Would India have benefited from a slower Sehwag in test cricket?

[venkyrenga]

This is an extension of my previous thread about optimal batting strike rate in test cricket. People had mixed views on the matter, with some saying higher the better and some lower the better as it means facing more deliveries and some said that there is a middle ground around 60.

I am convinced that an optimal SR should be somewhere between 50 and 70 depending on the team composition and the role of the batsman. If a batsman has an SR below 50, it means he was unable to switch gears when the situation demanded. Likewise an SR above 70 means he was unable to slow down and face more deliveries when the situation demanded.

While Gilchrist did what exactly his needed, would India have benefited from a slower Sehwag? If he averaged the same with a lesser SR would that have been beneficial for India?

 

[OverratedSanity]

At home, no. Overseas, yes.

 

[venkyrenga]

At home, no. Overseas, yes.

Would India have benefited from a quicker Dravid?

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Needed to take less quick singles imo

 

[England First]

Would India have benefited from a quicker Dravid?

No.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

See ball, hit ball. That’s Sehwag.

 

[ParwazHaiJunoon]

Needed to take less quick singles imo

OS' multi