Gavaskar is the greatest batsman, declares Sobers

[OriginalCopy]

barely anyone who watches cricket these days actually saw gavaskar play' date=' while EVERYONE has seen tendulkar play.[/quote'] That was a very un-Einstein like comment. There are plenty on this forum itself that have watched both Gavaskar and Tendulkar play. Remember, Gavaskar retired around 1987 or so, and we have many members older than that in this forum. Gavaskar was an amazing player. His technique was so good and his reflexes excellent such that he was able to play the quickies of that era without much trouble. Isn't it a tribute to him that he almost never got hit on his head (perhaps once after which he started wearing the padded headband). He was very good against the spinners too. I personally believe that Gavaskar showed that he could play the best quickies with ease. The quality of fast bowlers that Gavaskar faced was somewhat better than what Tendulkar has faced. Just imagine playing and doing well against Marshall, Holding, Croft, Garner, Roberts, Imran, Sarfraz Nawaz, Richard Hadlee, Bob Willis, Ian Botham, Dennis Lillee, Jeff Thomson. He was also very good against the spinners, although the spinners in his time were not all good. Abdul Qadir was perhaps one of the few that were good and had bowled to Sunny. The Aussies, English, NZ, and WI did not have too many quality spinners. As far as Tendulkar goes, he has showed he can play against any kind of bowling. There have been instances where Tendulkar has showed he is a class over the rest, especially when trying to survive spinning tracks of Sri Lanka that has a great spinner and some good spinners. I do not subscribe to the theory that just because Tendulkar wears a helmet and got hit a couple of times on the head, he is second to anybody else. If anything it lets you get a bit more complacent knowing that you'll probably just get a bump and survive the hit. If he did not have a helmet, knowing his skills, reflexes, and technique, I am pretty certain that he would have found ways to escape any hits at all to his body. You are just more careful when you know you don't have a cover. In my opinion, Tendulkar scores over Gavaskar since he has had the ability to dominate attacks, as against Sunny who was a defensive player. His tremendous discipline (on view during his unbeaten 241 Vs Aus in Aus when he did not play a single cover drive) and endurance, as well as a great work ethic shows that he is perhaps the best player in a long long time. As a side note, comparisons across generations are not valid due to a variety of factors and variables. One can never say for sure who the current players would have fared in the yesteryears and vice versa. Let the greats be greats and lets not compartmentalize them.

[Serani]

In the whole bowlers were better in Gavaskars days argument I wouldnt agree. When Sachin made his debut up until around the year 2000 I would say bowling was of a similar Standard and Sachin was at his peak in the mid late 90's when there were some awesome bowlers around.

[vvvslaxman]

Mcgrath, Warne, Murali, Donald, Pollock, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Gillespie, Waqar, Akram. Brett Lee, Actor ... so many were there.

[OriginalCopy]

In the whole bowlers were better in Gavaskars days argument I wouldnt agree. When Sachin made his debut up until around the year 2000 I would say bowling was of a similar Standard and Sachin was at his peak in the mid late 90's when there were some awesome bowlers around.

As I said, Gavaskar faced the who's who of fast bowling in his time. Not saying Tendulkar did not face any quality fast bowling, he sure did, just that Gavaskar faced more varied (and better) bowling. Tendulkar in comparison has faced McGrath, Gillespie, Waqar, Wasim, Aquib Javed, Chukhtar ... not as good a list of fast bowlers as Gavaskar faced. Not being derogative here, but how old are you? Reason I'm asking is its hard to judge different era players if you have not seen them, it's a natural thing. I can compare a bit better since I have seen both sides first hand. Sure, Tendulkar has faced much better spinners than Gavaskar faced. (and just so you don't argue needlessly, I did conclude that Tendulkar scores better than Gavaskar overall).

[King]

No offence to Gavaskar but there were fair bit of mediocre bowlers in the 70s and 80s as well. A lot of those bowlers now won't play more than 5 test matches. If you looked at New Zealand there was Richard Hadlee and the rest at best were pedestrian. Similarly Aussies had Lille and Thommo but the rest are heavily over rated. England had Botham and perhaps Willis was all right but again the rest were just ok. Pakistan had Imran Khan and the rest were just ok. Don't tell me the likes of Qadir was better than Warne, Murali, Kumble, Bhajji, Vettori and the likes. Sri Lanka had mostly pedestrians and South Africa wasn't playing international cricket. Wasim Akram was then just finding his feet in international cricket in the 80s. Just because West Indies had a few good bowlers doesn't mean the 70s and 80s had the best bowlers ever. How is Ambrose any lesser than Garner or Walsh any lesser than Roberts? How did Akram at his peak compare with Marshall? Pollock, McGrath, Bondy, Malinga even to name a few are as good as anyone. The best spinners were around in the 90s and 2000s not in the 70s and 80s. Sure the likes of Bedi, Chandra, Prasanna, Richie Benaud were all good but no way you could say they are as good as the some of the spinners from 90s and 2000s. MacGill would have been the best spinner in the 70s and 80s if he played then. Some of the old timers just don't watch cricket they assume the quality isn't as good. It's their problem.

