Sachin Tendulkar vs Steve Smith - Comparative Analysis

[putrevus]

46 minutes ago, Shaz1 said:

Sachin is a average cricketer. There is nothing special about him besides his ablity to score lots of runs due to longetivity. In the Op you can clearly see Smith has surpassed him. 

Do you even know anything about cricket. Only a fool would describe Sachin as average cricketer.Sachin averaged nearly 57 after 177 tests.

 

He hung on too long that is the reason he has lower average.

Edited November 26, 2017 by putrevus

[King Tendulkar]

2 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Do you even know anything about cricket. Only a fool would describe Sachin has average cricketer.Sachin averaged nearly 57 after 177 tests.

 

He hung on too long that is the reason he has lower average.

Why even bother . No point discussing , as same boring rhetoric 

[Rasgulla]

3 minutes ago, Shaz1 said:

I call him average because I can see him in a mold of plenty of other batsmen witha a pleasing on the eye technique. He scored highly at the time when there were plenty of other cricketers who looked kinda similar technique wise. Sachin’s longetivity played a role on how much hundreds he scored in the end. Give Kohli the same and he will score double that.

One thing can be said if X or Y player plays 440+ matches they ll end up being all time highest scorer... What will be remembered is how he scored them and what pace.. There is no doubt who plays for team vs who plays for their personal milestones.. That's why Virat gets more respect around the world.. Sachin has people who dislike him in his own country so I won't expect outsiders to like that kind of milestones gameplay.... Hopefully virat ll break that 100 100s done.. He is doing it in right way. I have lot of respect for Virat 

[putrevus]

9 minutes ago, Shaz1 said:

I will give him credit for being consistent for long periods of time. The way he rejuvinated his career in the time it looked like he has been past his prime is remarkable. However if you overlook that and see the batsmen the world has. You can skip his innings and watch another to get a similar sort of excitement in seeing a batsmen who is pleasing on the eye and effective. 

You are talking as if consistency for that long time is easy.Smith/Kohli are not even half way to Sachin's playing career.

 

Smith will have to take 100 births to match the excitement which Sachin brought.Sachin had his short comings but make no mistake that guy is  the greatest batsman after Bradman to have played this game.

[Shunya]

I feel this thread has potential. Lot of Sachin fanboyz will have to come out and will face hard time defending him.

Smith is certainly playing at ATG level now. Selectively speaking as OP mentioned, Smith>Sachin. However, Sachin had longevity which is very unique and lot of players have found it hard to continue for so long. Lets see how where Smith end up. But after 57 tests, smith is way ahead of plenty of other greats.

[AmreekanDesi]

I also disagree with many folks that Smith isn't exicitng

 

actually in one days and tests he is a pleasure to watch at times and I love how he stays one step ahead of the bowler

 

Just cause he doesn't adhere to senile old men's definitions of what makes a good technique doesn't mean he isn't an attractive batsman to watch 

[jalebi_bhai]

On 11/26/2017 at 6:40 PM, sandeep said:

Your statistical slice suffers from an unfortunate - probably unintentional - flaw.  By taking Tendy's career up to 97, you are essentially excluding a bunch of his prime performances - the 97-2002 timeframe.  While including Steve Smith's ongoing purple patch.  If you compare the first 4 years of Smith's test career to Tendy's what will you get?  Smith probably averaged below 20 or something horrible like that.  

 

Another factor is that when Tendy was in his prime as a batsman - i.e. pre tennis elbow injury, and after the first couple of teenage years - BCCI had just discovered the money making potential of ODI cricket, and as a result, played maximum numbers of ODIs at the cost of minimal test cricket.   

I by and large agree with what you're saying except for the bold part. This isn't a mere purple patch.

 

Look at his yearly aggregate runs in the last 4 years: 

 

Steve Smith year-year:

 

This guy is on the verge of achieving something rare; 4 consecutive calendar years with 1000+ runs. He has a minimum of 3 innings to achieve this rare feat, and I would back him to do so.

 

Here's how some of the modern greats stack up on a year-year basis.

 

SRT year-year:

 

Steve Waugh year-year:

 

Lara year-year:

 

Ponting year-year:

 

Sangakkara year-year:

 

Mohd. Yousuf year-year:

 

Dravid year-year:

 

Younis Khan year-year:

 

Kallis year-year:

 

Jayawardene year-year:

 

Sehwag year-year:

 

SRT, Lara, Ponting and Kallis came very close. Had SRT played more games in 98 and 00, he would've probably gone 4-5 years having scored 1000+ runs in a calendar year. With Lara, Ponting and Kallis, it was just one relatively mediocre year in between that prevented them from going 3+ consecutive years with 1000+ runs. Lara did manage 3 consecutive years of 1000+ runs towards the end of his career.  

