Gavaskar vs Tendulkar

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Roshanrocks]

grrrrrrrrrrr jus because we indians like spicy food and westeners sheeeeet blood when they taste ours... we dont change our food style to make them happy do we? so why dont we prepare rank turners when they come into our backyard instead of preparing tv friendly 5 day lasting flat pitches where a Hshim Amla is impossible to get out??? grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

[Dhondy]

And you can make that jump that "no spin dominated side ruled world cricket" to "spinners are worthless bowlers and only batsmen who can face pace and not have their average drop by 10 points are the true leaders of their generation" because of what evidence?

Graphic, I have restored your post because it gives me an opportunity to address an important point. Before you were born, in the 1970s, before even I had formed cricket memories, the West Indies, believe it or not, played India in the West Indies with several spinners in the side. Noriega...Jumadeen...Gibbs...why, Gibbs even held the distinction of being the highest wicket taker for a while later in his career- 307 it was I think? This was the side against which Gavaskar made hay- 774 runs in his debut series and more later. Holding was just starting out and some mediocre quicks like Holder were just goinmg through the motions. Gavaskar's runs were a blow to WI pride. Never did they select 2 spinners again. They would go on to choose several rookie fast bowlers over the next decade, some of whom exploded on to the world scene like a megaton of nitroglycerine. Imran lived that principle as well. His partnership with Sarfraz, and later with Wasim and Waqar, who carried on the good work was the stuff of legend. Anybody who can come and say to my face the Abdul QAdir or Saqlain were the catalysts behind the Pakistani renaissance of the 80s and 90s better watch out. Australia didn't have a decent spinner till Warne matured, and yet swept all comers before them with their mercurial quicks- particularly Lillee & Thomson. Can you even name a spinner from the same side? As for why I rate batsmen who excel at pace> good bats against spin, I'll deal with in another post.

[achilles]

just because he didnt wear a helmet? how about adaptation and dominance in ODIs? that too wont count right? See thats where bias in opinion comes flying in... and anyways i have very good friends across the border too... some of them are really nice people if u get to know them

So I guess you can join me in supporting the Pakistani players when they are right coz I think I'm the only one who does that.

[Roshanrocks]

So I guess you can join me in supporting the Pakistani players when they are right coz I think I'm the only one who does that

meaning? as ar as i know everyone here considers Akhtar, wasim , n waqar the greatest bowlers of our times..... but no one gives credit to saqlain mushtaq for his guile .... and one more thing about pakistan,... they do produce so many fast bowlers.... i dont know what it is in their genes.... is is the food they eat or what? but their bowlers are always faster than ours..... luckily we manufacture better batsmen

[Dhondy]

Selective reading will not do it Dhondy. Aggressive batsmanship requires different conditions than defensive batsmanship. So shall we rank both these styles as one being better than the other? There is only one word to describe such a tendency - pointless. And that is being very kind.

Tautology.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[thevortex]

One thing is becoming very apparent here, Dhondy. And I am actually sad at this. There is a great big world of cricket out there beyond the sheer (and mere) numbers part of it. That world you are not ready to either acknowledge or understand. I have actually enjoyed some of your cricket writing and it puzzles me to see certain posts of yours where your arguments lean heavily and absolutely on numbers and little else. Do you even realize that really fast bowlers have to perforce bowl shorter spells? That spinners are needed not just to keep the over rate up (anyway this did not exist before this decade) but to give the pace bowlers a break as well as to get the batsmen into stroke making mood. The wicket need not necessarily fall to the spinners. They would be working the batsmen up such that the poor blokes try playing strokes to the pacers (who come back revitalized after the break) and lose their wicket. Can you even begin to count the number of wickets that people such as Srinath and Flintoff and Kumble earned for their teams but which dont go against their player records? Pressure is the name of the game. Champion leg spinners such as Warne do not come along too often, Dhondy. So dont be too quick in pushing aside Warne's time and focussing only on the pre-Warne period as far as Australian cricket is concerned. Every team must play to its own strength. Otherwise as somebody said in this thread we will all be eating burgers and burritos instead of the roti, daal or the idli and dosa that we eat now. The analogy is not so far away from this thread. You are simply saying that burritos are the best food there is. And I am saying that food preferences are influenced by culture, tradition, climate among other factors. No food is THE best for everybody, everywhere. Period.

