Sachin Tendulkar vs Steve Smith - Comparative Analysis

[CG]

Mate ... i am fed up with your logic to be frank.This because, even after pointing the reasons with crystal clear statistical evidence as to why Sachin couldn't  pile up mammoth numbers in the same manner as Smith , you are again into this.Once more and for the last time for you.
1. from 93 ENG series( before that and after 2011 world cup  data neglected  due to teenager & terminal decline reasons) till 2011 world cup, Sachin racked up 13534 runs @ 59.35 avg:. Keep in mind 59.35 not far behind 63.5 despite Smith scoring only a side note, Saeed Anwar and Charles coventry both have highest score of 194(same numerical value) in one dayers, but  they definitely are not the same as far as 'greatness' value is concerned.
2. Sachin played only 6  >=4 test series during the above said phase.This, along with the vast number of one dayers/year India was playing  had a telling effect on Sachin never crossing 500 runs in a series  &  never crossing 900 rating points.For instance, in his peak period of a 41 tests stretch where he averaged 69.92,he played  only 11 tests in 2 years,that is in 1998 & 2000.
 
Now even after specifying these,if you don't accept with me, then that's ok.Let me stick on with my verdicts.

Well Said.

[Shunya]

13 hours ago, rtmohanlal said:

Mate ... i am fed up with your logic to be frank.This because, even after pointing the reasons with crystal clear statistical evidence as to why Sachin couldn't  pile up mammoth numbers in the same manner as Smith , you are again into this.Once more and for the last time for you.

1. from 93 ENG series( before that and after 2011 world cup  data neglected  due to teenager & terminal decline reasons) till 2011 world cup, Sachin racked up 13534 runs @ 59.35 avg:. Keep in mind 59.35 not far behind 63.5 despite Smith scoring only <6000 runs as of now. This Sachin achieved against 15 or 16 <25 avg:ing bowlers that include 11 ATG bowlers.Hence for me  this 59.35 is much superior than Smith's 63.5.On

a side note, Saeed Anwar and Charles coventry both have highest score of 194(same numerical value) in one dayers, but  they definitely are not the same as far as 'greatness' value is concerned.

2. Sachin played only 6  >=4 test series during the above said phase.This, along with the vast number of one dayers/year India was playing  had a telling effect on Sachin never crossing 500 runs in a series  &  never crossing 900 rating points.For instance, in his peak period of a 41 tests stretch where he averaged 69.92,he played  only 11 tests in 2 years,that is in 1998 & 2000.

 

Now even after specifying these,if you don't accept with me, then that's ok.Let me stick on with my verdicts.

Number of 4 match series Sachin played in your selective time frame - 4

Number of 4 match series Sachin played overall in his career - 10

Number of 5 match series Sachin played in your selective time frame - 2

Number of 5 match series Sachin played overall in his career - 3

 

So when you say he played only 6>= test series during your selected phase is very much called cherry picking out of 13 such series in his career. You just conveniently discarded more than 50% of such series from his career. Thats a huge chunk. lol

 

BTW - Smith has also played only 6 >= 4 match test series in his career so far. And without cherry picking or filtering selective criteria, he has 3 series with 500+ runs.

 

 

[mishra]

On 12/30/2017 at 7:35 PM, jalebi_bhai said:

You still don't understand the fact that this thread is a phase-by-phase analysis of their careers. After 60 Tests, Smith's average is 63.5 as compared to Sachin's average of around 52-53. There is a double digit difference in Test batting averages...double digit.

 

Of course Sachin had a tremendous peak, no doubt about it, and Smith is having a tremendous peak as well. It will now become very interesting to compare the two, considering how Sachin peaked from his 50-100th Test

 

 

Not googling but players peak generally comes at a age. Assuming 5-6 test matches per year Sachin may have faced 20-25 test of those matches as teen and rest in early twenties

[rtmohanlal]

2 hours ago, Shunya said:

Number of 4 match series Sachin played in your selective time frame - 4

Number of 4 match series Sachin played overall in his career - 10

Number of 5 match series Sachin played in your selective time frame - 2

Number of 5 match series Sachin played overall in his career - 3

 

So when you say he played only 6>= test series during your selected phase is very much called cherry picking out of 13 such series in his career. You just conveniently discarded more than 50% of such series from his career. Thats a huge chunk. lol

 

BTW - Smith has also played only 6 >= 4 match test series in his career so far. And without cherry picking or filtering selective criteria, he has 3 series with 500+ runs.

 

 

That... chronic Sachin haters like you cannot understand and are  never going to accept.Of the 6 series i specified, 5 were played abroad, to be more precise 2 in WI,2 in AUS & 1 in ENG(even tougher than scoring in Asia for an Asian batsman) .All in all Sachin played 22 tests spread among these 5 series, played only 35 inns and remained not out on 4 occasions.That means, even in this relatively much smaller number of oppertunities and  much tougher assignments, Sachin  played only 31 completed inns in 22 tests.

