Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Trichromatic

20 years back, on this day - Tendulkar outwits Warne

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

A common mistake by Statsguru noobs is that they think batsman A's stats in games involving bowler B depend entirely on A's ability to negotiate B. They are utterly blind to variables like form, sample size of games, strength of the rest of the sides, match/series context, point in their careers when A is playing B (for instance playing Waqar in the early 90s is an entirely different challenge than playing him in the early noughties, getting Sachin out in late 90s is much tougher than getting him out in 2012 and so on), the opportunities that a player gets during his peak etc etc.

 

Anyone who actually saw SRT bat against full strength Australian attacks including McGrath in 1999 and 2001 would know that he cruised to 580+ runs in 12 innings without even close to being his best. In those series SRT top scored for India in 7 out of 12 innings including the all important series decider in Chennai 2001. So much for McGrath's dominance over Sachin in big games :phehe:. At that point of time, no one even thought that McGrath had any sort of an edge over SRT.

 

So when exactly did McGrath own SRT in Tests?

1. An inconsequential 4th innings of a one-off Test in Delhi 1996 when the game was dead and buried. Ironically back then it wasn't even considered a particularly good attack with Warne missing.

 

2. The Nagpur Test in 2004 when he was rushed back in the side for the 3rd Test without much match practice during the infamous tennis elbow phase.

 

In the subsequent Test in Mumbai, SRT scored 55 on a minefield to help India win the Test. But because the sample size is on the lower side (just 9 Tests with McGrath missing out on playing in India in 1998 due to an injury when SRT was at his absolute peak), the odd failures in Delhi/Nagpur are enough to bring the overall average "against" McGrath down to 36+. The sensible followers of the game like us :winky: who saw these events would get the context and won't read too much into the one-off failures. The jaahils on the other hand would simply look at the raw stats on Statsguru as the Universal Truth and use this as proof that McGrath owned SRT in Tests. More power to them.

 

I guess the jaahils must believe Tendulkar owned Saqlain even more than Warne. Why? Because statsguru said so :winky:

 

695c3f1a-bf2e-47e6-8eee-3a925d139e32.png

 

And they also must believe that Ponting was utterly mediocre against the greatest pace bowling spearheads of his time i.e. Wasim/Ambrose/Donald/Steyn. Why? Because statsguru said so :winky:.

 

dd5d15ab-be0a-4d41-ae3f-116086f0dd7b.png

 

 

 

Nobody is getting misguided by your bells and whistles . I hope your dad does not disagree with your views on Tendulkar else , you may call him a jahiil too, such is your extreme rabidness.

 

Failures in multiple  WC encounters  finals, semis ..etc bear out undeniable facts.

 

 

Your hero is not better off..over a much larger " sample size" of 32 test matches against 4 of the greatest fast bowlers in the last 25 years.

 

What a remarkable fall of almost 17 points in average when pitted against the very best and average of 35/36

 

But..but I thought he was the greatest thing ever in batting since Bradman,  or perhaps even greater no ? :giggle:

 

Such things should not happen to somebody who is better than his peers no ? :giggle:

 

 

 

 

Tendulkar vs the best.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

 

Typical of the SRT pack of wild dogs fan brigade to keep using personal abuse when their hero is questioned - without any provocation - instead of agreeing to disagree. They would even abuse their family members if they had a difference of opinion over their overrated hero.

 

Going by your dimwitted  ( common symptom of your lot ) reasoning harbhajan must be a much greater bowler than Muralitharan 

because his best performances came against  Monsters, beasts, machines alligators etc. etc  Australia :phehe:

 

Sachin vs Australia with and without Mcgrath ...such a big drop in performances. Its not a coincidence. 

 

And nor is Sachin's exaggerated performance. He shat in the entire 2003 series in Australia when the pitches were spicy, and then in the final test match on a Sydney patta wicket where India scored some 700 plus runs, played a pathetic selfish notout knock to boost his numbers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Typical of blind  haters of Sachin.....By general conscience there are various factors that determines  the greatness of a batsman .Take any particular factor.Filter out  data of a batsman who is better  to Sachin in that particular factor & neglect all other factors as non existant.Even the context w.r.t that filtered out data can be neglected. Then claiming that Sachin was over all a lesser batsman.

For instance the peak data you filtered out  is a prime example of this.Firstly even if another batsman is slightly better to Sachin in this particular factor , that doesn't mean Sachin is a lesser over all batsman.Secondly there is a context to it. For instance Sachin played only far lesser no: of tests in  his filtered out peak period.Conveniently neglect this context too.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

Typical of blind  haters of Sachin.....By general conscience there are various factors that determines  the greatness of a batsman .Take any particular factor.Filter out  data of a batsman who is better  to Sachin in that particular factor & neglect all other factors as non existant.Even the context w.r.t that filtered out data can be neglected. Then claiming that Sachin was over all a lesser batsman.

For instance the peak data you filtered out  is a prime example of this.Firstly even if another batsman is slightly better to Sachin in this particular factor , that doesn't mean Sachin is a lesser over all batsman.Secondly there is a context to it. For instance Sachin played only far lesser no: of tests in  his filtered out peak period.Conveniently neglect this context too.

 

 

 I am not blind like your lot. 

 

I am rational and fair. I don’t elevate someone by blind worship. I have never said that he is not a true great.. but so are many of his peers. He does not stand out as his irrational Bhakts want others to believe. Statistically and factually others are as great. Sangakkara was a god damn keeper, also captain and Ponting was a long time captain - huge responsibilities. Tendulkar just had to focus on his batting for most of his career. Yet he does not stand out 

 

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

 I am not blind like your lot. 