"We didn't have helmets, we didn't have chest guards, no arm guards. So when you make comparisons people must look at how they compare, because these are facts," Sobers said.

I ask why there were none of these available then? Were people not enterprising enough? There were no specific bowling shoes in the early 20th century so the bowlers from the 1900s be considered better? It sounds so silly these reasons. Pads and gloves weren't as good in the early 20th century so should that mean Gavaskar's runs aren't as valuable as the players from earlier times?

[SRT PWNS]

Indo trinidadians is probably the largest ethnic group in Trinidad' date=' cant be that much racial hatred.[/quote'] Well it's about even now with Afro-Trinidadians. But trust me, the situation there has spiraled out of control in the past few years. It's sad to see what has happened, hopefully things will improve, but no doubt that the hatred is very present.

[riya]

agree. raking up runs without wearing helmets, uncovered pitches, bats which sounded like planks puts gavaskar slightly ahead of tendulkar. i would have rated tendulkar more if he was never tonked on the head, but i've seen a couple of times when he was hit and if it was 1970's then his career would have definitely been cut short and all these records would not have been piled up. end of argument.

Have been missing u since the 2nd test vs SA.Missed u really:((

[riya]

Gavaskar is the better test batsman slightly in my opinion too.

[nballa]

Have been missing u since the 2nd test vs SA.Missed u really:((

thanks bhavna.

[SRT PWNS]

No doubt Gavaskar was an epic batsmen, but I think when it's all said and done after Sachin finishes (which could still be a long while from now), such thoughts may be adjusted.

[achilles]

thanks bhavna.

Bhavna??? Or Riya? Or both? :omg:

[rabinjackman]

i just dont understand........... If Sachin had debuted in the 70's OBVIOUSLY he wud have practised his cricket without protective gear... OBVIOUSLY he would have adapted his batting to the rules of that generation... Considering his work ethics, his love for the game, his devotion to taking care of his health his fitness, adapting to new bowlers, changing his style to suit the opposition bowlers, who is to say that he wouldnt have performed the same way during that time? who can guarantee anything? how can we say that Tendulkar would have flopped or passed with flying coulours... we will never know...For all we know Tendulkar's bat speed, the flow of his arms when playing a shot, his movement in coming to the pitch of the ball, him moving away from the line of a bouncer would all have been faster without all that protective gear...and without a billion people analysing his every move he could well have played under much less pressure and scored thousands of runs more... The helmet, the arm guard, then chest guard, the thigh pads are all cumbersome and do carry some weight.... Batting without these contraptions could very well actually be easier for movement and reflexes... I would know coz i have played with and without these contraptions and seriously batting seems more free and easy without the gear.... i think i have typed too much...... i just hate comparisons through genrations

[dial_100]

No offence to Gavaskar but there were fair bit of mediocre bowlers in the 70s and 80s as well. A lot of those bowlers now won't play more than 5 test matches. If you looked at New Zealand there was Richard Hadlee and the rest at best were pedestrian. Similarly Aussies had Lille and Thommo but the rest are heavily over rated. England had Botham and perhaps Willis was all right but again the rest were just ok. Pakistan had Imran Khan and the rest were just ok. Don't tell me the likes of Qadir was better than Warne, Murali, Kumble, Bhajji, Vettori and the likes. Sri Lanka had mostly pedestrians and South Africa wasn't playing international cricket. Wasim Akram was then just finding his feet in international cricket in the 80s. Just because West Indies had a few good bowlers doesn't mean the 70s and 80s had the best bowlers ever. How is Ambrose any lesser than Garner or Walsh any lesser than Roberts? How did Akram at his peak compare with Marshall? Pollock, McGrath, Bondy, Malinga even to name a few are as good as anyone. The best spinners were around in the 90s and 2000s not in the 70s and 80s. Sure the likes of Bedi, Chandra, Prasanna, Richie Benaud were all good but no way you could say they are as good as the some of the spinners from 90s and 2000s. MacGill would have been the best spinner in the 70s and 80s if he played then. Some of the old timers just don't watch cricket they assume the quality isn't as good. It's their problem. I ask why there were none of these available then? Were people not enterprising enough? There were no specific bowling shoes in the early 20th century so the bowlers from the 1900s be considered better? It sounds so silly these reasons. Pads and gloves weren't as good in the early 20th century so should that mean Gavaskar's runs aren't as valuable as the players from earlier times?

