The PlanetCricket View: Where does Sehwag stand?

[SciD]

Anyone may think anything about Sehwag. But these are facts:
1. He is not greatest Indian opening batsman but is best at the moment as Gauti is woeful these days
2. He is not a sitting duck that will get out just because bowlers are bowling short
3. Has no footwork at all and will always be found wanting in swinging conditions anywhere in world. Its not only Sehwag which has got this problem. Many batsman are found wanting in these conditions.
4. War you are just speculating that Gul, Roach etc. etc. will bounce him out in every innings. Let it happen and then we will see.

@War: Who is number 1 test side?

 

[War]

They don't bowl full to Sehwag for long enough to wait for him to get out that way. If 80% of the bowling he faces is short pitched, he is bound to get out to short pitched bowling. You can't use that as direct evidence to point to a flaw.

Your logic is that they bowl short to him because he's weak at that. It is equally plausible that they just bowl short to him because he's so dangerous on the front foot, but normal on the back foot. Or that they all are under the impression that short pitch bowling is the way to deal with Sehwag and don't actually attempt full pitched bowling. You can't use this as direct evidence to show Sehwag has glaring flaws. All you can use it is to show that bowlers bowl short to him very often.

And technical weakness doesn't = glaring flaw. Sehwag has the temperament to deal with it. Kambli didn't. Ganguly had the same issues, Laxman struggles when you plug up the midwicket region, Punter has the same issue in reverse in that he gets out hooking and pulling. They all had the temperament to overcome it. You're overlooking that factor.

And 2006 was a horrid season for Viru in general. What will be important is how he performs now since he's been in a sort of purple patch for the last 2 years. If he fails again, we know that this is infact a flaw he cannot overcome. If he succeeds, he deserves all the plaudits that come his way.

On sub continent flat pitches or flat pitches in general anywhere in world. It doesn't make sense bowling full @ Sehwag. To try & expose his glaring technical flaw that many bowlers in the past have exposed such as:

- Bond & Tuffey in NZ 2002
- McGrath & co vs AUS 04
- Nathan Bracken in TVS Cup 2003
- Steyn & co in SA 06/07
- Hoggard vs ENG 06
- Asif @ Lahore 2006
- Taylor @ Kingston in 2006
- Steyn/Ntini in 2008 in IND (Ahmedabad & Kanpur tests)

If you check all these instances it was on bowler friendly decks or seaming early test match conditions.

I remembers early this year as Steyn & Malinga tried to attack him with the line when Sehwag scored it didn't (especially for Steyn). Since on flt wicket the new-ball doesn't deviate as sharpy as on seaming decks & given Sehwag's lightning fast reflexes & hand/eye co-ordinations. He would flick such inwards deliveries through mid-wickets on mid-on for 4.

That is why AUS rightfully didn't try bowling full to him for long in the recent test series since he would have pasted them. They then tried to expose hsi back foot glaring technical flaw againts short pitches bowling since he doesn't hook & pull well. That has been known for years, the AUS bowlers didn't just guess wild to try & bounce him out. It is something that other bowlers have troubled him with in the past.

So yea to me it is a glaring flaw just like Kambli & Ganguly. I'm not sure if Sehwag given his entire career success is based on aggression (he has hardly played a subdued innings). If he can do like Steve Waugh post 93 & just give up the pull short & duck all deliveries & force bowlers to just stop bowling. To me looks like he will always have a go & given he can't pull &hook well i see it always getting him into trouble.


2006 was the only year in his career where he faced & consistent combination of quality attacks in a few bowling friendly condtions (or just bowler friendly conditions) that exposed his technical flaws which forced IND to drop him. Such as:

- Akhtat/Asif @ Karachi
- Hoggard/Flintoff vs ENG
- Collins/Taylor @ Kingston
- Steyn/Ntini in SA 06/07

Since his return over the last 2 years, that purple patch currently is just him back to smash all sorts of attacks on flat pitches. The upcoming series in SA & the entire 2011 on tours to Windies, England & AUS it will be the 1st time since that horror 2006 year, that he will be facing alot of quality pace attacks on bowler friendly decks. As you say failure will prove it is technical flaws he cannot overcome - but if he he succeeds, he will be then rated as the one of the great openers in history.

