Sachin Tendulkar vs Steve Smith - Comparative Analysis

[jalebi_bhai]

7 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Similar games is irrelevant. 

similar stages at their careers ? 

Fine, after 60 tests, Sachin was 25 years old. Smith, is 28. 
This, despite the fact that Tendulkar played more than 8 tests in a year only ONCE in his first ten years.

 

At the age of 28, same as Smith currently, Sachin had  7419 runs at 57.96, with 27 tons and 30 fifties, from 89 tests. Numerically, pretty close. Factor in Sachin being one of only FIVE active players at this point to have 50+ average ( Steve Waugh, Tendulkar, Dravid, Lara and Andy Flower having 50+ average circa 2001), as opposed to 'every team having one or two or three 50+ average batsmen', with half a dozen active bowlers with sub-25 bowling averages (against whom Tendulkar had compiled said runs), then it becomes clear, that 'inflation-adjusted', Smith is far, far behind. 

 

Kindly, quantify this for me. By how much will Smith's average drop and by how much will SRTs average rise, by factoring in the 90s sub-25 bowlers factor?

[Muloghonto]

52 minutes ago, jalebi_bhai said:

Kindly, quantify this for me. By how much will Smith's average drop and by how much will SRTs average rise, by factoring in the 90s sub-25 bowlers factor?

Sachin's average won't rise, because he played against the 90s sub-25 bowlers. For Smith, he would be averaging high 40s -51/52 at best. Much like Chanderpaul. 

[maniac]

1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

Sachin's average won't rise, because he played against the 90s sub-25 bowlers. For Smith, he would be averaging high 40s -51/52 at best. Much like Chanderpaul. 

I am not comparing the 2 but Sachin was ahead of his peers in his career...isn’t Smith doing the same?

 

You perform only on what is in front of you.

 

 

[jalebi_bhai]

3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Sachin's average won't rise, because he played against the 90s sub-25 bowlers. For Smith, he would be averaging high 40s -51/52 at best. Much like Chanderpaul. 

And how have you arrived at those numbers?

 

I know you've made a correlation between Smith and Chanders because of their unconventional batting technique, but surely that's not enough data to come to such a conclusion.

[jalebi_bhai]

4 minutes ago, maniac said:

I am not comparing the 2 but Sachin was ahead of his peers in his career...isn’t Smith doing the same?

 

You perform only on what is in front of you.

 

 

Very valid point. Something for people to consider. 

[Muloghonto]

4 minutes ago, jalebi_bhai said:

And how have you arrived at those numbers?

 

I know you've made a correlation between Smith and Chanders because of their unconventional batting technique, but surely that's not enough data to come to such a conclusion.

That is roughly how much the test figures are inflated in batsmen's favour compared to the 90s. a drop of 10-15% is expected if all things are equal. Someone with unconventional technique like Smith, the drop will be even more, as up to the 90s, batsmen with unconventional defensive techniques/flaws (such as moving around the crease) did not thrive at all.

 

[Muloghonto]

9 minutes ago, maniac said:

I am not comparing the 2 but Sachin was ahead of his peers in his career...isn’t Smith doing the same?

 

You perform only on what is in front of you.

 

 

You only perform what ahead of you, but if your performance does not include ATG opposition, it still doesn't match those who've faced ATG opposition and still thrived.

 

[maniac]

2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

You only perform what ahead of you, but if your performance does not include ATG opposition, it still doesn't match those who've faced ATG opposition and still thrived.

 

India is a pretty indestructible opponent at home and he had an amazing series there on some dustbowls..has hit 100s in most away countries.

 

Has been mvp of 3 knockout games in the World Cup.

 

again this is not a srt vs Smith comparison because I don’t think there is anything to start comparing there yet...that will be based on how many years Smith can keep on performing....that is why even likes of Sanga or for the matter of fact Ponting are not brought up when it comes to Sachin...the closest comparisons are Lara and maybe Kallis.

 

I only had an objection of people calling him Chanderpaul type player while Chanderpaul was a great player in his own right,he did not have the impact Smith has on his team or how ahead he is off his peers...they both have unorthodox and not so pleasing techniques probably that is where the comparison stems from and that is where it should stop.

 

[Muloghonto]

3 minutes ago, maniac said:

India is a pretty indestructible opponent at home and he had an amazing series there on some dustbowls..has hit 100s in most away countries.

So ? It still doesnt change that except for RSA and Australia, no other attack today will crack the top 4 attacks of the 90s. And even then, Australia today is a marginal call. Empirical facts are empirical facts. 

 

3 minutes ago, maniac said:

Has been mvp of 3 knockout games in the World Cup.

Again, so what ? its so easy batting in ODIs today, thats the reason why until 2002, the entire history of ODIs had just one batsman with 50+ average after 50 games, now there are 4-5 running around. 

 

3 minutes ago, maniac said:

again this is not a srt vs Smith comparison because I don’t think there is anything to start comparing there yet...that will be based on how many years Smith can keep on performing....that is why even likes of Sanga or for the matter of fact Ponting are not brought up when it comes to Sachin...the closest comparisons are Lara and maybe Kallis.

 

I only had an objection of people calling him Chanderpaul type player while Chanderpaul was a great player in his own right,he did not have the impact Smith has on his team or how ahead he is off his peers...they both have unorthodox and not so pleasing techniques probably that is where the comparison stems from and that is where it should stop.

 

Chanderpaul clearly had the same impact, nay, greater impact than Smith on his team once Lara retired. That is a span of six-seven years, IIRC. 

[SUMO]

Sachin was ahead of his generation in jis peak, 

Smith is also ahead of his generation.

They are very much comparable.

But still he has long way to go.

[Rasgulla]

2 hours ago, SUMO said:

Sachin was ahead of his generation in jis peak, 

Smith is also ahead of his generation.

They are very much comparable.

But still he has long way to go.

Also you shouldn't forget smith and virat has captaincy pressure in all 3 formats.. Still they are doing well. They are miles ahead...

[jalebi_bhai]

11 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

That is roughly how much the test figures are inflated in batsmen's favour compared to the 90s. a drop of 10-15% is expected if all things are equal. Someone with unconventional technique like Smith, the drop will be even more, as up to the 90s, batsmen with unconventional defensive techniques/flaws (such as moving around the crease) did not thrive at all.

 

You're making an assumption here which is that Smith would not have been as prolific in the 90s as he has been in the 2010s. There is some merit to your argument but at the end of the day, it's an assumption. There is no sure shot way to quantify what Smith's average would've been in the 90s. Just because other batsmen with unconventional techniques failed doesn't necessarily mean that Smith would've as well. 

 

A more objective metric would be to compare batsmen on the basis of their peak ratings as it doesn't dip if a batsman doesn't play and it factors in the strength of the opposition.

 

SRT never broke into the 900s, unlike Smith, Hayden, Kallis, Lara, Ponting, Gavaskar or even Sanga for that matter. This points to the fact that no matter how good Sachin was at his peak, he never truly outright dominated a series. He was more of a steady-eddy accumulator with remarkable longevity. 

 

 

[Jimmy Cliff]

FFS looks like @putrevus has started hacking into other people's accounts .

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, jalebi_bhai said:

You're making an assumption here which is that Smith would not have been as prolific in the 90s as he has been in the 2010s. There is some merit to your argument but at the end of the day, it's an assumption. There is no sure shot way to quantify what Smith's average would've been in the 90s. Just because other batsmen with unconventional techniques failed doesn't necessarily mean that Smith would've as well. 

There is no sure way to quantify anyone's average out of their actual playing experience. We for sure also won't know, until Smith plays there, whether Smith would average infinity or 0 in Zimbabwe. Regardless, comparisons can be made. 

And the easiest comparison to make, is simply the fact that Smith's era has significantly inflated batting averages and score lines compared to the 90s & early 2000s. 

 

Batsmen with unconventional technique MOSTLY fail, when facing good/great bowling. Some have succeeded and there is no guarantee that failure in technique WILL translate to failure in performance. Witness Veeru a massively successful player despite a flawed technique.  Or Chanderpaul himself- flawed technique but he is almost an automatic in the WI all-time XI at this point. 

 

1 hour ago, jalebi_bhai said:

A more objective metric would be to compare batsmen on the basis of their peak ratings as it doesn't dip if a batsman doesn't play and it factors in the strength of the opposition.

No. Because peak ratings are a function of short term consistency, aka purple patch. A guy who scores 200, 150*, 175 and 55, will have a higher peak rating, against the same bowling attack, than scoring 330, 0, 245, 5*. despite sporting the exact same average and without any context of what those innings did for the match itself. 

Peak ratings also do not factor in the quality of the opposition, since rating mean is dependent on the field itself. Ie, if today, you imprisoned every single test cricketer on the planet and then made a team out of the best of the FC teams worldwide, then played tests, they too would have a no-body guy who'd otherwise not play, get 900 rating one day. 

