do rate Sehwag as an opener, over Boycott.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

Hobbs
Gavaskar
Hutton
Sutcliffe
Boycott
Smith
Simpson
Mitchell
Greenidge
Richards

 

[Prince EWS]

Sehwag. Boycott can survive most spells but there is no point if he isn't scoring runs.

Boycott scored lots of runs.

 

[shortpitched713]

Boycott scored lots of runs.

Sehwag scored more, at a better average, and all for the game of cricket, instead of himself. Also didn't put me to sleep.

 

[Slifer]

Boycott.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Pointless comparison.

Sehwag for comedy value. That King Pair is one of the finest moments in cricket history.

 

[Silver Silva]

Sehwag what an entertainer he was .. Loved that flick shot he played off his pads to the quicks..
So elegant yet destructive

 

[Jumno]

Sehwag, I remember NatWest series 2002 final, WC final 03, champions trophy, Vs NZ 2001, 300, mcg 195, in WI knock

 

[trundler]

I'm not sure if Sehwag's explosiveness makes up for his technical deficiencies. If he had been merely ok instead of abysmal in seaming conditions I'd have taken him in a heartbeat. I also think that Boycott would've been a lot more useful to his side if he had averaged 1-2 runs less but struck at an acceptable strike rate (45). Yes, I know Hutton and Sutcliffe only had marginally better strike rates but they played a lot of timeless tests and played at a time when 120 overs in a day was the norm. Slow scoring when taken to the extreme that Boycott took it is actively detrimental to the team cause. I can't think of any other great batsman who had to be run out by his partner or was dropped after making his highest score. Quick runs being more valuable is a self-evident truth AFAIC. Boycott's numbers are great but they overstate his worth because most other batsmen simply weren't as shameless as him and thus didn't disregard the match situation so blatantly to boost their average.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

I'm not sure if Sehwag's explosiveness makes up for his technical deficiencies. If he had been merely ok instead of abysmal in seaming conditions I'd have taken him in a heartbeat. I also think that Boycott would've been a lot more useful to his side if he had averaged 1-2 runs less but struck at an acceptable strike rate (45). Yes, I know Hutton and Sutcliffe only had marginally better strike rates but they played a lot of timeless tests and played at a time when 120 overs in a day was the norm. Slow scoring when taken to the extreme that Boycott took it is actively detrimental to the team cause. I can't think of any other great batsman who had to be run out by his partner or was dropped after making his highest score. Quick runs being more valuable is a self-evident truth AFAIC. Boycott's numbers are great but they overstate his worth because most other batsmen simply weren't as shameless as him and thus didn't disregard the match situation so blatantly to boost their average.

Not always. Especially if you playing in a weaker side and don't have any chance to win.

 

[trundler]

Not always. Especially if you playing in a weaker side and don't have any chance to win.

Doesn't apply to Boycott at any point in his career.

 

[Shri]

don't think they played the same game. pointless to compare

 

[Jumno]

Sehwag always, gets the team off to a great start and strike rate could matter depending on match situation

Boycott would eat up overs and may not play according to the situation