 

I am rational and fair. I don’t elevate someone by blind worship. I have never said that he is not a true great.. but so are many of his peers. He does not stand out as his irrational Bhakts want others to believe. Statistically and factually others are as great. Sangakkara was a god damn keeper, also captain and Ponting was a long time captain - huge responsibilities. Tendulkar just had to focus on his batting for most of his career. Yet he does not stand out 

 

I too am not a blind believer. it is just that when every factors combined, Sachin was the better to  each and every one of his peers for me.And I too do not have any ill feelings towards others who considers  some other batsman better to Sachin.But the criteria people like you use is simply of double standard and hence the problem.For instance you projects Lara the better player of Murali's bowling than Sachin.But  you conveniently  neglects Lara's lack of 100s vs 3 ATG fast bowlers.Similarly you puts forward peak data.But again does not take into account that Sachin is the only batsman with 40+ avg: in every country he played   in despite   scoring almost 20% more  runs than nearest  Ponting.In short ,projecting another batsman's  slight brilliance over Sachin in one  batting factor, then completely neglecting Sachin's convincingly better brilliance over the other batsman in  another batting factor....Then calling yourself   rational and fair.

Edited by rtmohanlal

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, narenpande1 said:

 

Nobody is getting misguided by your bells and whistles . I hope your dad does not disagree with your views on Tendulkar else , you may call him a jahiil too, such is your extreme rabidness.

 

Failures in multiple  WC encounters  finals, semis ..etc bear out undeniable facts.

Speak for yourself brah. Sensible followers of the game know exactly where I am coming from. But yes for Statsguru Nazis it may come across as bells and whistles. Understandable. 

 

My dad ain't much of a cricket fan but I hope your dad doesn't like Sachin all that much. Otherwise you may end up calling him an idiotic Sachin fan being the jaahil that you are.

 

What is hilarious though is that you seem to seem to think of yourself as some who is "above" the rabid Sachin fanboys who belittle every other batsman. When the fact is you happen to be just as rabid and partisan when it comes to Sachin just in a different way. Self awareness is truly in short supply these days. :phehe:

 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

I too am not a blind believer. it is just that when every factors combined, Sachin was the better to  each and every one of his peers for me.And I too do not have any ill feelings towards others who considers  some other batsman better to Sachin.But the criteria people like you use is simply of double standard and hence the problem.For instance you projects Lara the better player of Murali's bowling than Sachin.But  you conveniently  neglects Lara's lack of 100s vs 3 ATG fast bowlers.Similarly you puts forward peak data.But again does not take into account that Sachin is the only batsman with 40+ avg: in every country he played   in despite   scoring almost 20% more  runs than nearest  Ponting.In short ,projecting another batsman's  slight brilliance over Sachin in one  batting factor, then completely neglecting Sachin's convincingly better brilliance over the other batsman in  another batting factor....Then calling yourself   rational and fair.

 

Every batsmen has flaws in records and games and Sachin is no different. 

 

If you are a reasonable cricket follower you would agree that Lara is way more destructive against spinners - the best of the best and Murali has said this on many occasions, just like Warne has praised Sachin mostly. But having followed the game - Lara is way to ruthless against spinners. Lara too has his share of short comings, he scores huge hundreds and then series of poor scores  - more inconsistent. Lara struggles against raw sheer pace, have seen him struggle against Akhtar. But to his credit when he gets going he finishes off matches. It is your lot that indulges in selective cherry picking and intellectual dishonesty. You say Sachin has scored 20 % more runs than Ponting, but don't mention that he has played 32 more test matches, or 20 % more matches.

 

You can keep your views but they don't stand up against any objective qualitative measure. Neither has Sachin ever dominated batsmen ranking for any reasonable period, nor did he achieve any peak comparable to his peers in batting rating points, nor did any of his knocks of over 200 test matches ( most capped player ) find their way in Wisden rankings. That says a lot.

 

He is still a true Indian great, heaped many records due to his class and longetivity and was the backbone of out batting for  5-6 years and credit to him for that. But he does not stand out relative to his peers in terms of sheer quality.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/9/2018 at 9:41 PM, Mosher said:

Didn't Sachin smash Warne around in a warm-up game which Aussies had vs Mumbai before the test match? I think that onslaught set the template for the rest of series. 

Not just Sachin, a few other Mumbai batsmen also thrashed Warne like he was a club bowlerin that match. That set the tone for the series. Mumbai batsmen have a history of toying with Warne. Vinod Kambli was the first of them. He mauled Warne taking some 24 run in one over in Sharjah in 1994. YouTube has a video of this.

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, narenpande1 said:

 

Every batsmen has flaws in records and games and Sachin is no different. 

 

If you are a reasonable cricket follower you would agree that Lara is way more destructive against spinners - the best of the best and Murali has said this on many occasions, just like Warne has praised Sachin mostly. But having followed the game - Lara is way to ruthless against spinners. Lara too has his share of short comings, he scores huge hundreds and then series of poor scores  - more inconsistent. Lara struggles against raw sheer pace, have seen him struggle against Akhtar. But to his credit when he gets going he finishes off matches. It is your lot that indulges in selective cherry picking and intellectual dishonesty. You say Sachin has scored 20 % more runs than Ponting, but don't mention that he has played 32 more test matches, or 20 % more matches.

 

You can keep your views but they don't stand up against any objective qualitative measure. Neither has Sachin ever dominated batsmen ranking for any reasonable period, nor did he achieve any peak comparable to his peers in batting rating points, nor did any of his knocks of over 200 test matches ( most capped player ) find their way in Wisden rankings. That says a lot.

 

He is still a true Indian great, heaped many records due to his class and longetivity and was the backbone of out batting for  5-6 years and credit to him for that. But he does not stand out relative to his peers in terms of sheer quality.

