Batsmen who scored 500+ runs in a test series !!!

[velu]

2 minutes ago, MechEng said:

Yeah, even though Gooch got 752 runs it looks big due to his 333. But Viv's 829 runs is insane, even though the bowling attack was not great, 829 runs in foreign conditions in 4 tests is crazy.

 

But Sachin got those 446 runs in 3 tests against a high in confidence Shane Warne after the big Ashes win in 1997 and a pretty good bowler in Kasprowicz.

 

but not 500 .. 

there are players who scored more runs easily 

[rtmohanlal]

11 hours ago, velu said:

 

Bradman 7

Lara 7

Gavaskar 6

Sobers 6

Ponting 5

Kohli 4

Smith 3

Dravid 2 

Cook 2

Viv 2

Sachin 0

Tendulkar 0

 

 

discuss 

the real performance of a batsman thru out a series is determined  by  how much the batsman  avg:ed   in that series, not by 500 or 499 or 498.  It is only a matter of  simple logic that  400 runs in 7 inns  @57.14 avg: is  a better performance than exact 500 runs in 10 inns @50 avg: .So just take the avg: as a criteria of performance.

[velu]

1 minute ago, rtmohanlal said:

the real performance of a batsman thru out a series is determined  by  how much the batsman  avg:ed   in that series, not by 500 or 499 or 498.  It is only a matter of  simple logic that  400 runs in 7 inns  @57.14 avg: is  a better performance than exact 500 runs in 10 inns @50 avg: .So just take the avg: as a criteria of performance.

 

i checked that stat as well , definitely they are not in sachins favor   

[MechEng]

11 minutes ago, velu said:

 

but not 500 .. 

there are players who scored more runs easily 

Arrey, he just fell short of 54 runs, not 154 runs. But not denying other player's awesome performances, I knew Viv was great but 829 runs in 4 tests? It will take some time for that to sink in.

[velu]

4 minutes ago, MechEng said:

Arrey, he just fell short of 54 runs, not 154 runs. But not denying other player's awesome performances, I knew Viv was great but 829 runs in 4 tests? It will take some time for that to sink in.

 

mumbai ka bhai .. do you know how difficult it is to cross from 90s to 100 ?

apply logarithmic level nervousness from 450 to 500   

[rtmohanlal]

1 minute ago, velu said:

 

i checked that stat as well , definitely they are not in sachins favor   

what stats??

[velu]

3 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

what stats??

the stats you mentioned .. average

[rtmohanlal]

6 minutes ago, velu said:

the stats you mentioned .. average

Sachin has 32 series   in which he avg:ed  more than 60+ .   There are several good-very good - great batsmen who has never even played 32 series in their entire career. That being the case what are you up to?

[velu]

1 minute ago, rtmohanlal said:

Sachin has 32 series   in which he avg:ed  more than 60+ .   There are several good-very good - great batsmen who has never even played 32 series in their entire career. That being the case what are you up to?

 

now got your point ..  nobody can doubt sachins consistency 

but there are few people who won the matches/series all by themselves ( or with little help from others ) better than sachin ( relatively )

[rtmohanlal]

20 minutes ago, velu said:

 

now got your point ..  nobody can doubt sachins consistency 

but there are few people who won the matches/series all by themselves ( or with little help from others ) better than sachin ( relatively )

agreed. there might be some other batsmen who would have been better in that regard.No body is claiming that Sachin was the no:1 in each and every batting factor, but all combined he was better than the most.That's all.Also , that doesn't mean  that Sachin was n't at the least good in this regard either. He was really good indeed.

for instance take the below series

Border-Gavaskar Trophy (Australia in India), 2010/11

2 4 1 403 214 134.33 1  2

Scoring 403 runs in only 4 inns @134.33 avg:- if this is not almost  winning by one self , then i don't know what it is. Similarly I can trace out at least a few more too. Also keep in mind that winning/losing a series is  not entirely decided  by a single player as well.

 

Even more importantly don't take  the criteria like 500 or 499  or  498 to decide this factor.In the above case itself , to score 97 more to meet '500'  in  5 more inns would have been a cake walk for Sachin.So leave this criteria to lower primary kids or mentally retarded people.

Edited December 13, 2018 by rtmohanlal

[MechEng]

1 hour ago, velu said:

 

mumbai ka bhai .. do you know how difficult it is to cross from 90s to 100 ?

apply logarithmic level nervousness from 450 to 500   

Ok baba, Sachin hai hai

[Vilander]

13 hours ago, velu said:

 

Bradman 7

Lara 7

Gavaskar 6

Sobers 6

Ponting 5

Kohli 4

Smith 3

Dravid 2 

Cook 2

Viv 2

Sachin 0

Tendulkar 0

 

 

discuss 

hey man...its Viv Richards..you missed his second name..otherwise all good. yeah lots of Indians there on the list of who did score..i see some in the bottom who did not...as well.

 

just so that you know..

 

 

[Rasgulla]

2 hours ago, MechEng said:

We did not play any 5 test series in the 1990s. If that Aus tour to India in 1998 or even the England tour of India in 1993 was a 5 test series, we could have seen some 500+ scores.

Not only that he couldn't win single test match for India overseas in so called peak 90s.... Let not even go near his captaincy, such a failure that he got dumped not once but twice. 

[putrevus]

^^^Sachin as a captain got raw deal, he captained Indian team when it was at its weakest.But to his credit Sachin played very well under every captain.

[Aiden]

Lara -7 Tendulkar - 0. Wow

 

Can someone write this stat on a cake and smack it on Viv Richards face.

[velu]

2 hours ago, Clarke said:

Such a weird metric, 500+ in a series.

 

Is Cook = Viv & better than Kallis, Chappell, Border etc ? 

 

Look at this chart for instance:  http://stats.espncricinfo.com/wi/content/records/284251.html

 

*er Zaman is the greatest odi batsman if we sort by series averages 

 

as a bambi you shld know the milestones  

 

[Lala]

Lol Viv Richard's got 2, but sachin... 

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, putrevus said:

So what, he played more test in 2000s than he did in 1990s, if he was not good enough to win his team matches , he should have quit and not hangon to score some meaningless records.

being not at their peak to score 500 is very different from not being good enough to being in the team. 

The reason Tendulkar doesn't have 500+ scores is because he hardly ever played much test cricket with more than 5-6 innings in the series. hardly a few test series with more than 7 innings per series. Simple. 

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, Rasgulla said:

Not only that he couldn't win single test match for India overseas in so called peak 90s.... Let not even go near his captaincy, such a failure that he got dumped not once but twice. 

Thats because batsmen don't win test matches. Simple. 

[putrevus]

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

being not at their peak to score 500 is very different from not being good enough to being in the team. 

The reason Tendulkar doesn't have 500+ scores is because he hardly ever played much test cricket with more than 5-6 innings in the series. hardly a few test series with more than 7 innings per series. Simple. 

That is simply not true, he was not good enough to score 500 runs in series.I am tired of hearing excuses on why Sachin could not do this or Sachin couldn't do that, it is simple he was not good enough.Nobody stopped him from scoring a triple hundred either.

 

There is a reason why he never crossed 900 rating also.