Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ravishingravi

Sachin Tendulkar or Vivian Richards?

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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
My 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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
So' date=' why not share the data?[/quote'] Oh dont bother... First he will give u stats... then when u give him counter-stats he will throw in 2-3 sentences of how intelligent he is and how dumb others are with words such as comedy, dumb, stupid included in there as well as a few smileys.

Share this post


Link to post
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
We love cricket. We understand cricket. Our understanding isnt based on statsguru. We dont watch cricket on espncricinfo live scorecard...Our understanding is based on the way batsman bats.We see it. Dravid is most elegant batsman in the history of cricket. But we love Sachin. Why.... Because he hits the ball just a fraction of second before any other batsman will do.beacuse Ball doesnt beat his bat. Sachin allways reaches the ball. Runs, records, centuries all, are bi product... What we really love is his batting. His dominance... Teams pre plan against Sachin. Not with only plan A, But plan B, and plan C. And still at this age he is most prized indian wicket for any bowler.... BCCI is what it is today because of Sachin... His impact change the dynamics of world cricket.. Do hell with what all time greats say....Just becauase they dont vote Murali doesnt mean Murali isnt great.. ( Murali is not even in the all time great list. Warne is at 4th...Even Fuddu Laker is is in top 50...) I dont want you to agree, Sachin is best. IF cricket greats can be biased why cant someone like you .. frankly , I dont care... But please please please....Understand one thing... If you cant take others opinion seriously others may start doing the same...

Share this post


Link to post

:hysterical: Sachin is an idol for me if ever there can be one. But I sure do hope that he does not follow this thread. Thread deserves to take its own course. I honestly cannot keep up with some of the arguments put forth. We are desperate to put him at numero uno arent we.

Share this post


Link to post
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 [/quote'] What stupid analysis. :haha:

Share this post


Link to post
Once again, this argument does not make even an iota of sense because
And putting reverse cumulative averages from stats guru showing Richards did not average 50 for most of his career in an alternative world where time runs backwards to conclude he was 'mediocre' makes sense because...............?:hysterical:

Share this post


Link to post

If someone argues that Chapell came to India with one goal. Take down Sachin so that Bradman can remain at top... It may be difficult to keep up with... But Mike Denness controversy was surely for one and only one reason. White dudes couldnt see Tendulkar taking the number one spot.... So why the hell we cant be obseessed with Tendulkar... I cant google it now but somewhere I read it that Once security guard did not recognise Gavaskar, and did nit let hime enter the cricket ground, probably Lords...

Share this post


Link to post
If someone argues that Chapell came to India with one goal. Take down Sachin so that Bradman can remain at top...
I am sure some people from this thread would be able to find 'stats' to back that up as well. :hatsoff:

Share this post


Link to post
And putting reverse cumulative averages from stats guru showing Richards did not average 50 for most of his career in an alternative world where time runs backwards to conclude he was 'mediocre' makes sense because...............?:hysterical:
I never said it did

Share this post


Link to post
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. .
Now this I agree with. Although in his first few years, particularly with donald, Sachin did try to counter-attack

Share this post


Link to post

There is one simple solution folks. Just look at video footage and declare the one who "looks" the best as the winner. If it worked for Bradman vs Sachin, should work for anyone vs anyone else. :winky: All these stats etc are useless as proven by the video footage followers. :hahaha:

Share this post


Link to post
All these stats etc are useless as proven by the video footage followers. :hahaha:
:facepalm: Richard did not play cricket in stone age..... Video follower have already seen Richards playing too. Not highlights. or you tube videos.... Complete test series. They are not relying on your statsguru.... Why do Coaches watch a player before they select them from a lower league to upper league. Because stats are for guidance only

Share this post


Link to post

A Real tough comparison, but I haven't seen much of Richards while playing, just 1 or 2 innings so I cant say much, but the fact that Viv was more brutal against fast bowling without a helmet gives him the upper edge as that would threaten the bowlers and there was a fear in bowlers they were abt to bowl to Viv.

Share this post


Link to post
:facepalm: Richard did not play cricket in stone age..... Video follower have already seen Richards playing too. Not highlights. or you tube videos.... Complete test series. They are not relying on your statsguru.... Why do Coaches watch a player before they select them from a lower league to upper league. Because stats are for guidance only
If video footage can negate stats from stone age, why can't they negate stats from the golden age? :facepalm: :facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Go ahead present some videos of Viv and SRT tell us how it does .
I will leave it to the Video bakths to use them and decide. All I am saying, don't bother with this average shaverage, less than 50, more than 50, etc. Just see video and decide. :winky: May be one of you find Viv's front foot plonk better technique, and others find Sachin's compactness and straight drives more compelling. Seems like a better way to discuss than all these useless stats. :hahaha:

Share this post


Link to post
is that your way of saying "I wont entertain any facts come what may stats or videos" ? what a big ***in surprise :hysterical:
oh so you do believe in stats like averages now? :two_thumbs_up:

Share this post


Link to post

Hey since I see no bar when people present stats mixing up ODI's and Tests as they please - Here is something to ponder. Since they started playing cricket till date combining all forms of the games (FC, Tests, ODI's, List A, 20-20) here are how many total Runs and Centuries each of SRT and Viv Richards have scored. SRT - 46,000 odd runs 138 Centuries Viv - 53,000 odd runs 140 Centuries SRT still needs 7k runs to catch up with Viv as of now.

Share this post


Link to post
Hey since I see no bar when people present stats mixing up ODI's and Tests as they please - Here is something to ponder. Since they started playing cricket till date combining all forms of the games (FC, Tests, ODI's, List A, 20-20) here are how many total Runs and Centuries each of SRT and Viv Richards have scored. SRT - 46,000 odd runs 138 Centuries Viv - 53,000 odd runs 140 Centuries SRT still needs 7k runs to catch up with Viv as of now.
What a great way to compare..>> cobine all the stats in one go....:hatsoff:

Share this post


Link to post
Hey since I see no bar when people present stats mixing up ODI's and Tests as they please - Here is something to ponder. Since they started playing cricket till date combining all forms of the games (FC, Tests, ODI's, List A, 20-20) here are how many total Runs and Centuries each of SRT and Viv Richards have scored. SRT - 46,000 odd runs 138 Centuries Viv - 53,000 odd runs 140 Centuries SRT still needs 7k runs to catch up with Viv as of now.
When he is done with that, he can probably take up bowling full time to catch up with the 513 wickets, 702 catches, and 1 stumping of Richards. :nice:

Share this post


Link to post
Hey since I see no bar when people present stats mixing up ODI's and Tests as they please - Here is something to ponder. Since they started playing cricket till date combining all forms of the games (FC, Tests, ODI's, List A, 20-20) here are how many total Runs and Centuries each of SRT and Viv Richards have scored. SRT - 46,000 odd runs 138 Centuries Viv - 53,000 odd runs 140 Centuries SRT still needs 7k runs to catch up with Viv as of now.
:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:

Share this post


Link to post

It is telling that Tendulkar is the standard by which every other batsman is measured. All such threads begin with "SRT or IVAR?" "SRT or DB?" "SRT or RP?" "SRT or BL?" "SRT or SMG?"