[Sooda]

Abdul Qadir was a world class spinner, as was Saqi in his day- not they werent 'catalysts' (Qadir was just as much a catalyst as Sarfraz was or wasnt Im sure) but they were both key members of their Pak teams. Pakistan were widely admired in the 80s for being the only team not to be routinely hammered by the West Indies- Qadirs record in those matches is 42 wickets in 10 tests at 30. Not bad going at all. Clearly a very important part.

[thevortex]

Tautology.

Expected better from you, Dhondy. Am not interested in bartering either insults or adjectives - colourful or otherwise with you. Just walk up to a cricketer and tell him that you think pace is greater than spin as a discipline. See what happens. Seriously this is so facile that I have to appreciate you for actually coming out with the thought. But that is as far as it can go. Take out the heterogeneity in the game. The game will not become far removed from baseball (no disrespect meant to that game, but obviously I see cricket differently) and will lose its charm. It will stop changing. New paradigms will stop being charted. Stasis is the word you want here.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Dhondy]

I lost interest in cricket a while ago, Vortex. Speaking from memory here- the stats play is just like solving crosswords on a bank holiday for me- nothing more. Therefore, please do not let this frustrate you. I don't need to tell you that people here really respect your well articulated and passionate views. It just happens that we are out of sync by a couple of years. My view, and this is in reply to the "can't change our tracks" issue raised by Boss and your post, is that a lot of our spinners were selected because there were simply no quicks to be had. Perhaps my disrespect for spinners stems from growing up across eras when we always had several world class twirlers, but still languished at the bottom of Test tables? And then the mortification of seeing bowlers like Imran, Wasim and Waqar take the pitch out of the equation time and time again, both home and overseas and realise that this...this was the difference between being greats and also-rans... that a thousand Bedi, or Chandra couldn't get us that exalted status?

[Dhondy]

Abdul Qadir was a world class spinner, as was Saqi in his day- not they werent 'catalysts' (Qadir was just as much a catalyst as Sarfraz was or wasnt Im sure) but they were both key members of their Pak teams. Pakistan were widely admired in the 80s for being the only team not to be routinely hammered by the West Indies- Qadirs record in those matches is 42 wickets in 10 tests at 30. Not bad going at all. Clearly a very important part.

Why were you moaning about how Indian quicks can't live with the Pakistani ones a while ago then, Sooda? You seem to have undergone a brain transplant since then. Got married or what?

[thevortex]

Dhondy - then I count myself unlucky that I was not here at ICF a couple of years sooner. Appreciate you posting this and hope that you do get back to your cricket-loving days.

[Sooda]

Why were you moaning about how Indian quicks can't live with the Pakistani ones a while ago then' date=' Sooda? You seem to have undergone a brain transplant since then. Got married or what?[/quote'] Not married yet no :P I dont see how Im contradicting myself if thats what youre implying- Miandad and Imran were catalysts, Qadir was a key component. Our quicks havent matched up to theirs and sadly both Kumble and Bhajji are/were too reliant on home wickets (...and this is not true of all great spinners, just ours it seems...) to win us matches overseas. If they did bowl sides out both home and away, I wouldnt complain! One of Paks better results in the 90's was beating us at home- Saqlain took 20 wickets in 2 tests against the best players of spin- quite sensational. Mushtaq Ahmed has helped spin them to wins in SA and Eng Its just unfair to downplay their roles.

No spin dominated side has ever ruled world cricket. The reverse doesn't apply. Your argument is sentimental, parochial, patriotic, weak, substanceless and vapid, Vortex. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