 

 

 

 

 

your analysis of Lara and Sachin is reasonable except  " when Lara gets going he finishes off matches". As if  somebody forced Ponting not to play for long 24 years & those extra 32 matches.,this is an utter crap reasoning on  your part.

 

And then comes pure emotional blah blah blah with out any reasoning at all.That's it.

Edited by rtmohanlal

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, rtmohanlal said:

your analysis of Lara and Sachin is reasonable except  " when Lara gets going he finishes off matches". As if  somebody forced Ponting not to play for long 24 years & those extra 32 matches.,this is an utter crap reasoning on  your part.

 

And then comes pure emotional blah blah blah with out any reasoning at all.That's it.

 

Did anybody seek your validation ? Are you some authority on cricketing analysis ? You are a just another biased fan boy, a nobody.

 

Ofcourse, you would get pinched at the mention of " finish of matches" , especially chases because your god/hero has seldom done that in tough matches although he has played nearly 800 games for India. In a career of over 25 years, how many matches has he seen the team through in a tough dog fight ?  Can already think of dozens of matches that Kohli has seen us through batting at #3, Laxman was similarly a clutch player in close chases in test matches,batting with the tail..etc. Yuvraj and Dhoni similarly have seen India through so many tight chases. QUite pathetic of your hero.

 

Regarding 24 years..etc..Typical of a Sachin fan, quantity over quality. Yes, its not Ponting's fault. He plays for Australia, where the team and country is always way above the individual, the selectors have the power to drop any non performer, unlike in India 

where with a mafia like Sachin , the selectors fear losing their jobs , and he kept playing shamelessly after the 2011 WC to reach his 100 100th,  averaging in 20's in his last 15 test matches and a disgracefully slow and selfish 100 that saw us knocked out of the Asia Cup against a lowly Bangladesh.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8532/scorecard/535797/bangladesh-vs-india-4th-match-asia-cup-2011-12

 

Had he played for Australia, his he would have been axed a long time back.

 

Its about quality and not quantity - Kohli does not have to play a single ODI more to have established that he is 2 times the player Sachin ever was . He can shove his extra number of runs , up where the sun dont shine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

 

Did anybody seek your validation ? Are you some authority on cricketing analysis ? You are a just another biased fan boy, a nobody.

 

Ofcourse, you would get pinched at the mention of " finish of matches" , especially chases because your god/hero has seldom done that in tough matches although he has played nearly 800 games for India. In a career of over 25 years, how many matches has he seen the team through in a tough dog fight ?  Can already think of dozens of matches that Kohli has seen us through batting at #3, Laxman was similarly a clutch player in close chases in test matches,batting with the tail..etc. Yuvraj and Dhoni similarly have seen India through so many tight chases. QUite pathetic of your hero.

 

Regarding 24 years..etc..Typical of a Sachin fan, quantity over quality. Yes, its not Ponting's fault. He plays for Australia, where the team and country is always way above the individual, the selectors have the power to drop any non performer, unlike in India 

where with a mafia like Sachin , the selectors fear losing their jobs , and he kept playing shamelessly after the 2011 WC to reach his 100 100th,  averaging in 20's in his last 15 test matches and a disgracefully slow and selfish 100 that saw us knocked out of the Asia Cup against a lowly Bangladesh.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8532/scorecard/535797/bangladesh-vs-india-4th-match-asia-cup-2011-12

 

Had he played for Australia, his he would have been axed a long time back.

 

Its about quality and not quantity - Kohli does not have to play a single ODI more to have established that he is 2 times the player Sachin ever was . He can shove his extra number of runs , up where the sun dont shine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

" You can keep your views but they don't stand up against any objective qualitative measure " - I accept that I am not any authority, but then who are you to make up things like these???? not worth to discuss  further.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

" You can keep your views but they don't stand up against any objective qualitative measure " - I accept that I am not any authority, but then who are you to make up things like these???? not worth to discuss  further.

 

 

I am not " making up anything". I said objective qualitative measure. And in that post also mentioned what the objective criteria are.  How many years has he dominated  ICC batsmen rankings in his 24/25 years career ? What is the greatest performance rating that he has scaled for ODIS and tests ? These are " objective criteria".

 

For someone some elevated so high by an irrational fanbase, he falls seriously short on most objective criteria, when he should be crushing it.

 

 

Edited by narenpande1

Share this post


Link to post

LOL, I wonder why Kohli himself considers Sachin his guru? Must be blind to obvious facts. Not only him, I wonder why so many of them consider him his guru including Sehwag and Yuvraj? All of them must be blind. They need to read this thread to realize the truth and wake up from their slumber.

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, narenpande1 said:

 

 

I am not " making up anything". I said objective qualitative measure. And in that post also mentioned what the objective criteria are.  How many years has he dominated  ICC batsmen rankings in his 24/25 years career ? What is the greatest performance rating that he has scaled for ODIS and tests ? These are " objective criteria".

 

For someone some elevated so high by an irrational fanbase, he falls seriously short on most objective criteria, when he should be crushing it.

 

 

I repeat........projecting another batsman's  slight brilliance over Sachin in one  batting factor, then completely neglecting Sachin's convincingly better brilliance over the other batsman in  another batting factor .......this is the basic principle on which every Sachin hater or every  person who opposes Sachin operates.And you are no different.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

I repeat........projecting another batsman's  slight brilliance over Sachin in one  batting factor, then completely neglecting Sachin's convincingly better brilliance over the other batsman in  another batting factor .......this is the basic principle on which every Sachin hater or every  person who opposes Sachin operates.And you are no different.

For example, how good Sehwag was against spinners. What about his miserable performance outside Asia where he doesn't even hold a candle to Sachin? Sangakkara's average ... well how about his average away from Asia? Kallis's consistency .... well how about his horrible strike rate and the fact that he never, ever was able to dominate attacks like Sachin did?

Edited by Bublu Bhuyan

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/11/2018 at 3:31 PM, narenpande1 said:

 

Please tell me how this is better than Ponting or Sangakkara's purple patch, for significantly much lesser number of runs @6510 

Its also so surprising that for a player touted so great and better than his peers, his numbers are at best comparable to the best of the era.:phehe:. The bhakts have always known to be intellectually dishonest. Instead of plaining and fairly accepting that there were

equally great players, they will defend him as if their livelihoods depend on showing him better.:giggle:

 

Kallis is more consistent because he ended his career with a greater average and had an equal to greater conversation rate to 100's and 50's. Nobody asked Tendulkar to keep playing and bring down his average by several points because he wanted to selfishly build his personal glory and build overall runs records that would be hard to break. Cant have it both ways.

 

Tendulkar:

50 and above  in every 4.83 innings

100 and above  in every 6.45 innings

 

Kallis:

50 and above in every 4.82 innings

100 and above in every 6.22 innings

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kallis played 280 innings. In his first 280 innings SRT had better century to innings ratio than kallis.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Bublu Bhuyan said:

For example, how good Sehwag was against spinners. What about his miserable performance outside Asia where he doesn't even hold a candle to Sachin? Sangakkara's average ... well how about his average away from Asia? Kallis's consistency .... well how about his horrible strike rate and the fact that he never, ever was able to dominate attacks like Sachin did?

But then..... nothing matters to these  blind Sachin haters.How ever clearly facts are conveyed to them , they will come back with the same senseless bull ****, because that is their sole intention.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Bublu Bhuyan said:

For example, how good Sehwag was against spinners. What about his miserable performance outside Asia where he doesn't even hold a candle to Sachin? Sangakkara's average ... well how about his average away from Asia? Kallis's consistency .... well how about his horrible strike rate and the fact that he never, ever was able to dominate attacks like Sachin did?

Sehwag is never mentioned as All time best .He does not have his fans fighting when someone points his flaws.Sehwag in full flow against spinners is not just good but he was in my book the best against spinners.He is the best Indian batsman in Asia , unlike any other Indian batsmen he has excellent record in Pakistan and Srilanka.His unbeaten 201 is one of the best knocks by any Indian batsmen.

 

He was pathetic against fast bowlers away from Asia.He would agree with that assessment also.What attacks has Sachin dominated away from India, I have never seen Sachin dominate like Sehwag did in Asia.Did Sachin dominate any attack like Sehwag did in Asia if yes where, I would love to know it.

Share this post


Link to post

When did anyone claim that Sachin dominated attacks away from Asia? Also when did anyone claim that Sachin dominated attacks in Asia as much as Sehwag did? All I said is that Sachin did dominate attacks in the 90's, something Kallis couldn't do in his entire career. What about Sehwag being a walking wicket most of the times outside Asia? So if Sehwag holds an advantage over Sachin of being being better in Asia (mind you Sachin was brilliant as well), Sachin holds the advantage of being awesome away from Asia (something Sehwag fails miserably in).

 

It's hilarious seeing people bringing in multiple factors from multiple players and comparing all of them with a single player i.e Sachin. Sehwag's dominance, Ponting's team victories, Kallis's and Sangakkara's superior overall average, Dravid's slightly better average away from Asia (although he was a big time flop in SA, and wasn't anything special in Aus) ...... and then compare all of them to a single player :))

Edited by Bublu Bhuyan

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Bublu Bhuyan said:

When did anyone claim that Sachin dominated attacks away from Asia? Also when did anyone claim that Sachin dominated attacks in Asia as much as Sehwag did? All I said is that Sachin did dominate attacks in the 90's, something Kallis couldn't do in his entire career. What about Sehwag being a walking wicket most of the times outside Asia? So if Sehwag holds an advantage over Sachin of being being better in Asia (mind you Sachin was brilliant as well), Sachin holds the advantage of being awesome away from Asia (something Sehwag fails miserably in).

 

It's hilarious seeing people bringing in multiple factors from multiple players and comparing all of them with a single player i.e Sachin. Sehwag's dominance, Ponting's team victories, Kallis's and Sangakkara's superior overall average, Dravid's slightly better average away from Asia (although he was a big time flop in SA, and wasn't anything special in Aus) ...... and then compare all of them to a single player :))

Heard that Gary Kirsten was a brilliant tournament final  player and his stats in one day finals is out of the world. Let us hope, that too would come into play for pitting against Sachin  by any of these Sachin bashers soon.

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

Heard that Gary Kirsten was a brilliant tournament final  player and his stats in one day finals is out of the world. Let us hope, that too would come into play for pitting against Sachin  by any of these Sachin bashers soon.

Yea, averages 67.93 @ SR - 74.15 compared to Sachin who averages 54.44 @ SR - 87.68 in tournament finals.

 

Sure, they might as well make Kirsten's average a point. But then again they would ignore the SR factor which is equally as important in ODI cricket. But against that's the name of their game, that's how they play it.

Edited by Bublu Bhuyan

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bublu Bhuyan said:

Yea, averages 67.93 @ SR - 74.15 compared to Sachin who averages 54.44 @ SR - 87.68 in tournament finals.

 

Sure, they might as well make Kirsten's average a point. But then again they would ignore the SR factor which is equally as important in ODI cricket. But against that's the name of their game, that's how they play it.