Share this post


Link to post
Hey since I see no bar when people present stats mixing up ODI's and Tests as they please - Here is something to ponder. Since they started playing cricket till date combining all forms of the games (FC, Tests, ODI's, List A, 20-20) here are how many total Runs and Centuries each of SRT and Viv Richards have scored. SRT - 46,000 odd runs 138 Centuries Viv - 53,000 odd runs 140 Centuries SRT still needs 7k runs to catch up with Viv as of now.
:adore: :adore: :adore: :adore: I thought only Vaibhav could make such posts but you have surpassed him :hatsoff:

Share this post


Link to post
:facepalm: Richard did not play cricket in stone age..... Video follower have already seen Richards playing too. Not highlights. or you tube videos.... Complete test series. They are not relying on your statsguru.... Why do Coaches watch a player before they select them from a lower league to upper league. Because stats are for guidance only
If video footage can negate stats from stone age' date= why can't they negate stats from the golden age? :facepalm: :facepalm:
How did you relate the two... It meant we have seen test games for them.. Followed many weekend watching them play As I said you stats would not win any fans. They are for guidance only.... Read this article. And tell me if you managed to finish it all. We need videos from stone age because most of us were not alive to watch the cricket. Dont argue for the sake of arguing. http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/509803.html

Share this post


Link to post
:adore: :adore: :adore: :adore: I thought only Vaibhav could make such posts but you have surpassed him :hatsoff:
Vaibhav has already been surpassed in Post #20 where Richards was proved to be mediocre based on reverse cumulative averages - now it's just funzzz and stuffzzzz. B->

Share this post


Link to post
It is telling that Tendulkar is the standard by which every other batsman is measured. All such threads begin with "SRT or IVAR?" "SRT or DB?" "SRT or RP?" "SRT or BL?" "SRT or SMG?"
Errr not exactly. All such threads that are initiated are done by the usual suspect on predominantly Indian message boards. Kind of similar to certain Tamilian fans I know who bask in Rajni > Kamal, Rajni > Amitabh, Rajni > Shahrukh rant. By the by for whatever it is worth I have seen both and for sheer impact it would be hard to beat Richards. SRT would always have statistics on his side and makes for a stellar argument but between the two I think Viv would be rated more. And Sunny would be rated ahead of Viv :--D

Share this post


Link to post

IMHO, both Richards and Tendulkar belong to the same league. No need to say that both of them are exceptionally gifted batsmen. I would like to have both of them in my team but if I had to pick one, who would I go for? A Richards in his best form or a Tendulkar in his best form. Or inversely, If I were the opposition captain, who would give me more nightmares. The answer is an inform Richards. This guy can turn the game on its head in no time and drive the opposition nuts. Which is why I would rather have Richards in my team than Tendulkar, even though both of them are in the same league. To illustrate, take a look at ODI WC finals. Richards just rises whether it is in fielding or batting. On the other hand, look at what Tendulkar did in 2003 and 2011 WC final games. PS I remember that 80 odd Lara hit against Ind in 2nd innings of one of the tests in India. The indications were the game would end in a draw and Ind would win the series. The guy hits a quick fire 80 on a track helping the spinners somewhat. That allows WI bowlers enough time to bowl Ind out and draw the series. Or who can forget the 50 odd he hit on a dynamite of a pitch in WI, where Ind could not chase 100 odd to win. Or his 150 odd against Australia to win the test batting with the tail. These are the type of magical innings that change the game for your team and such players would be amonsgt the top ones of the shopping list of my team :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
IMHO, both Richards and Tendulkar belong to the same league. No need to say that both of them are exceptionally gifted batsman. If I had the choice to pick one, who would I go for? A Richards in his best form or a Tendulkar in his best form. Or inversely, If I were the opposition captain, who would give me more nightmares. The answer is an inform Richards. This guy can turn the game on its head in no time and drive the opposition nuts. Which is why I would rather have Richards in my team than Tendulkar, even though both of them are in the same league. To illustrate, take a look at ODI WC finals. Richards just rises whether it is in fielding or batting. On the other hand, look at what Tendulkar did in 2003 and 2011 WC final games.
Why fake the 'unbiased' view in first two paras? Finals is not the only imp match in the tourney. Sachin's record in tourney's involving more than 3 teams is unparalleled. That does not mean I am claiming Sachin >>>> Viv or otherway round. I am just pointing out the non-sense about - Sachin fails in 'finals', 'clutch' matches/situations and all that similar crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×