There have been very few 'spin dominated sides' in the history of world cricket. Reasons could be any number, ranging from the fact that spin is a fairly difficult art to master and to have one let alone 2 or 3 great spinners in the same team in one era is rare. There needs to be a tradition of spin to inspire other bowlers and not many countries actually have that. The other thing of course is that most countries natural weather and pitch conditions are more condusive to pace bowling. Ours of the 60s and 70s was a spin dominated side but we didnt really have the batting strength to back it up at all and 'rule' world cricket. Also there have been very few 'pace dominted' sides that actually DID rule cricket- for the most part sides that are the best pver a period of time have (need) a balanced attack. The WIndians on the 80's had four proper fast bowlers, very much a freak era just as having 4 great spinners was... the Aussies of the 70's that had Lillee and Thompson are the other...they had spinners like Ray Bright who werent that great. Bradmans Invincibles did not have a spinner of note either. Needless to say all of them had great batting Take a look at other great sides of the past- English teams of the 50's and 60's contained the likes of Laker and Lock, then Titmus. Aussies of the pre war era had Grimmet and O Reilly along with Bradman in his pomp, WIndians of the 60's had Gibbs to go with Wes Hall. The Aussies of the 60's had the likes of Simpson , Davidson, McKenzie, O Neill but also Benaud leading them The greatest team of all time had Shane Warne in it. To call 'pacemen all surface bowlers' is a huge generalisation- only out and out fast bowlers, or 'great' pacemen are and those are too few. Great spinners can be too- Chandra won us tests in England didnt he? Most other pacemen need conditions in their favour dew, grass etc. Any bowler does.

[achilles]

meaning? as ar as i know everyone here considers Akhtar, wasim , n waqar the greatest bowlers of our times..... but no one gives credit to saqlain mushtaq for his guile .... and one more thing about pakistan,... they do produce so many fast bowlers.... i dont know what it is in their genes.... is is the food they eat or what? but their bowlers are always faster than ours..... luckily we manufacture better batsmen

Agreed about Shoaib, Waz n WaYo (just made it up :--D). And also on Saqi. The pioneer of the doosra :two_thumbs_up: You know why they produce so many fast bowlers and we don't? Naaaaan veeezzzzzzz :(( :hehe:

[riya]

As a batsman Gavaskar can't be compared to Tendulkar.His style was based on defence rather than attack.Tendulkar is a balance of attack and defence.His ability to change gears according to the situation makes him the man he is.Again Gavaskar's statistics against WI attack is awesome.But just like people dissect Tendulkar against various bowlers,I would like to know what his average against the bowlers Marshall,Holding,Robersts,Garner just to confirm.Since Gavaskar played WI without them as well.

[Sachinism]

I quickly ran through some of the posts in the this thread :hysterical: Its pretty much the same crap as the other threads, got to the bottom of page 3 and finally Gavaskar makes an appearance. Same old crap, people going round and round Sachin being compared with pretty much every Tom, Dick and Harry to hold a bat

[Sachinism]

Tom, Dick and Harry was not meant as an insult and was not in reference to Gavaskar. The thread was about Gavaskar but the 1st 3 pages barely mention him and instead Sachin is being compared with Waugh. T, D, H was meant in the sense that its just non-stop comparisons of Sachin with everyone, one after the other.

[patriot]

http://www.cricinfo.com/columns/content/story/303750.html A 3 year old article - but a YAWWWWWWWWWWWWNING gap remains between the little master who averages a staggering 56.6 and the little 'champion'. The Friday Column Gavaskar vs Tendulkar - the fourth-innings story Sachin Tendulkar's stats in the fourth innings of a Test belies the fact that he is among the leading batsmen to have played the game S Rajesh July 27, 2007 The table below excludes such instances so that the numbers take into account only those Tests in which India had to battle to save or win the match. As the average of 56.60 shows, Gavaskar's stats hardly change when they are placed under the microscope in this manner.

Gavaskar's performances in meaningful fourth innings
Score	Team total/ overs batted	Opposition & venue	Result
117*	221-5/ 103	West Indies, Barbados	Draw
53	145-8/ 50	England, Lord's	Draw
0	174-6/ 101	England, The Oval	Won
58	182/ 85.1	England, Old Trafford	Lost
0	118/ 42.5	West Indies, Bangalore	Lost
8	202/ 77.1	West Indies, Bombay	Lost
102	406-4/ 147	West Indies, Trinidad	Won
24	83/ 38.5	England, Madras	Lost
113	324/ 84.7	Australia, Brisbane	Lost
29	445/ 141.4	Australia, Adelaide	Lost
1	125-7/ 46.2	West Indies, Madras	Won
221	429-8/ 150.5	England, The Oval	Draw
25	200-4/ 63.2	Australia, Calcutta	Draw
21	364-6/ 131	Pakistan, Delhi	Draw
5	135-8/ 75	Australia, Adelaide	Draw
12	190/ 75.3	New Zealand, Wellington	Lost
83*	170-3/ 83	England, Calcutta	Draw
1	103/ 47.1	West Indies, Ahmedabad	Lost
19	198/ 66.2	Sri Lanka, Colombo	Lost
54	174-5/ 78	England, Edgbaston	Draw
90	347/ 86.5	Australia, Madras	Tie
96	204/ 93.5	Pakistan, Bangalore	Lost
Total runs 1132			Average [B]56.60[/B]