 

Now let's compare him with his contemporaries:

 

Cook year-year:

 

Joe Root year-year:

 

Amla year-year:

 

ABD year-year:

 

Williamson year-year:

 

Kohli year-year:

 

Pujara year-year:

 

Only Root and Cook have come close to achieving 3 consecutive years with 1000+ runs among his contemporaries. Root might actually do it this year as he has a minimum of 3 innings left this year to score 205 runs. You could also add Amla in the mix of contemporaries who have come close. The rest are nowhere near.

 

Not bad for a guy who debuted as a leg-spinner with some batting ability, eh? 

[cricketpitch]

To be frank you can bring any number of stats but you can never compare people from different eras by just numbers. The reason being you can never replicate pitch conditions or the bowling attacks across eras to make the comparison valid. How do you know if Sachin at his peak in the current era will not be as good as Smith? Or How can you prove Smith would have been as good in the 90's against the bowling Sachin faced and the pitches Sachin played on? No matter how we spin it, the bowling attacks in the 90's were way better than it is today and the pitches were much more conducive to pace bowling compared to today. People are forgetting that even West Indies were a very good team till 1995. West Indies won a tri series featuring Pakistan and South Africa easily in 1993/94. They won test series against Pakistan away and England away before 1994-95. They were a very strong team. EVen their second string bowlers like W Benjamin, K Benjamin, P Patterson, A Cummins were all way better than most of the bowlers we see today playing world cricket. Only NZ and England probably have better attacks right now.

 

So to bring some numbers and say Sachin or any batsman from 90's is worse than Steven Smith would be a great disservice to the players of the previous eras. Steven Smith is a fantastic batsman and will end up as a ATG. He will be the best batsman of this era, thats about it. You cannot compare him with legends of the past and tell he was better than them just based on stat as there is no way to compare them on an even keel. The best comparison for Steven Smith is to compare him with his peers and he is way ahead of all in tests and that is the only valid comparison. 

[Vijy]

This is an interesting question and my short answer is: Stewie is a bigger potential match winner for me but SRT was the more complete batsman.

 

To the OP, I would say that SRT was quite an ordinary batsman for the first 3-4 years of his career (rather like Smith) because he debuted too early. From early 1993 to mid 2011 (about 18.5 yrs), Sachin averaged 59.41 across 157 tests and scored 13607 runs and 47 100s. During this period, his "poorest" away record was averaging 45 in Pak and he averaged around 50 or more in almost all of the other countries. These are staggering numbers and a reflection of his consistency. To this, one must remember that from 1993-2000 SRT played against some very good bowlers in a decade that was bowling friendly.

 

The reason I bring up all these stats is to reflect SRT's consistency. However, ultimately choosing what player is "great" is partly a matter of choice too. I do believe that Smith can average around 60+ over a 100 Tests period, but I think it will be impossible to avg nearly 60 after playing 160 Tests across 18.5 years.

[jalebi_bhai]

10 hours ago, cricketpitch said:

To be frank you can bring any number of stats but you can never compare people from different eras by just numbers. The reason being you can never replicate pitch conditions or the bowling attacks across eras to make the comparison valid. How do you know if Sachin at his peak in the current era will not be as good as Smith? Or How can you prove Smith would have been as good in the 90's against the bowling Sachin faced and the pitches Sachin played on? No matter how we spin it, the bowling attacks in the 90's were way better than it is today and the pitches were much more conducive to pace bowling compared to today. 

And how have you come to this conclusion? If you're going to use statistics, then I will have to quote your own logic back to you.

10 hours ago, cricketpitch said:

To be frank you can bring any number of stats but you can never compare people from different eras by just numbers. 

As you've mentioned, pitches in the 90s were more bowler friendly and hence it is a given that bowlers of that time would've had better records. But can we say with absolute certainty that the best bowlers of this era wouldn't have been equally effective on those pitches? I don't think so. 

10 hours ago, cricketpitch said:

So to bring some numbers and say Sachin or any batsman from 90's is worse than Steven Smith would be a great disservice to the players of the previous eras. Steven Smith is a fantastic batsman and will end up as a ATG. He will be the best batsman of this era, thats about it. You cannot compare him with legends of the past and tell he was better than them just based on stat as there is no way to compare them on an even keel. The best comparison for Steven Smith is to compare him with his peers and he is way ahead of all in tests and that is the only valid comparison. 

And you're doing a similar disservice to the batsmen and bowlers of this era in the first paragraph of your post. Cricketers don't pick their opponent's team, they can only play against what's in front of them.    