1 hour ago, Bublu Bhuyan said:

 

 

And we can find even 'mad stray dog level' posts too.To be more precise suppose that there are multiple functions going on and speeches are conducted  on all of these functions. As far as a mad stray dog is concerned , what ever comes from each of these areas are mere noises and it will just bark  along with these noises. Here too ,we can see such 'blind anti Sachin' comments in topics that have nothing related with Sachin.Just as is the case of that stray dog, for like minded posters, each and every topic is an oppertunity to bash Sachin.

  To our misfortune, some time fall into this trap of responding, however strongly  restraint ourselves from doing so.    

Edited by rtmohanlal

Share this post


Link to post
When did anyone claim that Sachin dominated attacks away from Asia? Also when did anyone claim that Sachin dominated attacks in Asia as much as Sehwag did? All I said is that Sachin did dominate attacks in the 90's, something Kallis couldn't do in his entire career. What about Sehwag being a walking wicket most of the times outside Asia? So if Sehwag holds an advantage over Sachin of being being better in Asia (mind you Sachin was brilliant as well), Sachin holds the advantage of being awesome away from Asia (something Sehwag fails miserably in).
 
It's hilarious seeing people bringing in multiple factors from multiple players and comparing all of them with a single player i.e Sachin. Sehwag's dominance, Ponting's team victories, Kallis's and Sangakkara's superior overall average, Dravid's slightly better average away from Asia (although he was a big time flop in SA, and wasn't anything special in Aus) ...... and then compare all of them to a single player :))

Ok Sachin didn’t dominate away from him , whom did he dominate at Home like Sehwag.Other than his 155 and him dominating Warne who did Sachin dominate at home.

Sachin was a dominant force in Odis that too in Asia especially in 1998 and 1999.Sachin never dominated any test series away or home as evidenced by his lack of 500 plus in a single series or scoring hundreds in both innings.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, putrevus said:


Ok Sachin didn’t dominate away from him , whom did he dominate at Home like Sehwag.Other than his 155 and him dominating Warne who did Sachin dominate at home.

Sachin was a dominant force in Odis that too in Asia especially in 1998 and 1999.Sachin never dominated any test series away or home as evidenced by his lack of 500 plus in a single series or scoring hundreds in both innings.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you were expecting Sachin to dominate like Sehwag or Gilchrist did, the problem lies with you. Sehwag and Gilchrist are known for them dominating attacks. A player doesnot necessarily have to score at an SR of 90+ in a year in order for him to be termed an aggresive or dominating batsman. Just an example, we all know Lara was known as someone who loved dominating bowlers. What's his career SR in Tests? It's 60, which is not even close to Sehwag or Gilchrist's SR. Why exactly was he known as an aggressive batsman with an urge to dominate attacks in that case? Same with Hayden, he had an SR of 60 odd. Why was he known to be an aggressive batsman? Sachin had an SR of 86+ in ODI cricket throughout the 90s. The only other batsman in that era with a better SR was Jayasuriya who had an SR of 89 back then, although he was terribly inconsistent. An SR of 70 was very respectable back then. That's why he was known to be a dominating/aggressive batsman. It's obviously a different case in Tests, he was the mainstay in the batting department and he could not cut loose like a maniac in that format, but most of all the format didn't require him to cut loose. Yet he played plenty of innings with an SR of more than 60 or 70. Now you'll tell me that an SR of 60 odd can't be termed as aggressive one. Why exactly were Lara and Hayden termed aggressive batsman in that case?

 

No, he did not dominate at home like Sehwag did, but then again no one apart from Gilchirst in history did so either. But most of all, does anyone claim that he dominated like Sehwag at home? Most rational cricket fans would prefer a complete batsman with a respectable strike rate who can score in all conditions and at all places rather than someone like Sehwag who would tonk bowlers in favorable conditions at home while become a walking wicket in alien conditions. Sehwag is someone one would have if the batting line up already has stalwarts who are good enough to take the team to a respectable score in case the hit and miss Sehwag goes missing. No one with a brain would consider Sehwag in a brittle line up because he is not someone the team can depend on to score runs particularly in alien conditions.

 

As for your second part, a player doesn't necessarily have score over 500 runs in a series to be the MVP in that series, he can be so even by scoring 499 runs. Yes, Sachin didn't score 500 or more runs in a series. But more so, why do we keep hearing that from some people? Because that's one factor they can knock on him. Basically they all keep looking for holes in him, the moment they find even a marginal one, they jump to rooftops and keep screaming about it for the others to take notice. A player can be the MVP of a series when he performs better than the rest of his team mates, not necessarily if he scores 500 odd runs or takes 30 odd wickets in the series.

Edited by Bublu Bhuyan

Share this post


Link to post

Like I said before, it's easy to simply bring in Sehwag's superior ability to dominate attacks at home more than Sachin.  But batting has many other aspects, and many of them are far more important than just the ability to dominate at home. Let's just talk of one such aspect, let's compare Sachin and Sehwag's performances away from Asia

 

Sehwag - 63 (innings); Runs - 214535.36 (ave); 100's - 5

 

Sachin - 128 (innings); Runs - 600750.9 (ave); 100's - 18

 

 

So if we talk about Sehwag's superior ability of dominating attacks at home, why shouldn't we talk of Sachin's ultra superior ability of performing in alien conditions, an abilty which is far more important for a batsman? And mind you, Sachin wasn't a mug at performing at home, he did play aggressively (although nowhere as aggressively as Sehwag), but Sehwag was an absolute mug compared to Sachin in his ability to perform in alien conditions.

 

You see it's easy to bring in a certain aspect of a player's game and claim his superiority over Sachin based solely on that criteria. The thing to remember however is that there are many other far more important aspects where Sachin beats that player black and blue. Quite simple really.

Edited by Bublu Bhuyan

Share this post


Link to post

Bhai kyon jawab dekar apni energy waste kar rahe ho.. just accept that md kaif was a much better and complete batsman.. Tendu only survived due to mumbai lobby.