The table below amply demonstrates that Gavaskar had little trouble in summoning his best in the last innings of a match. His unbeaten 117 at Bridgetown helped India bat 103 overs to save the game, the 102 at Port-of-Spain was instrumental in achieving a famous win, and his 221 at The Oval in 1979 is still ranked among the finest innings played at the ground. He finished in style too - his final Test innings, at Bangalore, was one of immense skill in extremely difficult conditions.

HEAR HEAR Ability to hold the batting together under pressure: The little master PWNS the Mumbai " blaster".

Tendulkar's numbers pale in comparison. Discounting the soft runs - two examples are unbeaten knocks of 44 and 32 when India were chasing small targets at home - Tendulkar's average drops even further, to just 26.85. The start of the list is similar for both players - Gavaskar's unbeaten 117 is matched by Tendulkar's 119 not out as a precocious 17-year-old at Old Trafford in 1990. Since then, though, it has been largely a string of disappointments for Tendulkar, with several single-digit scores - in fact, of the 27 scores listed below, there are 13 of ten or less, and five more below 20. His 136 against Pakistan at Chennai in 1999 was an epic, despite the fact that India lost, but since then the cupboard's been almost entirely bare, with just two half-centuries. The other aspect which stands out is when you compare Gavaskar's India and Tendulkar's India with regard to the number of overs batted in the fourth innings. With Gavaskar around, India consistently batted more than 100 overs - there are six such instances, with four of them exceeding the 130-over mark. During Tendulkar's time, though, the team has tumbled to some embarrassing collapses, ten times being bowled out in less than 60 overs, including four instances when they couldn't even last 40. In many ways, then, Tendulkar's struggle in the fourth innings is reflective of the manner in which the entire team has floundered when batting to save or win a Test.

Tendulkar's performances in meaningful fourth innings
Score	Team total/ overs	Opposition & venue	Result
27	224/ 62	England, Lord's	Lost
119*	343-6/ 90	England, Old Trafford	Draw
17	333/ 100.1	Australia, Adelaide	Lost
5	141/ 55.1	Australia, Perth	Lost
1	141-4/ 82	South Africa, Johannesburg	Draw
10	114/ 35.2	West Indies, Mohali	Lost
2	137/ 53.3	South Africa, Calcutta	Lost
4	66/ 34.1	South Africa, Durban	Lost
9	144/ 66.2	Cape Town	Lost
4	81/ 35.5	West Indies, Barbados	Lost
8	281-5/ 100	Sri Lanka, Colombo	Draw
7	173/ 56.4	Zimbabwe, Harare	Lost
136	258/ 95.2	Pakistan, Chennai	Lost
9	232/ 79.1	Pakistan, Calcutta	Lost
0	110/ 38.1	Australia, Adelaide	Lost
52	195/ 89.3	Australia, Melbourne	Lost
17	155-8/ 41.1	Australia, Chennai	Won
42	126-6/ 45.5	Zimbabwe, Delhi	Won
86	252/ 88.3	West Indies, Jamaica	Lost
12	397/ 109.4	England, Lord's	Lost
37	233-6/ 72.4	Australia, Adelaide	Won
2	200/ 53.3	Australia, Nagpur	Lost
16	214/ 90	Pakistan, Bangalore	Lost
26	265/ 58.4	Pakistan, Karachi	Lost
34	100/ 48.2	England, Mumbai	Lost
0	179/ 55.1	South Africa, Durban	Lost
16	282-9/ 96	England, Lord's	Drawn
Total runs 698			Average [B]26.85[/B]