zen Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 6ZOenyArzrU ^ ODI: Richards 189* against Eng .... brillant inning, I love how he smashes Botham around :giggle: .... Commentator "does look a different game when Richards is batting" HwfQ103YzkM&feature=related ^: TestsRichards 232 in 1976 vs Eng Link to comment
zen Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I read some comments 'facing better bowlers' but that argument doesn't count for Tendulkar as I have shown in one of my earlier posts that he probably doesn't even average 40 when playing good bowling pairs like iirc Waqar-Wasim, Mcgrath-Warne, Donald-Pollock, etc .... And that avg is not even amongst the top of his peers :winky: ..... So let's cut that crap or may be let the comical idol worshiping continue for entertainment :--D Link to comment
pensionplan Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Tearing down of Viv Richards in its infancy stages yet. There is still scope. Link to comment
Jimmy Cliff Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Viv>SRT. In both Tests and ODIs IMO. Link to comment
Pagalpanti Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 What people don't understand is why Sachin is a class apart others. Sachin has been doing the same for the past 21 years. There are batsman who can match his technique but they can't be as consistent as the Master. He gets better with the age. Link to comment
Roshanrocks Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 I read some comments 'facing better bowlers' but that argument doesn't count for Tendulkar as I have shown in one of my earlier posts that he probably doesn't even average 40 when playing good bowling pairs like iirc Waqar-Wasim' date=' Mcgrath-Warne, Donald-Pollock, etc .... And that avg is not even amongst the top of his peers :winky: ..... So let's cut that crap or may be let the comical idol worshiping continue for entertainment :--D[/quote'] Here we go again :facepalm: Link to comment
Roshanrocks Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 By the way why isnt this thread joined witht he previous Sachin-Richards comparison threads? :hitler: Mods are getting very soft Link to comment
jonas10 Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Richards was the original master blaster who played without helmet and fear unlike modern day greats. The greatest cricketer of all time' date=' Imran Khan played against both and rates Ricahrds ahead of all[/quote'] How much did "the greatest cricketer" :hysterical: Imran play with Sachin? When he was 16? Takes a might brave Pak to admit an indian was the best at something. Can you even admit that Sachin was and is better than any Pak batsmen of all time? Thats why they need Richards who says Sachin is better than him and he wants to be compared to Sehwag for his destructive play or Yuvraj for how him and Richards both light up England Link to comment
Sachin=GOD Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 but the OP was .... hence the need to shine some light on who stands were in comparison to one another. I cant believe that after all that he has done just in the recent past there are people who still harp about this "doesn't perform when needed" those people are blind haters and will continue to hate him no matter what :giggle: Link to comment
CSK Fan Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 I read some comments 'facing better bowlers' but that argument doesn't count for Tendulkar as I have shown in one of my earlier posts that he probably doesn't even average 40 when playing good bowling pairs like iirc Waqar-Wasim' date=' Mcgrath-Warne, Donald-Pollock, etc .... And that avg is not even amongst the top of his peers :winky: ..... So let's cut that crap or may be let the comical idol worshiping continue for entertainment :--D[/quote'] Once again, this argument does not make even an iota of sense because Just because the average of a batsman is so and so when playing against teams which had certain bowlers does not mean it was caused by those bowlers. If Sachin got run out or got out obstrucuting the field, or got out to a spin bowler, hence getting his average low, your average comparison will still give the credit to the fast bowler. Average makes sense when comparing performances against teams but not against individuals as too many variables are involved Unless you can conclusively prove that the low average was caused because of those bowlers, just quoting those numbers does not make any sense. So stop repeating this again and again, no one will take you seriously Link to comment
mishra Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Anyone speaking against God is athiest and deshdrohi. He doesnt takes his cricket and country seriously. Link to comment