All his records and humility and discipline will be accorded to Pakistan and we will disown Sachin.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Bublu Bhuyan said:

If you were expecting Sachin to dominate like Sehwag or Gilchrist did, the problem lies with you. Sehwag and Gilchrist are known for them dominating attacks. A player doesnot necessarily have to score at an SR of 90+ in a year in order for him to be termed an aggresive or dominating batsman. Just an example, we all know Lara was known as someone who loved dominating bowlers. What's his career SR in Tests? It's 60, which is not even close to Sehwag or Gilchrist's SR. Why exactly was he known as an aggressive batsman with an urge to dominate attacks in that case? Same with Hayden, he had an SR of 60 odd. Why was he known to be an aggressive batsman? Sachin had an SR of 86+ in ODI cricket throughout the 90s. The only other batsman in that era with a better SR was Jayasuriya who had an SR of 89 back then, although he was terribly inconsistent. An SR of 70 was very respectable back then. That's why he was known to be a dominating/aggressive batsman. It's obviously a different case in Tests, he was the mainstay in the batting department and he could not cut loose like a maniac in that format, but most of all the format didn't require him to cut loose. Yet he played plenty of innings with an SR of more than 60 or 70. Now you'll tell me that an SR of 60 odd can't be termed as aggressive one. Why exactly were Lara and Hayden termed aggressive batsman in that case?

 

No, he did not dominate at home like Sehwag did, but then again no one apart from Gilchirst in history did so either. But most of all, does anyone claim that he dominated like Sehwag at home? Most rational cricket fans would prefer a complete batsman with a respectable strike rate who can score in all conditions and at all places rather than someone like Sehwag who would tonk bowlers in favorable conditions at home while become a walking wicket in alien conditions. Sehwag is someone one would have if the batting line up already has stalwarts who are good enough to take the team to a respectable score in case the hit and miss Sehwag goes missing. No one with a brain would consider Sehwag in a brittle line up because he is not someone the team can depend on to score runs particularly in alien conditions.

 

As for your second part, a player doesn't necessarily have score over 500 runs in a series to be the MVP in that series, he can be so even by scoring 499 runs. Yes, Sachin didn't score 500 or more runs in a series. But more so, why do we keep hearing that from some people? Because that's one factor they can knock on him. Basically they all keep looking for holes in him, the moment they find even a marginal one, they jump to rooftops and keep screaming about it for the others to take notice. A player can be the MVP of a series when he performs better than the rest of his team mates, not necessarily if he scores 500 odd runs or takes 30 odd wickets in the series.

No one said Sehwag was better than Sachin nor no claimed Sehwag was the All time greatest batsmen. Like other very good batsmen of his Era Sehwag has his flaws too.

 

Sachin is only batsmen whom his fans in particular argue as ATG batsman and many of those rate him higher than Don Bradman.That is problem  and that is point of debate.Sachin in any book does not fit profile of greatest batsmen of all time.

 

He was great batsman who never had dominating run like many of his peers or past great batsmen.But he was very consistent without being dominating and he was technically very good so he could adapt in all conditions.I would rate him as technically most adaptable batsman of all time.Sachin had very long career ( we can argue whether it needed to that long but that topic is for another time) and that longevity is his greatest achievement.It shows how great he was in terms of adapting to changing needs of modern day cricket.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Sachin is only batsmen whom his fans in particular argue as ATG batsman and many of those rate him higher than Don Bradman.That is problem  and that is point of debate.Sachin in any book does not fit profile of greatest batsmen of all time.

Of course Sachin fans will have bias for him and will rate him as the greatest. Just like Pakistani fans have a bias for Imran Khan and consider him the greatest all rounder ever, even though the entire cricketing fraternity considers Garry Sobers as the one and only greatest.

 

Why do Sachin fans consider him the greatest? Because the cricketing fraternity considers him as one of the very best ever. It's not like the rest of the world doesn't consider him one, yet the Sachin fans keep insisting.

 

Why do you think he made Bradman's XI, Benaud's XI, WISDEN's XI, Cricinfo's XI? Why couldn't Ponting, Lara, Kallis, Sangakkara, etc make it to those teams? Were they compiled by Sachin fans? David Gower compiled his list of 50 greatest cricketers and he placed Sachin at #3, just behind Bradman and Sobers. Why? You've got to think about it, why does he keep receiving unrepresented applauds from the cricketing fraternity? Why did Richie Benaud consider him the greatest batsman he has ever seen since the time of Bradman? Why exactly? The only thing you might say is that they're all sell outs and under the payroll of the BCCI who made those lists, like a lot of Pakistanis do.

 

It would have been a completely different matter if he had merely numbers by his side with no more applaud than the rest of the greats, but he leaves the rest of the greats bar Sobers, Viv and Bradman into dust when it comes to peer reputation. One is not born with that, you have to earn it. Why couldn't the rest of the greats earn even 10% of the peer reputation/respect that he did, bar Brian Lara? What prevented them? When a player receives such universal acclaim, of course his die hard fans will claim him to be the greatest.

 

At the same time no one is asking you to follow suit. You have the liberty to have your own opinion, but you can't really force your opinion down other people's neck. You see there's simply no point in name calling and hurling childish insults at others.

Edited by Bublu Bhuyan

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Bublu Bhuyan said:

Of course Sachin fans will have bias for him and will rate him as the greatest. Just like Pakistani fans have a bias for Imran Khan and consider him the greatest all rounder ever, even though the entire cricketing fraternity considers Garry Sobers as the one and only greatest.

 

Why do Sachin fans consider him the greatest? Because the cricketing fraternity considers him as one of the very best ever. It's not like the rest of the world doesn't consider him one, yet the Sachin fans keep insisting.