War added 10 Minutes and 13 Seconds later...

2. He is not a sitting duck that will get out just because bowlers are bowling short.

Past evidence certainly suggest he would.

3. Has no footwork at all and will always be found wanting in swinging conditions anywhere in world. Its not only Sehwag which has got this problem. Many batsman are found wanting in these conditions.

Indeed & any batsmen who is excellent on just flat roads but struggles/is found wanting in swinging conditions anywhere in the world. Is not a complete batsman - but rather a FTB.

4. War you are just speculating that Gul, Roach etc. etc. will bounce him out in every innings. Let it happen and then we will see.

I never said that. I said they ahve the ability to expose Sehwag weakness againts such short pitched bowling (at the body short pitched bowling). Since they have the pace (bolw @ 90 mph) & in the next year when IND tour WI, ENG, SA those bowlers will have far more bouncy pitches to rush Sehwag compared to roads Hilfenhaus & Johnson had to bowl to Sehwag on in IND recently.

@War: Who is number 1 test side?

No one. Anyone calling IND # 1 currently is highly misinformed about what it has meant in test history to be #1 test team. A # 1 team in test history since the post war era has been:

- England 1951-1958
- Windies 1963-1969
- Windies 1976-1991
- AUS 95-2006/07

The current IND team doesn't ft that criteria by any means.

 

[subversive]

Number 1 doesn't necessarily mean total domination over other teams. Don't really know why people keep associating #1 with that.

Just because India doesn't dominate other teams like Aus/WI of old doesn't mean they don't deserve the #1 place (for now at least), nor does it mean the ranking system is flawed. Why wasn't anyone harping on about the ranking system being flawed when South Africa was #1 for a while? Hilarious. I'm sure people won't be saying that it's flawed if England or South Africa gain #1 again, with the same rankings system.

The problem with India is that even if they manage to retain the #1 ranking for a good length of time, no one will regard them as the "true number one" because they will never be as aggressive as WI/Aus were.

If you look at the last 2-3 years stats of any team, I think India's the only team that hasn't lost a test series in that time. I would insert the series record of every team since the beginning of 2008 but I'm not that adept at using Cricinfo's Statsguru or know any site that provides the series info directly.

 

[War]

Number 1 doesn't necessarily mean total domination over other teams. Don't really know why people keep associating #1 with that.

Just because India doesn't dominate other teams like Aus/WI of old doesn't mean they don't deserve the #1 place (for now at least), nor does it mean the ranking system is flawed.

Of course # 1 doesn't mean total domination. It test history it has meant the team over a period of time who has proved conclusively that they are good enough, have the a squad good enough, to win home & away consistently & India has not done that. They haven't even won away to full strenght AUS, SA, ENG sides yet.

Look @ England between 1951-1958 for example. They were # 1 ye, but they weren't totally dominant over the rest of teams compared to what Windies where from 76-91 or AUS from 95-2006/07. That ENG team didn't lose a series in that 51-58 period, but they:

- won two evenly contested Ashes series vs AUS

- drew 2-2 in Windies 1954. Which was the like the India/sub-continent challenge of the time. Facing two quality spinners Ramadin/Valentine & having to bowl to much vaunted middle-order of Weeks/Walcott/Worrell.

- drew a close series in SA 56/57.

So they weren't super dominant smashing everyone in their path. But they did enough overtime (not losing a series in 8 years) to prove to all who played againts them they they were the conclusive # 1.

Why wasn't anyone harping on about the ranking system being flawed when South Africa was #1 for a while? Hilarious. I'm sure people won't be saying that it's flawed if England or South Africa gain #1 again, with the same rankings system.

I can't speak for everyone. But i personally was saying it was flawed when SA attained that ranking after they won in AUS 2008. I said so at the time because i said they were lucky to win in AUS because due to poor selections in the bowling during that series. When AUS got their bowling selections right in the return series in SA (although that guy McDonald should not have played), they won that series.