Right on. I think, I remember watching few games past 1984 (thats when we got a TV set) and watched some bowlers back then. They weren't far better than the current lot. But style of playing test cricket has completely changed. I mean, CC (Chetan Chauhan), SG, and some english batsmen would take hours to get through 100. And only West Indian's had a fire power to bowl 80MPH + for entire day (80) overs. One thing I liked about the batsmen then was they would never play a cross bat or w/o getting in line. SG was one of the best and my fav too.. But for me SRT, BCL, RD are better than him.

[Don Sharma]

MUMBAI: Cricket legend Gary Sobers emphasised that youngsters should learn proper defence techniques to be better batsmen. "What is technique? When the choice is between hitting the ball and having your feet positioned in proper place you know what should it be. But youngsters should learn the proper technique while defending," the all-time great West Indian cricketer said on Thursday. Sobers, who has come down from Barbados to be the chief guest at the function to felicitate the 1971 epoch-making Indian squad which was led to away twin series wins over the West Indies and England by Ajit Wadekar, regaled the large audience with his anecdotes. When the six sixes he had hit for Nottinghamshire off Glamorgan left arm bowler Malcolm Nash was shown on the screen, he brought the roof down saying, "Nash made more money than me by going for talk shows in England as the bowler who was hit by me for six sixes." He also rated India's leg-spinner Subash Gupte as the greatest bowler he had faced and narrated how he showed Wesley Hall from the non-striker's end how to read Bhagwat Chandrasekhar's unorthodox leg spin bowling with sign language during the 1967 series in India. Sobers also complimented Sachin Tendulkar for scoring one-day cricket's first double hundred. Tendulkar was in the audience at the Nehru Centre auditorium in Worli along with India captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni and speedster Zaheer Khan. "You have touched me by your presence. It never seems that you are going to give up cricket or cricket is going to give you up. I would like to say, you are great and congrats for your double hundred," the West Indian legend said to Tendulkar. Sobers also recalled Tendulkar coming up to him during his last tour of the West Indies and wondering why he was not scoring as heavily in the second innings as in the first. "I told him you are doing so well in the first innings, you are not thinking about the second. Just think more and you will get it. I am glad things have changed and you are scoring in the second," he said. "Thanks for what you said about me," Tendulkar said. He told the audience that he had always admired the older lot of cricketers for their courage in playing without modern protective equipments for the batsman. "It is a special privilege to be here. Players of that era played without protection on uncovered pitches. I can't imagine batting in the net without protective gear," Tendulkar said. Sobers also praised dashing Indian opener Virender Sehwag for the same way he plays the different formats of the game. "I like his approach and attitude. He plays the same way whether it's Test, one-dayers or T20s," he said. Zaheer Khan also got a special word of praise from Sobers who said, "I like the way you bowl, your control and the look you give to the batsman on your way," Sobers said. He also gave first-hand account of what happened in the last seven balls of the famous tied Test against Australia in Brisbane in 1960-61 and said it was the greatest-ever series he had played in as all five matches went to the wire. Apart from honouring the members of the 1971 Indian squads to the West Indies and England, the organizers also felicitated former Test cricketers Chandu Borde and Bapu Nadkarni. Source

[thevortex]

King - Macgill better than Bedi, Prasanna, Chandrashekar and Venkatraghavan??? My, my.... And there is no way that Bond, Malinga, Pollock et al can even hope to compare with Lillee, Thomson, Garner, Marshall, Holding etc.

[virufan]

I think Dravid comes above Gavaskar in the pedestal simply because he has excelled in all forms of the game. Gavaskar failed miserably in ODIs but Dravid has more than 10000 runs in that format. Dravid has also played tough, fast bowlers and scored heavily against them. He has also won a lot of matches for us abroad. I do not buy the arguments about no helmets in those days. Do you think Sachin and Dravid would not have played well if they were in that era because there were no helmets?? Now it may look difficult or dangerous to the batsmen as they are used to helmets.