Ratings, most certainly, do not actually take the bowlers or the batsman's whole career into context, which is the vital part of any contest.  

1 hour ago, jalebi_bhai said:

SRT never broke into the 900s, unlike Smith, Hayden, Kallis, Lara, Ponting, Gavaskar or even Sanga for that matter. This points to the fact that no matter how good Sachin was at his peak, he never truly outright dominated a series. He was more of a steady-eddy accumulator with remarkable longevity. 

 

 

Yes, SRT never broke into the 900s, because SRT never got the opportunity to enter an extended purple patch, till his peak was over. 

Every single batsman who's hit the 900s rating, has either played it in 5 test series, playing 8-10 innings or in Sanga's case, playing a 2-3 test series every 3 months. In the 90s and early 2000s, India played one 3 test series in the beginning of the year, one 2 test series in the middle and one 3 test one at the end, the end. 

This simple truth - that ratings are predicated by short term purple patches, which in turn are predicated by 8-10 innings played over a 2 month period, is easy to demonstrate. 

 

He was not a steady eddy accumulator, for the simple reason that the tag does not fit someone who ends up with 140 off of 170 balls in team total of 330-340. This was signature Tendulkar for the first 14-15 years of his career. He was a dominating, destructive batsman, who simply did not get to play 8-10 innings in a series  of just test cricket or back to back test series. 

 

As such, his domination, is mostly demonstrated in the ODI arena, where Tendulkar's dominance in the 98-2001 period is one of the most, if not 'the most' dominating purple patches in ODI history, with 98 season itself being the most dominant ODI batting season of all-time, by almost any metrics.

 

[SUMO]

2 hours ago, Rasgulla said:

Also you shouldn't forget smith and virat has captaincy pressure in all 3 formats.. Still they are doing well. They are miles ahead...

Not even halfway through...

*miles behind

[rtmohanlal]

2 hours ago, jalebi_bhai said:

You're making an assumption here which is that Smith would not have been as prolific in the 90s as he has been in the 2010s. There is some merit to your argument but at the end of the day, it's an assumption. There is no sure shot way to quantify what Smith's average would've been in the 90s. Just because other batsmen with unconventional techniques failed doesn't necessarily mean that Smith would've as well. 

 

A more objective metric would be to compare batsmen on the basis of their peak ratings as it doesn't dip if a batsman doesn't play and it factors in the strength of the opposition.

 

SRT never broke into the 900s, unlike Smith, Hayden, Kallis, Lara, Ponting, Gavaskar or even Sanga for that matter. This points to the fact that no matter how good Sachin was at his peak, he never truly outright dominated a series. He was more of a steady-eddy accumulator with remarkable longevity. 

 

 

a steady-eddy accumulator can't avg: 59.35 even after scoring 13534 runs facing so many sub 25 avg:ing bowlers.In general Sachin 'getting into 900' was denied by him playing so little >=4 tests series in this phase,playing only 11 tests in 2 years of his absolute peak period where he avg:ed 69.92 in 41 tests and there by his one day exploits during this period getting the most benefitted.BTW just curious ,are you 'Putrevus' in disguise?

'steady-eddy' is his introduction.

[jalebi_bhai]

10 hours ago, rtmohanlal said:

a steady-eddy accumulator can't avg: 59.35 even after scoring 13534 runs facing so many sub 25 avg:ing bowlers.In general Sachin 'getting into 900' was denied by him playing so little >=4 tests series in this phase,playing only 11 tests in 2 years of his absolute peak period where he avg:ed 69.92 in 41 tests and there by his one day exploits during this period getting the most benefitted.BTW just curious ,are you 'Putrevus' in disguise?

'steady-eddy' is his introduction.

This is the only id I have on ICF.

 

Why do I call him a steady-eddy? That's because for someone with his illustrious record, 13.5k runs at nearly 60 and everything , he never scored more than 500 runs in a series. In a 24 year long career, he never managed to do this. Will you use the same excuse you've used to defend his < 900 peak rating to explain his inability to score > or = 500 runs in a series? 

[jalebi_bhai]

12 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

There is no sure way to quantify anyone's average out of their actual playing experience. We for sure also won't know, until Smith plays there, whether Smith would average infinity or 0 in Zimbabwe. Regardless, comparisons can be made. 

And the easiest comparison to make, is simply the fact that Smith's era has significantly inflated batting averages and score lines compared to the 90s & early 2000s. 

 

Batsmen with unconventional technique MOSTLY fail, when facing good/great bowling. Some have succeeded and there is no guarantee that failure in technique WILL translate to failure in performance. Witness Veeru a massively successful player despite a flawed technique.  Or Chanderpaul himself- flawed technique but he is almost an automatic in the WI all-time XI at this point. 

 

No. Because peak ratings are a function of short term consistency, aka purple patch. A guy who scores 200, 150*, 175 and 55, will have a higher peak rating, against the same bowling attack, than scoring 330, 0, 245, 5*. despite sporting the exact same average and without any context of what those innings did for the match itself. 

Peak ratings also do not factor in the quality of the opposition, since rating mean is dependent on the field itself. Ie, if today, you imprisoned every single test cricketer on the planet and then made a team out of the best of the FC teams worldwide, then played tests, they too would have a no-body guy who'd otherwise not play, get 900 rating one day. 

Ratings, most certainly, do not actually take the bowlers or the batsman's whole career into context, which is the vital part of any contest.  

Yes, SRT never broke into the 900s, because SRT never got the opportunity to enter an extended purple patch, till his peak was over. 

Every single batsman who's hit the 900s rating, has either played it in 5 test series, playing 8-10 innings or in Sanga's case, playing a 2-3 test series every 3 months. In the 90s and early 2000s, India played one 3 test series in the beginning of the year, one 2 test series in the middle and one 3 test one at the end, the end. 

This simple truth - that ratings are predicated by short term purple patches, which in turn are predicated by 8-10 innings played over a 2 month period, is easy to demonstrate. 

 

He was not a steady eddy accumulator, for the simple reason that the tag does not fit someone who ends up with 140 off of 170 balls in team total of 330-340. This was signature Tendulkar for the first 14-15 years of his career. He was a dominating, destructive batsman, who simply did not get to play 8-10 innings in a series  of just test cricket or back to back test series. 

 

As such, his domination, is mostly demonstrated in the ODI arena, where Tendulkar's dominance in the 98-2001 period is one of the most, if not 'the most' dominating purple patches in ODI history, with 98 season itself being the most dominant ODI batting season of all-time, by almost any metrics.

 

While I still don't agree with your assumptions about how Smith would've fared in the 90s, you make a lot of valid points in the rest of your post which I agree with.

 

Sachin missed out on games in 98 and 2000,as a result of which he couldn't go 5-6 calendar years aggregating 1000+ Test runs. I think I've acknowledged it earlier in the thread. 

 

In your opinion, what would Smith have to do reach SRTs level in Tests?

[Muloghonto]

10 minutes ago, jalebi_bhai said:

This is the only id I have on ICF.

 

Why do I call him a steady-eddy? That's because for someone with his illustrious record, 13.5k runs at nearly 60 and everything , he never scored more than 500 runs in a series. In a 24 year long career, he never managed to do this. Will you use the same excuse you've used to defend his < 900 peak rating to explain his inability to score > or = 500 runs in a series? 

The reason is very simple : Tendulkar hardly ever played a test series with more than six-seven innings in it. Virtually everyone who's scored 500+ runs in a series, have done it over 4-5 tests and 8-10 innings. Lara has a whole bag full of series with 500+ runs, yet only 1 where he's played less than 4 tests. Infact, i can only remember Lara, Sehwag and Gooch (in early 90s vs us, where he was un-dismissable) scoring 500 runs in a series having less than 4 tests over the last 20 years.

 

[Muloghonto]

Just now, jalebi_bhai said:

While I still don't agree with your assumptions about how Smith would've fared in the 90s, you make a lot of valid points in the rest of your post which I agree with.

 

Sachin missed out on games in 98 and 2000,as a result of which he couldn't go 5-6 calendar years aggregating 1000+ Test runs. I think I've acknowledged it earlier in the thread. 

 

In your opinion, what would Smith have to do reach SRTs level in Tests?

He'd have to score 18-25% of the teams runs at his peak while staring down ATG bowlers steaming in at him. he may never get that chance, so he may never reach SRT levels. 

 

The assumption re: Smith is a simple one relevant to his technique. A successful player in one era, with good technique is far more likely to succeed in these types of hypotheticals than one with a flawed technique. Because with a flawed technique, all it takes is one great bowler figuring out where the crack is and then exploiting it. Since today Smith hardly faces great bowlers, he may not be figured out- or he may be figured out in the future. Its a lot less certain for a flawed technique player to succeed as a result, hence its rare to see them. So i don't think being skeptical of Smith is unwarranted.