Plus S Africa slipped up in India twice when they had great chance to win. So bascially only if SA had won in India & won that return series in AUS, would they have they been the true conclusive # 1. But they didn't.

The problem with India is that even if they manage to retain the #1 ranking for a good length of time, no one will regard them as the "true number one" because they will never be as aggressive as WI/Aus were.

It has nothing to do with aggression. As i showed about its about winning home & away consistently againts the big sides. ENG 51-58 certainly weren't as aggressive as Windies/AUS - they were quite boring, once scoring 128 runs in a whole test day day @ Bridgetown 1954. But they were bloody hard to beat & where full of great bats & bowlers.


If in the next year IND win in SA, ENG & AUS. Then we can start talking about them as # 1.

If you look at the last 2-3 years stats of any team, I think India's the only team that hasn't lost a test series in that time. I would insert the series record of every team since the beginning of 2008 but I'm not that adept at using Cricinfo's Statsguru or know any site that provides the series info directly.

Why start @ 2008?

I would start @ 2007. Given that AUS pretty much ceased to be the # 1 immediately after the 2006/07 Ashes (but of course the flawed ranking system, didn't relieve them of that ranking until 2009). Since AUS where always going to go into a decline.

So excluding the current IND vs NZ & SA vs PAK series. Since post Jan 2007
both IND & SA have played 14 test series & have both won 9 series:

India: Cricket Records | Records | India | Test matches | Series results | ESPN Cricinfo

S Africa: Cricket Records | Records | South Africa | Test matches | Series results | ESPN Cricinfo

So both IND & SA have been the most consistent test teams in this post AUS 95-2006/07 dominant # 1 era. But for reasons already stated above neither of them have done enough to be considered # 1.


What we have now in test cricket in a phase in the post AUS 95-2006/07 dominant era. As it has been since post war when a dominant #1 teams has declined. Where teams are jostling to become the next # 1 & test cricket is fairly evenly balanced currently, which is good for the game. Since having another Windies or AUS like dominant team just smoking everyone probably isn't what is needed right now.

 

[Papa_Smurf]

Number 1 doesn't necessarily mean total domination over other teams. Don't really know why people keep associating #1 with that.

Yes it does - No.1 in any sport means domination. As it happens, cricket currently has 5 teams which are evenly matched at the moment - none are dominant against all of the others.

If you look at the last 2-3 years stats of any team, I think India's the only team that hasn't lost a test series in that time. I would insert the series record of every team since the beginning of 2008 but I'm not that adept at using Cricinfo's Statsguru or know any site that provides the series info directly.

India (since Jan 2008):

Lost to Australia (away)
Drew with SA (home)
Lost to Sri Lanka (away)
Won against Australia (home)
Won against England (home)
Won against New Zealand (away)
Won against Sri Lanka (home)
Won against Bangladesh (away)
Drew with SA (home)
Drew with SL (away)
Won against Australia (home)

Total: 11, Won:6, Drew:3, Lost:2
ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - India - Test matches - Team analysis

SA (since Jan 08):

Won against WI (home)
Won against Bangladesh (away)
Drew with India (away)
Won against England (away)
Won against Bangladesh (home)
Won against Australia (away)
Lost against Australia (home)
Drew with England (home)
Drew with India (away)
Won against WI (away)

Total:10, Won:6, Drew:3, Lost:1
ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - South Africa - Test matches - Team analysis

Sri Lanka (since Jan 08):

Drew with WI (away)
Won against India (home)
Won against Bangladesh (away)
Drew with Pak (away)
Won against Pak (home)
Won against NZ (home)
Lost against India (away)
Drew with India (home)

Total:8, Won:4, Drew:3, Lost:1
ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - Sri Lanka (and Ceylon) - Test matches - Team analysis

England (since Jan 08):

Won against NZ (away)
Won against NZ (home)
Lost against SA (home)
Lost against India (away)
Lost against WI (away)
Won against WI (home)
Won against Aus (home)
Drew with SA (away)
Won against Bang (away)
Won against Bang (home)
Won against Pak (home)

Total: 11, Won: 7, Drew: 1, Lost: 3
ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - England - Test matches - Team analysis

Australia (since Jan 08):

Won against India (home)
Won against WI (away)
Lost against India (away)
Won against NZ (home)
Lost against SA (home)
Won against SA (away)
Lost against England (away)
Won against WI (home)
Won against Pak (home)
Won against NZ (away)
Drew against Pak (neutral)
Lost against India (away)

Total:12, Won:7, Drew: 1, Lost: 4
ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - Australia - Test matches - Team analysis

As you can see - all of the current top 5 teams have a smilar record as India since Jan 08 . All of them have a series win percentage over 50.

No clear No.1 at the moment.

 

[SciD]

Well at least India is not inflating win % by beating less fancied test sides.

India (since Jan 2008):

(W-L-D)

Australia 2-1-0
England 1-0-0
South Africa 0-0-2
SL 1-1-1
Bangladesh 1-0-0
New Zealand 1-0-0


Total: 11, Won:6, Drew:3, Lost:2
ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - India - Test matches - Team analysis

SA (since Jan 08):

Australia 1-1-0
England 1-0-1
Bangladesh 2-0-0
West Indies 2-0-0
India 0-0-2

Total:10, Won:6, Drew:3, Lost:1
ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - South Africa - Test matches - Team analysis

Sri Lanka (since Jan 08):

West Indies 0-0-1
India 1-1-1
Bangladesh 1-0-0
Pakistan 1-0-1
New Zealand 1-0-0

Total:8, Won:4, Drew:3, Lost:1
ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - Sri Lanka (and Ceylon) - Test matches - Team analysis

England (since Jan 08):

Australia 1-0-0
South Africa 0-1-1
India 0-1-1
West Indies 1-1
New Zealand 2-0-0
Bangladesh 2-0-0
Pakistan 1-0-0

Total: 11, Won: 7, Drew: 1, Lost: 3
ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - England - Test matches - Team analysis

Australia (since Jan 08):

India 1-2-0
West Indies 2-0-0
New Zealand 2-0-0
South Africa 1-1-0
England 0-1-0
Pakistan 1-0-1

Total:12, Won:7, Drew: 1, Lost: 4
ESPN Cricinfo Statsguru - Australia - Test matches - Team analysis

 

[sohum]

I think people are judging Sehwag for something that he isn't and something he isn't trying to be.

Sehwag is unlike any other modern-day Test batsman because he stays true to his natural instincts--aggression--and is dominant when he should be. Is he a flat-track bully? Absolutely. But he is by and far the best flat track bully in the world in terms of how he goes about his job.

A conventional flat-track bully scores runs only on flat tracks and fails everywhere else. Sehwag does this, except that he does it at nearly double the pace that anyone else would score. His career strike rate of 82 is mind-blowing and the only place it is less than 73 is in Europe, where he's played only 4 games.

To say that Sehwag isn't a special talent would be a very foolish statement indeed because if it was so easy to do what he does--dominate the bowling when the conditions suit him--then there would be plenty of batsmen around the world with records like his. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a record in Cricinfo that lists the highest career strike rates of players, but I would venture that Sehwag is near the top of that list and is probably as good as it gets in terms of average.

What does this mean about playing outside his comfort zone? It means he's not going to be as good. But then, only a handful of batsmen have been good playing outside their comfort zone successfully on a regular basis. Does that mean Sehwag is not valuable? Absolutely not. With pitches around the world tending to become favorable towards the batsmen, Sehwag's ability and instinct allows him to change matches that would have been draws into potential results.

Sehwag is not the best batsman in the world and no one should be arguing for or against that. It's just important to recognize that he is a talented individual that does something regularly and consistently that not too many people have managed to do successfully at the highest level.

 

[War]

I think people are judging Sehwag for something that he isn't and something he isn't trying to be.

