Sachin Tendulkar or Vivian Richards?

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

Didn't you agree that the standards were all crap in Bradman's times ?

You forgot the part about evolution and how things do progressively get better over time in all aspects of life, which in itself doesn't diminish achievements of the past, on how you can't expect someone from 100 years ago to have done the same against the bowling of today without also considering how someone who is from today would have performed 100 years ago being born then with the coaching available then, yada yada yada. :winky:

[akshayxyz]

Someone can even argue that in tourneys where there are more than 2 teams involved, the chances of doing well against weaker teams increases :winky: And if someone is picking b/w two greats players, he has to see how they have done in important games, no? Or is that everything is suppose to go for Sachin and against the other player :giggle:

yea right. thanks for reminding. e.g. WC2011.. England and SA were the only minnows, and pak was next worst (having reached the semis).

[Brainfade]

Viv's swagger was unparalleled' date=' but Sachin has achieved so much that its nearly impossible to rate any batsman conclusively higher than him.[/quote'] Your post is a voice of reason here. In my opinion, swagger is over-rated. Aamir Sohail had swagger ... see where it got him. More to the point - Before we compare Tendulkar and Richards, one must come up with specific criteria upon which you want to base the comparison. (1) Consistency (2) Longevity (3) Likelihood of completely decimating an attack on any given day (4) Better at his best (5) Better at his worst - that is, who had a better ability to grind it out and make it count even when they were not in good form? (6) Value to team The original post is obviously talking about (3) and (6) another intangible - swagger - which I think is over-rated. Bossbhai's numbers mostly reflect comparisons of (1), (2) and (6). Add in pitches, Kookaburras/Dukes, perceived quality of bowling faced, and helmet vs. non-helmet eras, it becomes impossible (albeit interesting) to fairly compare batsmen from two different eras. The original poster obviously favors IVAR - hence the focus on destruction and swagger. I - having watched both IVAR and SRT - would first pick the consistent, no-nonsense, tough, supremely confident (sans swagger), usually destructive, yet unassuming fellow who made everyone else around him better players. SRT any day.

[Brainfade]

You forgot the part about evolution and how things do progressively get better over time in all aspects of life' date= which in itself doesn't diminish achievements of the past, on how you can't expect someone from 100 years ago to have done the same against the bowling of today without also considering how someone who is from today would have performed 100 years ago being born then with the coaching available then, yada yada yada. :winky:

Evolution is not progress. Evolution is only diversity. As a biologist, I cringe when I see that connection, and have to comment. If you're interested:

Evolution is not progress. Populations simply adapt to their current surroundings. They do not necessarily become better in any absolute sense over time. A trait or strategy that is successful at one time may be unsuccessful at another. Paquin and Adams demonstrated this experimentally. They founded a yeast culture and maintained it for many generations. Occasionally, a mutation would arise that allowed its bearer to reproduce better than its contemporaries. These mutant strains would crowd out the formerly dominant strains.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

yea right. thanks for reminding. e.g. WC2011.. England and SA were the only minnows' date=' and pak was next worst (having reached the semis).[/quote'] First, I am biased because I chose Richards despite thinking that both tendulkar and Richards are equally good Second, doing well against Eng and SA in WC shows that your chances of doing well in a tourney with 3 teams or more are not boosted by playing weaker teams. And Eng I presume was a strong team. Anyways keep going ....

[zen]

Evolution is not progress. Evolution is only diversity. As a biologist, I cringe when I see that connection, and have to comment. If you're interested: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Bhai, if he wanted to know the correct meaning of evolution he would have been a biologist :P .... I hope you see the point that he is trying to make

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[yoda]

Cricaddict, we are not at bioBS.com, rather at screwstatswatchsomevideofootage.com :hahaha: anyways, as rett pointed out http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution

[akshayxyz]

First' date= I am biased because I chose Richards despite thinking that both tendulkar and Richards are equally good Second, doing well against Eng and SA in WC shows that your chances of doing well in a tourney with 3 teams or more are not boosted by playing weaker teams. And Eng I presume was a strong team. Anyways keep going ....

no issues with that, but giving absurd reasons to back up your pick with absurd reasons (like - better performer clutch/pressure situations) just does not make sense and needs to be pointed out.

[Brainfade]

Bhai' date=' if he wanted to know the correct meaning of evolution he would have been a biologist :P .... I hope you see the point that he is trying to make[/quote'] It is obvious he is not, but is trying to use his erroneous understanding of evolution as a basis for his point. As a bio-evangelist, I had to fix the misconception.

[zen]

no issues with that' date=' but giving absurd reasons to back up your pick with absurd reasons (like - better performer clutch/pressure situations) just does not make sense and needs to be pointed out.[/quote'] Nah, I guess, I have to think like you to give reasons, be it doing kusti with Serena, or picking b/w being wise or whatever, ....

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Brainfade]

Cricaddict, we are not at bioBS.com, rather at screwstatswatchsomevideofootage.com :hahaha: anyways, as rett pointed out http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution

Evolution simply means "change over time." Progress means "change resulting in something better." Where, on your link, does it say "progress"? Surely, you don't mean "progression" to mean "progress," do you?

[zen]

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->

Don't forget he is suppose to have beaten all those who argue against Tendulkar being the greatest :winky:

[yoda]

Evolution simply means "change over time." Progress means "change resulting in something better." Where' date=' on your link, does it say "progress"? Surely, you don't mean "progression" to mean "progress," do you?[/quote'] LOL!

[Sachin=GOD]

Can't we, for a change, have a serious discussion

[ravishingravi]

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 spinne. 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

Tbh, this is closer to my position. They both are in the same league. But in a tight spot with odds stacked against me, I would prefer Lara or Richards, which is not to say Sachin is inferior. I just think other two are more of gamerbreakers. Btw people have not dissapointed. Some pearls of wisdom here

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --