Is life really that simple?

If God grants me the power to understand how a person’s mind works – I would choose to study Sehwag’s. Like parallel thinking he almost has an alternate logic to every aspect of cricket. When someone asked him to explain the conundrum of his stupendous success in Tests and relatively mediocre returns in ODI cricket, he said that there are more vacant areas in test cricket! Now then, we have had so many legends explaining why test cricket is the ultimate test and how other forms can’t quite match upto it. And this guy claims test cricket is simpler and swears by it……

Prem Panicker had recently written about one of his chats with John Wright on Sehwag in his blog in which John recollects a conversation he has with Sehwag:

“Viru, for fuck’s sake, this is a Test match, you don’t have to play all your shots in the first over.”

“Okay.”

“I’m not saying don’t play shots,” says Wright, somewhat taken aback by the demure acceptance of his strictures. “Just give the first hour to the bowlers.”

“Why?”

“Because after that you can hit all the shots you want, you can bat all day. Don’t you want to do that, murder the bowling all day?”

“Yes. But why give the first hour to the bowler if he bowls me a half volley first ball?”

This is Sehwag for you – simple and confident. He has challenged the existential notion of risk in Cricket. Where most men saw risk, Sehwag saw runs. A half volley is a half volley is a half volley he would say…

"No matter who is the bowler, I always like to attack, I don't like to defend and hate to leave deliveries. That is nothing but waste of time."

Ask him about his success in counter attacking against the new ball, he says he’s vulnerable against the new ball and therefore attacks to get rid of the shine as early as possible! What does he have to say about his handling of Muralitharan in that extraordinary innings of 201 against in SL in Galle in a team total of 329? "I was not able to pick his doosra, so I treated every ball as a doosra and tried to hit it. But I found them to be off-spinners. It did not matter much as I was getting boundaries"

Is this all an attempt to be perverse or a display of false modesty? Nah..he is as upright and outspoken as it gets. Ask him about handling the magic of Mendis: "I could pick the ball from Mendis' hand, I attacked him and created a little doubt in his mind. I hit the good balls for fours through covers and point. I was able to read his googly and top-spin”. "I was never worried about Mendis. In the seven or eight innings I played against Sri Lanka, I got out to him only once." Don’t forget that Sehwag is talking about a guy who at that time made the world sit up and take notice of his magic with his mesmerising show against the best spin playing team in the world.

In a recent interview to Cricinfo he was asked about his loss of form and how much pressure was there on him when he was selected for the tour of Australia in 2007-08 to which his reply was:
“No, because I was confident despite having flopped for the whole of 2007. Then I even had a bad domestic season, scoring hardly 30-40 runs in the six Ranji innings I played. But I knew if they picked me a big one would come soon. You cannot flop the whole time. I went to Australia with a lot of self-belief and confidence, and I scored 30 and 40 in Perth, then 60-odd in the first innings in Adelaide, and got a big century in the second innings.”

This is insane. Generally we see cricketers defending themselves against the selectors’ logic. Here he almost admits that it’s a gamble by the selectors. And look at his extraordinary confidence in his ability despite being so woefully short on form – “But I knew if they picked me a big one would come soon” – Wow.......

And his response to a question on “being in the zone”:
“I have asked him (Sachin Tendulkar) many times what the zone is. He tells me that's when "I see nothing except the ball". I ask how that is possible. I have never felt something like that. I have asked Rahul Dravid the same thing. He says sometimes when he is in really good form, he sees only the ball - and not the sightscreen, the non-striker, the umpire or who is bowling, he just sees only the ball. But I have never entered that zone even if I've scored triple-centuries twice. Maybe I will enter that zone they talk about in future.”

In the same interview he was asked about his attitude to spinners:
“I was a middle-order batsman who was too good against spin and hit sixes consistently in Under-19 and Ranji cricket, and I still have the same confidence. Once Gary Kirsten asked me, "What would you do if there is a long-off, long-on and deep midwicket?" I asked, "Gary sir, do fielders matter to me?"

Then he goes onto give an example which I can bet the rest of my life earnings that no one else in the world can think like him:
“Let me give an example: I was batting on 291 at Chepauk, against South Africa. I told Paul Harris, "Come round the wicket and first ball I'll hit you for a six." He accepted my challenge and the very first ball I hit him for a straight six, and there was a long-off, long-on, deep midwicket and a deep point. I was so tired and he was bowling on the pads and I was getting bored. So rather than spending 10-15 minutes to get to the triple-century I gave him good advice.”

This is hilarious. How could a serious professional cricketer talk like this. Someone like Steve Waugh would have glamorized it in the name of mental disintegration and such other non-sense. This guy talks like he thinks and thinks like he bats – damn it’s a circular reference…….the essence of the matter is his gifted ability to simplify things….

No wonder there is a Sehwagology spiritual movement going on in the world…

Let’s talk about his technique (what a narrow minded Englishman will call as non-existent), balance, arms and all that in the next blog…