Sehwag is unlike any other modern-day Test batsman because he stays true to his natural instincts--aggression--and is dominant when he should be. Is he a flat-track bully? Absolutely. But he is by and far the best flat track bully in the world in terms of how he goes about his job.

A conventional flat-track bully scores runs only on flat tracks and fails everywhere else. Sehwag does this, except that he does it at nearly double the pace that anyone else would score. His career strike rate of 82 is mind-blowing and the only place it is less than 73 is in Europe, where he's played only 4 games.

To say that Sehwag isn't a special talent would be a very foolish statement indeed because if it was so easy to do what he does--dominate the bowling when the conditions suit him--then there would be plenty of batsmen around the world with records like his. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a record in Cricinfo that lists the highest career strike rates of players, but I would venture that Sehwag is near the top of that list and is probably as good as it gets in terms of average.

What does this mean about playing outside his comfort zone? It means he's not going to be as good. But then, only a handful of batsmen have been good playing outside their comfort zone successfully on a regular basis. Does that mean Sehwag is not valuable? Absolutely not. With pitches around the world tending to become favorable towards the batsmen, Sehwag's ability and instinct allows him to change matches that would have been draws into potential results.

Sehwag is not the best batsman in the world and no one should be arguing for or against that. It's just important to recognize that he is a talented individual that does something regularly and consistently that not too many people have managed to do successfully at the highest level.

Well said sir Sohum. Good to see someone admit at least that Sehwag is a flat-track bully.

No doubt he has a special talent in his ability to score runs againts very good & joke attacks @ a spectacular rate in this era of flat tracks.

But the argument againts that sepcial ability is that we would like to see him replicate the special talent overseas againts quality pace attacks, outside his comfort zone, when those bowlesr have something in the pitch for them. Only then will that special talent for me get serious attention, since i could care less how much runs he scores on flat tracks.

 

[sohum]

Only then will that special talent for me get serious attention, since i could care less how much runs he scores on flat tracks.

Sehwag isn't playing to get attention from cricket viewers--he's playing to help his side win.

As I said in my post, only a batsman like Sehwag can get a result out of a flat track because of the pace of his innings. Take Gayle's 300 last week, for example. While that came at a fair clip (SR of 76.2), all of Sehwag's double and triple hundreds have come at a faster pace:

319 (304) vs. SA @ 104.93
309 (375) vs. Pak @ 82.40
293 (254) vs. Srl @ 115.35
254 (247) vs. Pak @ 102.83
201* (231) vs. Srl @ 87.01
201 (262) vs. Pak @ 76.71

It is conceivable (and of course, completely hypothetical) that had Sehwag been batting there, he would have scored at a faster rate, thus giving his side extra overs to bowl the opposition over.

Given the conditions of pitches in India and the subcontinent and the fact that India plays the majority of their cricket in Asia, Sehwag is the perfect batsman for India.

Yes, it would be nice if he could replicate, or at least perform at an average level overseas. But that doesn't mean his record and abilities in India can be discounted... after all, India is going to play 50% of it's matches at home and it still has to try and win those games on flat tracks.

 

[War]

Sehwag isn't playing to get attention from cricket viewers--he's playing to help his side win.

As I said in my post, only a batsman like Sehwag can get a result out of a flat track because of the pace of his innings. Take Gayle's 300 last week, for example. While that came at a fair clip (SR of 76.2), all of Sehwag's double and triple hundreds have come at a faster pace:

319 (304) vs. SA @ 104.93
309 (375) vs. Pak @ 82.40
293 (254) vs. Srl @ 115.35
254 (247) vs. Pak @ 102.83
201* (231) vs. Srl @ 87.01
201 (262) vs. Pak @ 76.71

It is conceivable (and of course, completely hypothetical) that had Sehwag been batting there, he would have scored at a faster rate, thus giving his side extra overs to bowl the opposition over.

Given the conditions of pitches in India and the subcontinent and the fact that India plays the majority of their cricket in Asia, Sehwag is the perfect batsman for India.

Yes, it would be nice if he could replicate, or at least perform at an average level overseas. But that doesn't mean his record and abilities in India can be discounted... after all, India is going to play 50% of it's matches at home and it still has to try and win those games on flat tracks.

Every great batsman, great bowler or great team in test history has had to show versatility & adaptability by performing @ home & away from home.

If Sehwag continues to just dominate in India & look like poor away from home outside of his comfort zone, that will prevent him from ever being considered a truly great opener. Since all the great openers in test history who have earnt that accolade in the psot-war era have had to score runs againts the best of attacks @ home & away from home.

 

[mohit_dude10]

If Sehwag continues to just dominate in India & look like poor away from home outside of his comfort zone, that will prevent him from ever being considered a truly great opener.

It would be unfair to say he just dominates in India. at least the stats prove it wrong.

Played 43 Tests Away and scoring 3547 @ 50.67 is not bad by any means. Last time he toured SA, he was in worst form of his life, and he didn't open on 1 occasion. So just judging him by that performance is not right. He does get in trouble in swinging conditions because of no footwork, but who cares if he can provide team a great start more often then not? Every batsman have some weakness.

 

[War]

It would be unfair to say he just dominates in India. at least the stats prove it wrong.

Played 43 Tests Away and scoring 3547 @ 50.67 is not bad by any means. Last time he toured SA, he was in worst form of his life, and he didn't open on 1 occasion. So just judging him by that performance is not right. He does get in trouble in swinging conditions because of no footwork, but who cares if he can provide team a great start more often then not? Every batsman have some weakness.

I should have been more specific. He has never dominated away in conditions that are not similar to India (flat pitches) i.e seaming wickets or bouncy decks. Most of the runs he has scored overseas was on flat pitches vs very good/joke attacks similar to what he usually faces & smokes in India.

Plus it would be incorrect to say he was in worst form of his like the last time he toured SA in 2006/07. He was just exposed technically on bouncy/seaming pitches.

He provides a good start in specific conditions. Flat pitches. In his career to date any quality pace attacks that have got him on bowler friendly pitches he hasn't been able to replicate those kind of good starts for IND. Great openers aren't like that. They are good in when they get favourable batting conditions & difficult batting conditions.

Most batsmen have weaknesses yes. But the batsmen with the least technical faults (Tendulkar, Dravid) usually would survive more often in difficult batting conditions than batsmen with many technical faults (Sehwag, Gayle, Dilshan).

 

[ZoraxDoom]

War, tell me the last time a batsman 'dominated' in bouncy, seaming, swinging conditions.

Or what batsman has mastered those conditions, ie, has no flaws when the ball is swinging/seaming/bouncing all over.

You are exaggerating Sehwag's flaws. He struggles where over 90% of all batsmen will struggle. And given his style of play, he's prone to failure, at the risk of breath-taking, match winnings innings.

He has flaws and needs to prove himself overseas till he's considered a great. But your greatly exaggerating the issue.

In my opinion an average of 45+ in the coming tours at a decent strike rate and not bloated with 1 big innings should do the job.

Unless the pitches are all flat.

 

[AbhishekS]

I should have been more specific. He has never dominated away in conditions that are not similar to India (flat pitches) i.e seaming wickets or bouncy decks. Most of the runs he has scored overseas was on flat pitches vs very good/joke attacks similar to what he usually faces & smokes in India.

Plus it would be incorrect to say he was in worst form of his like the last time he toured SA in 2006/07. He was just exposed technically on bouncy/seaming pitches.

He provides a good start in specific conditions. Flat pitches. In his career to date any quality pace attacks that have got him on bowler friendly pitches he hasn't been able to replicate those kind of good starts for IND. Great openers aren't like that. They are good in when they get favourable batting conditions & difficult batting conditions.

Most batsmen have weaknesses yes. But the batsmen with the least technical faults (Tendulkar, Dravid) usually would survive more often in difficult batting conditions than batsmen with many technical faults (Sehwag, Gayle, Dilshan).

You are now just making a fool of yourself. Everyone knows he was in worse form of his life in 2007.