 

Whichever way you present the data, Steve Smith's achievements over the last 4 years are one of a kind. Aggregating 1000+ runs in 4 consecutive calendar years is just unprecedented, and he is on his way to achieving that.  

[Vijy]

11 hours ago, jalebi_bhai said:

And how have you come to this conclusion? If you're going to use statistics, then I will have to quote your own logic back to you.

As you've mentioned, pitches in the 90s were more bowler friendly and hence it is a given that bowlers of that time would've had better records. But can we say with absolute certainty that the best bowlers of this era wouldn't have been equally effective on those pitches? I don't think so. 

And you're doing a similar disservice to the batsmen and bowlers of this era in the first paragraph of your post. Cricketers don't pick their opponent's team, they can only play against what's in front of them.    

 

Whichever way you present the data, Steve Smith's achievements over the last 4 years are one of a kind. Aggregating 1000+ runs in 4 consecutive calendar years is just unprecedented, and he is on his way to achieving that.  

From the data you posted, had Tendu gotten enough Tests in 1998 and 2000 (when the BCCI was nuts about ODIs) he could have had 6 straight years with 1000+ runs. This stretch includes the 90s where the pitches were arguably more bowler-friendly and the level of bowling was similar (or perhaps better) compared to the current era. With all that said, I think that Smith is the most complete batsman that we've seen so far in the 21st century (i.e. among those who made their FC and Test debut in the 2000s).

[cricketpitch]

12 hours ago, jalebi_bhai said:

And how have you come to this conclusion? If you're going to use statistics, then I will have to quote your own logic back to you.

As you've mentioned, pitches in the 90s were more bowler friendly and hence it is a given that bowlers of that time would've had better records. But can we say with absolute certainty that the best bowlers of this era wouldn't have been equally effective on those pitches? I don't think so. 

And you're doing a similar disservice to the batsmen and bowlers of this era in the first paragraph of your post. Cricketers don't pick their opponent's team, they can only play against what's in front of them.    

 

Whichever way you present the data, Steve Smith's achievements over the last 4 years are one of a kind. Aggregating 1000+ runs in 4 consecutive calendar years is just unprecedented, and he is on his way to achieving that.  

Seriously you want statistics to prove, Glenn Mcgrath, Alan Donald, Curtly Ambrose, Muralitharan, Shane Warne, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Courtney Walsh, Shaun Pollock, Jason Gillespie, Anil Kumble, et all as greats? or better bowlers than lots of them playing currently? I have watched all my cricket in the 90's and don't require statistic to call the above bowlers as greats and better than most of them bowling today. 

 

I am not doing any disservice to current generation, if you read my post completely you would know that I said Steven Smith is ahead of his peers by a long way. Which means that he will end up as a great, I am just saying that he does not need to be better than a player of the previous era as stats cannot always give you the clear picture. I have never watched Viv Richards or Sunil Gavaskar live, have only watched videos on youtube, I cannot say that Matthew Hayden is equal to Sunil or Virat is better than Richards by looking at the stats alone. You need to see what era they played in, Playing conditions, Bowling attacks every thing to make a valid comparison. Can you beyond doubt prove, Sachin Tendulkar or Vivian Richards in their peak would not equal Smith's current performance if they were playing currently? Sachin for a sustained period of time averaged close to 60 from mid nineties to early 2000's. At the same time can we beyond doubt prove that Smith or Kohli would have out performed Sachin or Richards from the previous eras if they played then? We cannot and anything we do will only be speculation and cannot be based on facts. Smith can only be compared properly and factually with his peers and he is better than all of them at the moment in tests and that is the only valid comparison.

Edited November 27, 2017 by cricketpitch

[jalebi_bhai]

14 hours ago, Vijy said:

From the data you posted, had Tendu gotten enough Tests in 1998 and 2000 (when the BCCI was nuts about ODIs) he could have had 6 straight years with 1000+ runs. This stretch includes the 90s where the pitches were arguably more bowler-friendly and the level of bowling was similar (or perhaps better) compared to the current era. With all that said, I think that Smith is the most complete batsman that we've seen so far in the 21st century (i.e. among those who made their FC and Test debut in the 2000s).

No arguments here. He was very unfortunate with regards to the number of Tests he played in those two years and I've acknowledged that. 

 

 

[mishra]

On 11/26/2017 at 9:43 AM, jalebi_bhai said:

Steyn, Anderson, Ashwin (will be an ATG in tests by the time he is done), Herath (ATG in SC)....at a stretch maybe Harbhajan.

 

Why do you ask? It's not like Smith picks his opponents. 

Steyn, Yes, Similar to Sachin facing Ambrose and Walsh. Peak was over for duo

Ashwin, May be

Anderson. LOL

Edited November 28, 2017 by mishra

[mishra]

On 11/26/2017 at 10:21 AM, Gollum said:

@Cricketics I never downplayed Smith, I believe he is a champion. Just because I don't agree that he is better than Sachin, Lara, Viv, Gavaskar doesn't mean I am ridiculing him. I also rate Aravinda De Silva as better than Thialan Samaraweera, am I downplaying the latter? Just my opinion.

De Silva is probably one of the best bat Asia has produced

[mishra]

On 11/26/2017 at 11:09 AM, Rasgulla said:

If sachin played starc and johnson at peak... He would have  been out of  the team 10 years early  and his legs would be shaking... lucky man played again Nambia and kenya and got few 100s 

Sachin faced bottlecap era. Bottlecap era had most lethal bowlers. Not only that, Every bowlers used to have thick layers of sunscreen on his nose. Even our Manoj Prabhakar

[jalebi_bhai]

14 hours ago, cricketpitch said:

Seriously you want statistics to prove, Glenn Mcgrath, Alan Donald, Curtly Ambrose, Muralitharan, Shane Warne, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Courtney Walsh, Shaun Pollock, Jason Gillespie, Anil Kumble, et all as greats? or better bowlers than lots of them playing currently? I have watched all my cricket in the 90's and don't require statistic to call the above bowlers as greats and better than most of them bowling today. 

I'm not questioning those players' greatness. Rather, I'm questioning your conclusions on them being collectively better than the bowlers of this era. It's definitely a matter of discussion. In addition to pitches being more conducive to bowling in the 90s, the game has evolved in other ways, particularly with regards to equipment and technology, that have tilted the balance in batsmen's favour. The bowlers of this era do not have the luxury of bowling on the pitches of the 90s.  

 

Let me take a specific example here since you mentioned the West Indies in one of your previous posts. The pitches in the Caribbean used to be hard and bouncy in the 90s as compared to the Caribbean pitches nowadays that are much slower in nature. In lieu of such developments, would the likes of Walsh, Ambrose and Bishop have such stellar records in the current era? I don't think it's a foregone conclusion and it's definitely a question worth asking.  

 

14 hours ago, cricketpitch said:

I am not doing any disservice to current generation, if you read my post completely you would know that I said Steven Smith is ahead of his peers by a long way. Which means that he will end up as a great, I am just saying that he does not need to be better than a player of the previous era as stats cannot always give you the clear picture. I have never watched Viv Richards or Sunil Gavaskar live, have only watched videos on youtube, I cannot say that Matthew Hayden is equal to Sunil or Virat is better than Richards by looking at the stats alone. You need to see what era they played in, Playing conditions, Bowling attacks every thing to make a valid comparison. Can you beyond doubt prove, Sachin Tendulkar or Vivian Richards in their peak would not equal Smith's current performance if they were playing currently? Sachin for a sustained period of time averaged close to 60 from mid nineties to early 2000's. At the same time can we beyond doubt prove that Smith or Kohli would have out performed Sachin or Richards from the previous eras if they played then? We cannot and anything we do will only be speculation and cannot be based on facts. Smith can only be compared properly and factually with his peers and he is better than all of them at the moment in tests and that is the only valid comparison.

Ok, fair point. Numbers don't give us the whole picture. So can/should we not compare cricketers from different eras at all?

 

If comparing cricketers across different eras is not on, then I don't think we should bother calling any player an 'All Time Great'. Let us alter the nomenclature if we are not going to entertain cross era comparisons. 

[jalebi_bhai]

34 minutes ago, mishra said:

Steyn, Yes, Similar to Sachin facing Ambrose and Walsh. Peak was over for duo

Ashwin, May be

Anderson. LOL

He has 500 plus Test wickets. 

[mishra]

20 minutes ago, jalebi_bhai said:

He has 500 plus Test wickets. 

Yes, But he still doesnt give that threat perception which a pacer should emit apart from home conditions. At home, Yes. He is superbully. No one can match that. The only bowler in English side which gives that threat is Ben Stokes. And I am sure he wont reach anywhere near Anderson in wicket accumulation.

 

And that makes real difference. Put Stokes in the current English bowling lineup, And I am certain that it would have been much more even contest in Brisbane. Stokes may have got no more wickects then Jake Ball but he would have ensured Smith didnt run away with that century

Edited November 28, 2017 by mishra

[jalebi_bhai]

14 minutes ago, mishra said:

Yes, But he still doesnt give that threat perception which a pacer should emit apart from home conditions. At home, Yes. He is superbully. No one can match that. The only bowler in English side which gives that threat is Ben Stokes. And I am sure he wont reach anywhere near Anderson in wicket accumulation

Fair enough.