Deep Backward Point

Blog against the machine.

Sehwag on Sehwagology

Daniel Brettig on what Virender Sehwag told David Warner:

“Two years ago when I went to Dehli, Sehwag watched me a couple of times and said to me, ‘You’ll be a better Test cricketer than what you will be a Twenty20 player’,” Warner recalled. “I basically looked at him and said, ‘mate, I haven’t even played a first-class game yet’. But he said, ‘All the fielders are around the bat, if the ball is there in your zone you’re still going to hit it. You’re going to have ample opportunity to score runs. You’ve always got to respect the good ball, but you’ve always got to punish the ball you always punish’.”

Which tells me a lot more about Sehwag than about Warner. It also perhaps reveals why Sehwag is a Test great before he is an ODI great, even though his game is– according to the pundits– “naturally suited to the shorter formats”.

I especially like Sehwag’s sentence construction here: you’ve always got to punish the ball you always punish.

Sehwagology. Sehwag’s law. A weird combination of fate and free will.

Cricket was Dying, in 1969

42 years ago, Jack Fingleton in Wisden, with a few edits from me:

I’ve written before of how wrong I think it is that the best of the international blood of other countries should be sucked dry by England in trying to keep alive the out-moded, incongruous county cricket system the IPL.

International cricket will suffer, as the West Indians seemed to be suggesting at an early stage in their Australian England tour. They are tired of cricket before a tour begins. They are played out.

In trying to insist that there is still a future for six-day county Test cricket, the supporters of the system fail to realise the effect upon attendances of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of cricket lovers since World War Two. This applies not only to England. The lovers of cricket, if not the game itself, are dying out. It is a sober thought to be measured for the future.

In short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.