BTW , I am talking only about Sachin here and the reasons for the supposed drawbacks of his , not about Smith or any other batsman.To be more precise, all factors and reasons taken into account, some other batsman may be slightly better to Sachin in one factor, but Sachin would be better to him in some other factor.Like wise, several batting factors taken into account  Sachin has lot more  boxes ticked than a lot of other batsmen and that's why he is regarded as one of the GOAT.

[Shunya]

37 minutes ago, rtmohanlal said:

That... chronic Sachin haters like you cannot understand and are  never going to accept.Of the 6 series i specified, 5 were played abroad, to be more precise 2 in WI,2 in AUS & 1 in ENG(even tougher than scoring in Asia for an Asian batsman) .All in all Sachin played 22 tests spread among these 5 series, played only 35 inns and remained not out on 4 occasions.That means, even in this relatively much smaller number of oppertunities and  much tougher assignments, Sachin  played only 31 completed inns in 22 tests.

BTW , I am talking only about Sachin here and the reasons for the supposed drawbacks of his , not about Smith or any other batsman.To be more precise, all factors and reasons taken into account, some other batsman may be slightly better to Sachin in one factor, but Sachin would be better to him in some other factor.Like wise, several batting factors taken into account  Sachin has lot more  boxes ticked than a lot of other batsmen and that's why he is regarded as one of the GOAT.

Already people here have told you that most of the Indians are Sachin fans. So cut the crap of chronic haters and all b.s. Why should everyone accept what you say when you are clearly hyping Sachin unnecessarily. Great player does not mean he had unquestionable career.

I pointed out that you are biased when you use selective criteria to show your excuses on why Sachin could not score 500+ runs in a series. He had plenty of chances to do that in his career (13 series of 4 or more tests). Smith who he is being compared with is already playing on great levels. Smith is ahead on some of those boxes that you are talking about, one being grabbing the opposition by neck and giving them a knockout punch in a series. He is already scored 500+ runs in a series 3 times(6 series with 4 or more tests). There is nothing wrong in admitting it.

[Rasgulla]

Is this funny discussion still going on.. Smith is doing in again and again.. what this overrated guy couldn't it in his whole career. 

 

Smith has 4 consecutive 1050+ runs in last four years. Sachin had 4 1050+ in his whole career..He can't even clean Smith's boots like it was said here earlier..

[rtmohanlal]

2 hours ago, Shunya said:

Already people here have told you that most of the Indians are Sachin fans. So cut the crap of chronic haters and all b.s. Why should everyone accept what you say when you are clearly hyping Sachin unnecessarily. Great player does not mean he had unquestionable career.

I pointed out that you are biased when you use selective criteria to show your excuses on why Sachin could not score 500+ runs in a series. He had plenty of chances to do that in his career (13 series of 4 or more tests). Smith who he is being compared with is already playing on great levels. Smith is ahead on some of those boxes that you are talking about, one being grabbing the opposition by neck and giving them a knockout punch in a series. He is already scored 500+ runs in a series 3 times(6 series with 4 or more tests). There is nothing wrong in admitting it.

Yeah...yet some people like you just degrade him unnecessarily thru odd 'nothing related to the topic ' comments .So when you  replied specifically to my topic, went a little bit over the top.That's all.

" when you are clearly hyping Sachin unnecessarily" - w.r.t your statement of this, I have clearly explained as to the reasons for defending Sachin thru crystal clear stats and the contexts Sachin played in.Infact people like you were belittling  Sachin at the first place.I only responded.So you were the instigators, not me.

That is not selective criteria... that was the context Sachin played in which I believe to have a lot of sense.You shall not agree with me nor do i compel you to agree with me.I still consider Sachin to be comfortably superior and I have my sets of logics to justify myself.Hence I do not want you to 'make me admit Smith's superiority'.

[jalebi_bhai]

On 1/2/2018 at 10:07 PM, Muloghonto said:

If you wish to do a phase-by-phase analysis, it makes far more sense to do age-by-age comparative analysis, not match-by-match.

Because of the wide variety of debut ages and the simple fact that males from species homo sapiens attain their sporting peaks usually in the 25-30 age brackets for most sports, it makes age-by-age analysis far more relevant than 'after X number of matches'.

 

For eg, nobody will argue that Gilchrist, even though a gun batsman, is nowhere close to Alan Border as a batsman. Yet, after 50 tests, Gilchrist was way ahead. So what ? Gilchrist made his debut as a fully seasoned, peak of his prowess, 28 year old. Border made his debut as an unfinished product as a 22 year old. 

 

This becomes especially relevant for players making debut way ahead of the curve (Sachin) or players playing way later than the curve (Gooch), especially if their performances are below their career norm.

 

Sachin started at age 16, Smith at age 20. What data do I use for Smith from age 16-19? The only data I can use are his pre-peak numbers, which is about 17 Tests. 

 

I disagree with your notion of age-age analysis being better. Games played provides a better basis for analysis for this comparison. Cricketers who have played min. 50 Tests have finished at least one or close to one complete cycle of home and overseas tours and that provides a reasonable sample size of matches for a comparison. 