 

Why do you think he made Bradman's XI, Benaud's XI, WISDEN's XI, Cricinfo's XI? Why couldn't Ponting, Lara, Kallis, Sangakkara, etc make it to those teams? Were they compiled by Sachin fans? David Gower compiled his list of 50 greatest cricketers and he placed Sachin at #3, just behind Bradman and Sobers. Why? You've got to think about it, why does he keep receiving unrepresented applauds from the cricketing fraternity? Why does Richie Benaud consider him the greatest batsman he has ever seen since the time of Bradman? Why exactly? The only thing you might say is that they're all sell outs who made those lists, like a lot of Pakistanis do.

 

It would have been a completely different matter if he had merely numbers by his side with no more applaud than the rest of the greats, but he leaves the rest of the greats bar Sobers, Viv and Bradman into dust when it comes to peer reputation. One is not born with that, you have to earn it. Why couldn't the rest of the greats earn even 10% of the peer reputation/respect that he did? What prevented them? When a player receives such universal acclaim, of course his die hard fans will claim him to be the greatest.

 

At the same time no one is asking you to follow suit. You have the liberty to have your own opinion, but you can't really force your opinion down other people's neck. You see there's simply no point in name calling and hurling childish insults at others.

He made all those XI's because he was great that is never point of debate.The debate is all about if he was the greatest, no one claimed Ponting, Kallis, or Sanga as greatest of all time.Lara some have argued and made case about him being greatest.

 

Sachin is definitely one of the greats of this game but he simply is not the greatest. I never said you asked me to follow your suit.I am just offering my two cents on your argument.Is it the point of any forum, offering different views and presenting different perspectives.

 

Who said rest of the greats did not earn 10% his reputation. People fear of backlash of massive Indian fan base and BCCI if they keep sachin out of any all time XIs too that is one of the main reasons in my opinion he is featured in most people's XI.

 

Bradman just said Sachin played like him but it is most often construed as Bradman saying Sachin was as good as him.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, putrevus said:

He made all those XI's because he was great that is never point of debate.The debate is all about if he was the greatest, no one claimed Ponting, Kallis, or Sanga as greatest of all time.Lara some have argued and made case about him being greatest.

 

Sachin is definitely one of the greats of this game but he simply is not the greatest. I never said you asked me to follow your suit.I am just offering my two cents on your argument.Is it the point of any forum, offering different views and presenting different perspectives.

He is not the undisputed greatest, history considers Bradman to be the greatest. But he is line for the honor of being the second greatest along with Sobers, Viv and Hobbs. WISDEN in 2002 rated him the second greatest Test and ODI batsman of all time. Why exactly? It's true that none of innings till that point made WISDEN's list of their top 100 innings. But the fact that WISDEN rated him the second greatest ever clearly means that they consider him better than the rest bar Bradman.

Who said rest of the greats did not earn 10% his reputation. People fear of backlash of massive Indian fan base and BCCI if they keep sachin out of any all time XIs too that is one of the main reasons in my opinion he is featured in most people's XI.

Just like I said previously, conspiracy theories started floating. Unfortunately conspiracy theories have no place in the real world. What matters is he made those lists, the rest did not. Which great apart from Sobers and Viv have earned equal or maybe more peer reputation than him?

Bradman just said Sachin played like him but it is most often construed as Bradman saying Sachin was as good as him.

Bradman included him in his All Time XI. Not even Viv made it. Why?

Share this post


Link to post

1. Bradman

2. Hobbs/Sobers/Viv/Sachin

 

That's how I see it. But I'm speaking of only batsmen. If we're speaking of cricketers then Bradman and Sobers are much ahead of everyone else. Nobody apart from Bradman is even close to Sobers.

Edited by Bublu Bhuyan

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Bublu Bhuyan said:

Bradman included him in his All Time XI. Not even Viv made it. Why?

Viv is named wisden's Five cricketers of the century but Sachin is not one of them why??? You have ask Bradman on why he included Sachin and excluded Viv.

 

Warne made the that five greatest cricketers list too but Sachin did not make it.Why??

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, putrevus said:

Viv is named wisden's Five cricketers of the century but Sachin is not one of them why??? You have ask Bradman on why he included Sachin and excluded Viv.

 

Warne made the that five greatest cricketers list too but Sachin did not make it.Why??

Because that list was made in 2000, and Sachin was not even halfway through his career. Apart from Warne, each and every other cricketer of that list finished their respective careers. Also, I was specifically speaking of batsmen, not cricketers. I mentioned that before, didn't I? Let's have a look at those 5 cricketers

 

Bradman - I already said he's the greatest batsman and the greatest cricketer ever

 

Sobers - I have already said no one apart from Bradman comes close to him as a cricketer

 

Hobbs - I mentioned him previously, please have a look. According to me he is a contender of being the second greatest batsman ever.

 

Warne - He was a bowler. And Warne absolutely revolutionized leg spin bowling.

 

Viv - I mentioned him before. Once again, he's a contender of being the second greatest batsmen ever.

 

 

But most of all, all of those 4 batsmen finished their respective careers long ago. Sachin was just 11 years into his career. Simple. I never discredited those honorable cricketers previously, did I? They deserve the honor.

Edited by Bublu Bhuyan

Share this post


Link to post

Like I said before, I don't consider him the undisputed best batsman ever. However, I do believe that he has a strong claim of being the  second greatest batsman ever. Sobers, Viv and Hobbs too have equally strong claims of being the second greatest batsman ever. There are guys like George Headley and Graeme Pollock who have enormous peer appreciation and are considered among the best. Unfortunately they played very little international cricket and hence (in my opinion) don't qualify.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bublu Bhuyan said:

Like I said before, I don't consider him the undisputed best batsman ever. However, I do believe that he has a strong claim of being the  second greatest batsman ever. Sobers, Viv and Hobbs too have equally strong claims of being the second greatest batsman ever. There are guys like George Headley and Graeme Pollock who have enormous peer appreciation and are considered among the best. Unfortunately they played very little international cricket and hence (in my opinion) don't qualify.

Like I said before also in many posts before, Tendulkar in my book is a great batsmen but never was head and shoulders above his peers as many made him out to be.

 

He also never translated his enormous talent he had into match winning contributions for his team as he should have done it.One of main reasons for that is he never got to learn art of scoring big hundreds as he was blooded too young.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, putrevus said:

Like I said before also in many posts before, Tendulkar in my book is a great batsmen but never was head and shoulders above his peers as many made him out to be.

 

He also never translated his enormous talent he had into match winning contributions for his team as he should have done it.One of main reasons for that is he never got to learn art of scoring big hundreds as he was blooded too young.

Big hundreds or marathon innings in Test cricket is defined by 150+ knocks. Guess which batsman has the most 150+ knocks in test cricket history? Sure, he does not have the most double hundreds or any triple hundreds, I'll have to agree. But then again, Viv Richards has no triple centuries either, and he has just 3 double hundreds compared to Sachin's 6 double hundreds.

Edited by Bublu Bhuyan

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Bublu Bhuyan said:

Big hundreds or marathon innings in Test cricket is defined by 150+ knocks. Guess which batsman has the most 150+ knocks in test cricket history? Sure, he does not have the most double hundreds or any triple hundreds, I'll have to agree. But then again, Viv Richards has no triple centuries either, and he has just 3 double hundreds compared to Sachin's 6 double hundreds.

For these sort of people, big hundreds are defined by only 'numerical value',no importance to the context  these inns are achieved like quality of opposition,bowling strength , home or abroad etc etc. That's why a 201  of Sehwag  vs SL would always be better than the 169  of Sachin vs SAF for them.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, putrevus said:

Viv is named wisden's Five cricketers of the century but Sachin is not one of them why??? You have ask Bradman on why he included Sachin and excluded Viv.

 

Warne made the that five greatest cricketers list too but Sachin did not make it.Why??

You mean the same wisden which rated sachin as the second greatest test and odi batsman in 2002, and which list of warne are you talking about, as far as I remember warne has always rated sachin among the top 3 

Share this post


Link to post

For the sane fans, please ignore troll posts. It leads to nowhere. Besides, never feed a troll. Any posts that has no substance to it instead consists of hate or childish insults or a statement not backed up by logic or facts are not worth replying to. And the more you feed the trolls, the more they will troll. Please refrain yourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bublu Bhuyan said:

Looks like a certain troll's post has been deleted, LOL. Ironically, I made my previous post in response to that troll's trolly post.

 

3 hours ago, Bublu Bhuyan said:

For the sane fans, please ignore troll posts. It leads to nowhere. Besides, never feed a troll. Any posts that has no substance to it instead consists of hate or childish insults or a statement not backed up by logic or facts are not worth replying to. And the more you feed the trolls, the more they will troll. Please refrain yourselves.

yes.... that is  the best way to deal with  such frauds... 'never respond to their posts' . Hope all sensible posters here be aware of this fact.

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/13/2018 at 11:39 PM, Bublu Bhuyan said:

Big hundreds or marathon innings in Test cricket is defined by 150+ knocks. Guess which batsman has the most 150+ knocks in test cricket history? Sure, he does not have the most double hundreds or any triple hundreds, I'll have to agree. But then again, Viv Richards has no triple centuries either, and he has just 3 double hundreds compared to Sachin's 6 double hundreds.

Many argue this about this Richards including his own team's fast bowlers."he was never after stats and all he cared was winning so he never chased any records".

 

Richards as a test batsman I would not put him as greatest.He had one of the greatest year statistically in 1976 but he never reached that heights again.

 

But what differentiated Richards with his peers is his SR.Sachin on other hand played two hundred tests and has 6 double hundreds which is a very poor return for batsman who is in conversation of being greatest of all time. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/12/2018 at 9:44 AM, UnknownGenius said:

I don't know if Sachin owned McGrath or the other way but getting out LBW to a McGrath bouncer was LOlworthy

 

 

It's ducking 129k he should have nailed it over the cow corner. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/11/2018 at 7:18 AM, narenpande1 said:

 I am not blind like your lot. 

 

I am rational and fair. I don’t elevate someone by blind worship. I have never said that he is not a true great.. but so are many of his peers. He does not stand out as his irrational Bhakts want others to believe. Statistically and factually others are as great. Sangakkara was a god damn keeper, also captain and Ponting was a long time captain - huge responsibilities. Tendulkar just had to focus on his batting for most of his career. Yet he does not stand out 

 

You are correct in terms of net value Kalli provided more value.  Sanga kept in odi not in tests but had a bigger peak than Sachin .  Pontings batting and his captaincy puts him on par with Sachin probably he also had a higher peak. 

 

Kallis is one guy who did well.. But when you consider top opponents only Sachin just edges him out.  And when you consider Sachins test and odi he clearly outshines everyone including viv. Sachin is a great player fans who call him god etc are morons and are sabotaging his legend much like what he did himself chasing that 100th 100.

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/13/2018 at 1:43 PM, Bublu Bhuyan said:

1. Bradman

2. Hobbs/Sobers/Viv/Sachin

 

That's how I see it. But I'm speaking of only batsmen. If we're speaking of cricketers then Bradman and Sobers are much ahead of everyone else. Nobody apart from Bradman is even close to Sobers.

Kallis. Sachin+zak

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×