Now that you have asked the record for bouncing and swing pitches, here is something for you.

Sehwag's overall record in ODIs in New Zealand: (Now don't say that NZ have flat pitches)

Matches: 18
Innings: 18
Runs: 598
HS: 125*
Average: 54.36
SR: 103.1
100s: 3
50s: 2

 

[War]

War, tell me the last time a batsman 'dominated' in bouncy, seaming, swinging conditions.


Or what batsman has mastered those conditions, ie, has no flaws when the ball is swinging/seaming/bouncing all over.

So many in test hsitory by all the great batsmen i can't name all right. All of Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Viv Richards, G Chappell, G Pollock, Greenidge, Steve Waugh, Gavaskar, Dravid, Hayden, Neil Harvey, Kallis, Sobers etc etc etc etc etc@ some point in their careers scored runs againts a top pace attack in bowler friendly conditions. None ever looked so vulnerable againts such bowlling in such conditions like Sehwag did.

You are exaggerating Sehwag's flaws. He struggles where over 90% of all batsmen will struggle. And given his style of play, he's prone to failure, at the risk of breath-taking, match winnings innings.

He has flaws and needs to prove himself overseas till he's considered a great. But your greatly exaggerating the issue.

Na no exaggeration. He is extremely vulnerable to failure in bowler friendly compare to any top batsmen in the world today. His style of play to date has never been able to dominate @ quality pace attack in bowler friendly conditons @ the rate he has normally scores them on flat tracks. Thats why he has always failed in such conditions.

No great batsmen who has earnt that accolade has had so much glaring flaws that Sehwag has to inswingers & aggressive at the body short pitches bowling.

In my opinion an average of 45+ in the coming tours at a decent strike rate and not bloated with 1 big innings should do the job.

Unless the pitches are all flat.

Yes one hundred in South Africa even @ a simple 40 (high 30s average) average, where he looks competent on a BF deck & one can have no questions about him anymore.

War added 17 Minutes and 13 Seconds later...

You are now just making a fool of yourself. Everyone knows he was in worse form of his life in 2007.

Now that you have asked the record for bouncing and swing pitches, here is something for you.

Sehwag's overall record in ODIs in New Zealand: (Now don't say that NZ have flat pitches)

Matches: 18
Innings: 18
Runs: 598
HS: 125*
Average: 54.36
SR: 103.1
100s: 3
50s: 2

Sehwag was in worse of his lfe @ the beginning of 2007, because he was in a year in which (2006-2007) when he encountered the most bowler friendly conditions & he failed every time.

He faced Akhtar/Asif on a Karach seamer in 2006/07 in the final test after coming of a smoking a 254 in no time in the first test & those two guys made mess a him. How do you go from scoring 254 in one test to being out of form 2 test later?

He then faced a solid ENG attack on some IND itches in 2006 that had a bit of movement early in every match & Hoggard was all over him.

He then went to Windies in which in one test he almost broken Victor Trumper record (or equal it i'm not sure right now) in the St. Lucia test where he could have scored a hundred before lunch. He ended up with 180.

In the final test @ Kingston oa real bouncy deck Collins/Taylor exposed him to the same sharp inswing bowling that Hoggard, Asif/Akhtar did in the two previous series. How do you go from almost breaking a test record a smoking a blazing hundred to being suddenly out of form again when he encountered a helpul track?.

Then in the 2006/07 tour to S Africa. The Saffies ***** him.

He was then dropped & recalled for AUS 07/08 final test & since then its been back to normal for him in which he been batting on flat tracks worldwide since.

So basically that 2006-2007 was the year in which Sehwag encountered the most combinations of decent/good/very good pace attacks in bowler friendly conditons over a sustained period & he struggled one ach occassion.

This upcomingn 2011 on tours to SA, WI, ENG, AUS will be the first time since 2006-2007 that Sehwag will face a consistent combination of quality attacks in bowler friendly conditons & he has alot to prove.


Also his ODI record is irrelevant my friend. Since ODI form & success does not translate in test success. That has been proven with so many players over the last 20 years.