Vijay.Sharma Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 I read some comments 'facing better bowlers' but that argument doesn't count for Tendulkar as I have shown in one of my earlier posts that he probably doesn't even average 40 when playing good bowling pairs like iirc Waqar-Wasim' date=' Mcgrath-Warne, Donald-Pollock, etc .... And that avg is not even amongst the top of his peers :winky: ..... So let's cut that crap or may be let the comical idol worshiping continue for entertainment :--D[/quote']You actually got data for how many runs a batsman scored against a particular bowler???? Wow! That would help a lot in all my projects....can you please share it with me? By the way, you are not going to point me to statsguru and say I can get it from there, right? They don't have it over there. If you picked it from there then I can clarify to you how you may have misinterpreted the stuff. But if you really have that kind of data then please share it with me. Link to comment
Vijay.Sharma Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Once again, this argument does not make even an iota of sense because Just because the average of a batsman is so and so when playing against teams which had certain bowlers does not mean it was caused by those bowlers. If Sachin got run out or got out obstrucuting the field, or got out to a spin bowler, hence getting his average low, your average comparison will still give the credit to the fast bowler. Average makes sense when comparing performances against teams but not against individuals as too many variables are involved Unless you can conclusively prove that the low average was caused because of those bowlers, just quoting those numbers does not make any sense. So stop repeating this again and again, no one will take you seriouslyMy guess is he doesn't even have the relevant data. He saw cricinfo mentioning something in the "average" column in a filtered search and he assumed the average reflects batsman v/s bowler average. Link to comment
Vijay.Sharma Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Tearing down of Viv Richards in its infancy stages yet. There is still scope.i don't think anyone is tearing down or putting down the King...that is entirely your inference. If you'd like to use numbers and facts instead of anecdotes I am ready to prove to you, without a doubt, that Sachin is in a league of his own and no batsman in the world except Don can even come close to him. Oh and please feel free to help qualify the "betterness" of the bowlers and oppositions and venues that Viv played vis-a-vis Sachin. And once you qualify it, check out the data yourself...probably that will help you to avoid embarrassing yourself here. Look dude, you can't take direct numbers (although they would make zero sense to use anyway) like bat average and compare Richards with Sachin. It's just not possible. The only hope you have is to qualify the numbers with contextual info. Whether you like it or not, a very detailed analysis shows Sachin is almost 35-40% better than Viv who is an ATG himself. That's the reason Sachin and Don are called Virtuosos by me. Viv is no virtuoso...he is at best a King. Sachin is a Buddha. Dont make statements in the air... if you have the data and facts with you then bring them Link to comment
Raghav_12 Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Once again, this argument does not make even an iota of sense because Just because the average of a batsman is so and so when playing against teams which had certain bowlers does not mean it was caused by those bowlers. If Sachin got run out or got out obstrucuting the field, or got out to a spin bowler, hence getting his average low, your average comparison will still give the credit to the fast bowler. Average makes sense when comparing performances against teams but not against individuals as too many variables are involved Unless you can conclusively prove that the low average was caused because of those bowlers, just quoting those numbers does not make any sense. So stop repeating this again and again, no one will take you seriously This kind of data independently don't make much sense. Just to illustrate this If I agree that Sachin has lower average against pair of McGrath and Warne as suggested by one of previous posters. Doesn't that lead me to conclude that Sachin can't play Warne? And everyone of us know that how ludicrous that conclusion is. Similarly for another instance, the fact us Sachin has poor average for the matches which involved Allan Donald. But it is not because of Donald. Of the 11 matches which Sachin played against Donald, he was picked by Donald 5 times. On the other hand Hansie Cronje also got him 5 times in these 11 matches. Now Hansie Cronje would have bowled only around 30-40% of the Donald's overs in at an average in any match. So Sachin's lower average in these matches is because of Donald or because of Cronje? These kind of selective stats doesn't prove anything. Link to comment
Roshanrocks Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 This kind of data independently don't make much sense. Just to illustrate this If I agree that Sachin has lower average against pair of McGrath and Warne as suggested by one of previous posters. Doesn't that lead me to conclude that Sachin can't play Warne? And everyone of us know that how ludicrous that conclusion is. Similarly for another instance, the fact us Sachin has poor average for the matches which involved Allan Donald. But it is not because of Donald. Of the 11 matches which Sachin played against Donald, he was picked by Donald 5 times. On the other hand Hansie Cronje also got him 5 times in these 11 matches. Now Hansie Cronje would have bowled only around 30-40% of the Donald's overs in at an average in any match. So Sachin's lower average in these matches is because of Donald or because of Cronje? These kind of selective stats doesn't prove anything. Pls read post 147 onwards http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=216178&highlight=gavaskar+tendulkar&page=4 Link to comment
Vijay.Sharma Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 This kind of data independently don't make much sense. Just to illustrate this If I agree that Sachin has lower average against pair of McGrath and Warne as suggested by one of previous posters. Doesn't that lead me to conclude that Sachin can't play Warne? And everyone of us know that how ludicrous that conclusion is. Similarly for another instance, the fact us Sachin has poor average for the matches which involved Allan Donald. But it is not because of Donald. Of the 11 matches which Sachin played against Donald, he was picked by Donald 5 times. On the other hand Hansie Cronje also got him 5 times in these 11 matches. Now Hansie Cronje would have bowled only around 30-40% of the Donald's overs in at an average in any match. So Sachin's lower average in these matches is because of Donald or because of Cronje? These kind of selective stats doesn't prove anything.In fact the first question is, where did he get the data for it? I'd love to get my hands on data related to batsman v/s bowler. I don't think ppl even maintained it until the broadcasters started showing such graphs just 5-8 years ago. Link to comment
zen Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Once again, this argument does not make even an iota of sense because Just because the average of a batsman is so and so when playing against teams which had certain bowlers does not mean it was caused by those bowlers. If Sachin got run out or got out obstrucuting the field, or got out to a spin bowler, hence getting his average low, your average comparison will still give the credit to the fast bowler. Average makes sense when comparing performances against teams but not against individuals as too many variables are involved Unless you can conclusively prove that the low average was caused because of those bowlers, just quoting those numbers does not make any sense. So stop repeating this again and again, no one will take you seriously If you knew what makes sense, you wouldn't have bother to write all that :winky: As usual, are you trying to imply that there are excuses for his failures and the same data becomes relevant of other batsmen. You should realize that every batsman is compared based on the same lines and Sachin does not fair well. In fact, he is not even amongst the top. Now if your claim is that that data doesn't show that Sachin can't play those bowlers, then why use/support the same argument against folks like DBG, Richards. whoever The trouble is that some of you guys are so blinded and bias that even replying to these comical posts appears like a waste of time :P And I haven't claimed that Sachin is not a good batsman or not as good as Richards. Link to comment
zen Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 You actually got data for how many runs a batsman scored against a particular bowler???? Wow! That would help a lot in all my projects....can you please share it with me? By the way, you are not going to point me to statsguru and say I can get it from there, right? They don't have it over there. If you picked it from there then I can clarify to you how you may have misinterpreted the stuff. But if you really have that kind of data then please share it with me. haha, the comedy continues. I haven't misinterpreted anything. It's you who doesn't know what I am talking about. FTR, I have no interest in your dumb analysis. :--D Link to comment
The Outsider Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Donald and McGrath definitely hold the edge over Tendulkar - you don't need mindless number crunching to demonstrate that if you watch and understand the game. Obviously, it does not detract from what Tendulkar is because they were great bowlers in their own rights and for his part Tendulkar has held the edge over several other great bowlers. Tendulkar's strategy of tackling great bowlers is by trying to play their overs out and score against the other bowlers in the side. This was specially true against McGrath. As a result, you would be hard pressed to recall instances when Tendulkar scored heavily off McGrath's bowling. He was also not dismissed by him very often as a result. Lara had the opposite approach - he would try to unsettle the best opposition bowler by attacking him, more like what Tendulkar does in ODIs on a number of occasions, what Sehwag does, or what Richards did. It's not difficult to recall innings in which Lara has taken heavy toll off McGrath, but by adopting this more risky strategy he has also been dismissed by McGrath more frequently than Tendulkar. There is no 'better' strategy and the ultimate goal of scoring heavily has been accomplished by both approaches. Link to comment
Recommended Posts