 

Your Gilchrist and Border example fails simply because you're comparing the first 50 Tests of a seasoned pro with that of an unfinished product. Both Sachin and Smith were unfinished products when they debuted. Sachin got a head start wrt to matches played as well as skill level as Smith debuted as a bowling allrounder, not as a specialist batsman. 

 

Let me reiterate, for this comparison, number of games played is a better basis. The fact that Sachin, inspite of starting out with more batting skill than Smith, is trailing after 60 Tests is the reason why I believe Smith is the better bat after 60 Tests.

[Muloghonto]

3 hours ago, jalebi_bhai said:

Sachin started at age 16, Smith at age 20. What data do I use for Smith from age 16-19? The only data I can use are his pre-peak numbers, which is about 17 Tests. 

 

I disagree with your notion of age-age analysis being better. Games played provides a better basis for analysis for this comparison. Cricketers who have played min. 50 Tests have finished at least one or close to one complete cycle of home and overseas tours and that provides a reasonable sample size of matches for a comparison. 

 

Your Gilchrist and Border example fails simply because you're comparing the first 50 Tests of a seasoned pro with that of an unfinished product. Both Sachin and Smith were unfinished products when they debuted. Sachin got a head start wrt to matches played as well as skill level as Smith debuted as a bowling allrounder, not as a specialist batsman. 

 

Let me reiterate, for this comparison, number of games played is a better basis. The fact that Sachin, inspite of starting out with more batting skill than Smith, is trailing after 60 Tests is the reason why I believe Smith is the better bat after 60 Tests.

That is an inevitability of comparing an era when there were 2-3 50+ averaging batsman in the whole world, to an era where there are 2-3 50+ averaging batsman per team...

 

Sachin was a far more unfinished product than Smith, as a 16 year old is supposed to be compared to a 20 year old. 

[Vijy]

On 1/3/2018 at 2:55 PM, jalebi_bhai said:

Sachin started at age 16, Smith at age 20. What data do I use for Smith from age 16-19? The only data I can use are his pre-peak numbers, which is about 17 Tests. 

 

I disagree with your notion of age-age analysis being better. Games played provides a better basis for analysis for this comparison. Cricketers who have played min. 50 Tests have finished at least one or close to one complete cycle of home and overseas tours and that provides a reasonable sample size of matches for a comparison. 

 

Your Gilchrist and Border example fails simply because you're comparing the first 50 Tests of a seasoned pro with that of an unfinished product. Both Sachin and Smith were unfinished products when they debuted. Sachin got a head start wrt to matches played as well as skill level as Smith debuted as a bowling allrounder, not as a specialist batsman. 

 

Let me reiterate, for this comparison, number of games played is a better basis. The fact that Sachin, inspite of starting out with more batting skill than Smith, is trailing after 60 Tests is the reason why I believe Smith is the better bat after 60 Tests.

on statistical terms, smith is better but SRT was technically stronger and a more complete batsman in the 90s IMO. the problem with this kind of coarse-grained stats is that it ignores the different pitch conditions, bats, etc. one will need to place the stats in the context of their peers. another important point worth bearing in mind is the fact that SRT got to play few tests per yr when he was arguably in his peak.

 

if you compare kohli's first 63 tests with dravid's first 63, you will find that VK's avg is about +1 higher. but I do not agree in the least bit than he was a better batsman than Dravid.

[mishra]

Cricket is not stats but a pitch and oppositint game. Best batsmen in world may look like college/Uni players on a wicket or opposition.

[velu]

another good innings by smithy

[Rasgulla]

10 hours ago, velu said:

another good innings by smithy

Smith is indirectly saying.. This thread is a joke 

[Vijy]

13 hours ago, velu said:

another good innings by smithy

very flat trick. khawaja, and marsh bros ended up outscoring him. smith's top knock was in the first test, which set tone for the rest of the series.

[velu]

11 hours ago, Vijy said:

very flat trick. khawaja, and marsh bros ended up outscoring him. smith's top knock was in the first test, which set tone for the rest of the series.

like how Dhonis double century set the series for us when aussies visited india last time

 

[Vijy]

1 hour ago, velu said:

like how Dhonis double century set the series for us when aussies visited india last time

 

yep. smith's knock was true captain's innings. also reminds me of ganguly against oz in brisbane.

[jalebi_bhai]

687 runs in this series for Smithy 

Modern-day Bradman indeed

 

[Rasgulla]

Smith gets bonus points for playing for the Team unlike someone else 

[Rasgulla]

26 minutes ago, BeardedAladdin said:

Smith can score a trillion runs, he'll always be a DRS cheat, and he'll never win a test series in the subcontinent.

Like sachin won some test series in AUS and he will always be a ball tampering cheat..

Edited January 8, 2018 by Rasgulla

[jalebi_bhai]

36 minutes ago, BeardedAladdin said:

Smith can score a trillion runs, he'll always be a DRS cheat, and he'll never win a test series in the subcontinent.

I agree with you regarding Smith being a DRS cheat. Using your logic then, was Sachin always a ball tamperer? There is evidence for the same: