Sachin Tendulkar or Vivian Richards?

[mishra]

Mishraji why do all your analogies involve Pakistani players :hmmm:

Ganeshran, If we forget our relationship as neighbors , I think after us they are the only true cricket lover. Problem is they are messed up now.Big time.. Whenever i meet a Pakistani, One thing i dont do is make fun of their cricket. it hurts them.I want them our competitor... But what the hell... They did same to us during my childhood days... My motto is "lttle sympathy. Lot of apathy" :--D

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[maniac]

Why dont you tell the complete story ? Ohh wait that will not suit your agenda right. ? anyhow heres the full story : There is a "Brigade of Folks" ( :hmmm: ) who were convinced in their minds that Bradman was the greatest ever without ever having so much as seen him bat or done any research about the times in which he played. It pretty much relied on 99.94 being a long way off from the rest. All of these claims were dealt with by me , dsr and some others in many many different ways. The final nail in the coffin came when those video footage were put up where a left arm spinner (Ernie Toshack ) is bowling and we figure out that he has a bowling average similar to Marshalls. Another Guy was Bill Bowes. Iam yet to see ONE single poster explain how that is possible despite repeatedly challenging the various maharathis that go around dispensing cricket gyan here. This is when silence descended on the discussions and the really rabid ones pretty much began to resort to churlish and puerile stuff unable to come to terms with the damning evidence. Subsequently I produced some other footage of bonafide trundlers who were labeled as super fast lethal bowlers. The voting on the Bradman thread made a U-Turn soon after this damning evidence began to appear. Somewhere along the line you admitted that the standards were really crap back then. It appears that this has changed again going by how you have resorted back to your typical one liner jabs while carefully avoiding the pointed questions. what else is new. http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74604 (the very First bowler you see is Toshack ) http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=61609 ( Bowes Bowling to Bradman @ 2:13)

I have always said that Sachin is the best batsman considering the team,circumstances and situations he has played in. But discounting Don Bradman who was clearly miles ahead of his contemperaries is not fair.it's like saying Rod Laver was worse than say a Andy Murray because he used a wooden raquet and did not play in the power tennis era is wrong. Rod Laver vs Nadal or Federer would be more applicable as they were the champion players of their era. Comparing Don with Sachin is justified as they were ahead of their contempararies.Richards not so much as Gavaskar was the best batsman in the world at that time.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[maniac]

could you tell me the bowlers of his times that were comparable in skill speed and accuracy to Steyn' date=' Ambrose, Donald, McGrath, Wasim , Waqar , Wash, Pollock , Shoaib , Gillespie , B Lee , Ntini ? That is a dozen truly top class bowlers the likes of which were simply not around in Bradmans time. How can you compare a guy that had to play such top class bowling to a guy that didnt have to ? What is the logic here ?[/quote'] All I am trying to state that Bradman was definetely ahead of his contemperaries in his time.Let us assume for a moment that bowlers were very mediocre,How many others have acheived the same amount of success in his era?An average of 99.94 is some feat and that definetely cements his legacy. The only guy since than who has those kind of super-human records is Sachin,hence I say the comparision is valid. I personally beleive that Sachin is better than Bradman.But it is not fair to insult Don Bradman's acheivements by saying even Mudassar Nazar was better.I am sure the poster literally didn't mean that but we need to accept Don's legacy for what it is. Playing on uncovered pitches and without protective gear ,even a bouncer from someone like Praveen Kumar can be lethal without a proper technique.

[yoda]

But it is not fair to insult Don Bradman's acheivements by saying even Mudassar Nazar was better.I am sure the poster literally didn't mean that but we need to accept Don's legacy for what it is.

I believe you are wrong. There are many who do believe than many modern batsmen are better than Bradman based on video footage available. You see, they did not know how to bat in the 1930s like people did in the 80s or in the 2Ks. Given that, they are inferior and their records are rendered meaningless. :winky: Also, bowling standards were so low, which also makes Bradman's 99.94 a laughable record. It is no better than Sachin's 100+ record in current time against say Bangladesh. :cheer: Regarding peer theory, that has been debunked by the sheer fact that all those who played those days were amateurs and just because Bradman did better than a bunch of other school boys, doesn't mean he is better than any great player who has played recently. BB, please correct me if I am wrong. :nervous:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[maniac]

Plenty of batsman today have high averages against Mediocre teams ... Tendulkar Averages 136 against BD. If you throw in Zimbabwe it is pretty similar to Bradmans avg although the Zimbabwe team of the 90s and early 00s was a very decent team. But we now know that it means very little because of obvious reasons. Why dont you apply the same yardstick to Bradman ?

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/4188.html?class=1;template=results;type=batting These are Bradman's stats. Let us just keep the argument to why Bradman is a legend and not put in a comparitive analysis http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=31+Dec+1948;spanmin1=I+Jan+1928;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team These are the top teams or teams with test status in Bradman's time.Going by the statistics England was equal to Aus with SA being 3rd .Eng won more matches where as Aus had a better w/l %. This means that Bradman performed way ahead of his peers from his team as well as the opposition. The question of him having a bloated average by playing minnows doesn't come into equation as he was consistent across every nation he played in his time Minnow and Non-Minnow

This is just plain incorrect. Uncovered pitches will act nasty only when it rains and they start to play on a pitch that is still drying. Bradman himself did not like batting on such surfaces and it is well known that he reversed the batting order to buy time so that he could bat on a dried pitch.

Bradman did better in England against England where weather conditions play a major role than his home.Saying that uncovered pitches were never a factor is unfair. Bradman was the top batsman in the bodyline series is a testament to the fact that he was not the type of player to backdown from a challenge.Please tell me if there are any facts to prove the theory when you said that he hid behind other batsman on a tough pitch.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

Ging back to the main theme of this thread Viv vs Sachin,the point I would like to make is today Sehwag gets away with a lot's of failures because he has a dream line up that follows.I am not saying this has anything to do with Sehwag's approach but I am saying that fans will not measure Sehwag's failure at a microscopic level because he has an amazing team that can bail him out.

That works both ways. If Sehwag plays the way he does because he has a strong middle order that shall follow him, surely the middle order benefits immensly as well knowing that Sehwag has already beaten the opposition to death. Heck if anything having a Sehwag open the innings is lot more crucial than having Sachin, VVS or Dravid in middle order. Your premise, if I understand correctly, is that batting works as a unit..which I am in unison with really.

The reason for this analogy is let's envision back to the 90's-Mid 90's to the late 90's,I am strictly talking about ODI's here...Sachin's role was more like Sehwag providing brisk starts and at the same time maintaining a more disciplined approach keeping in mind the fragile middle order he played with.Sidhu,Jadeja and co. might have had really good stats but how many matches did they win on their own.

Not to nitpick on that but two of the greatest wins for India in 90s would be 92 WC and 96 WC games against Pakistan. And in both Jadeja played a crucial knock. Heck Jadeja's assault on Waqar remains the best by far against any Indian contemprories really. Azhar was awesome in his own right and I can rattle out many a games where he played stellar. The broad point of course is Azhar was India's main bat around late 80s to mid 90s. Sachin was coming along during this time and would be India's best bat by mid 90s. By late 90s the Holy Trinity had arrived. In essence I fail to see when SRT carried India completely on his shoulders. Sure he was the best batsman and all but he had a fairly decent support cast. xx

[maniac]

The bowling attacks of those times are of same potency if not worse as those of current day minnows unless you want to name me some bowlers that can be considered in quality as those that I listed earlier to which you agreed. Win loss ratios mean nothing. WI play Zimbabwe and BD they will have a W/L ratio ... doesnt mean that Chanderpaul is the best batsman. The Bodyline series saw his avg cut down in half. He did not like that and opposed it tooth and nail. they even made sure that the next series would not have Bodyline bowling by extracting promises from English bowlers. Bradmans stand is well known on this issue. You do such things today you will get ridiculed. and here is the evidence of the batting lineup being reversed. Check Aussies 2nd inngs and compare it to the batting lineup in the 1st inngs. Bradman is at # 7 http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/62643.html

I seriously don't get the minnow argument because that doesn't make sense in the scenario that we are discussing.The bowling may have been weaker back then but it was the best available bowling of that time. Yes,and if Zim was the best bowling attack of our times then I will agree that Attapatu is the greatest batsman of our era http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;opposition=9;orderby=runs;template=results;type=batting But the fact is players like SRT and RD are still in the top run getters against them.What makes Sachin a legend is that he equally performed against all Minnow and Non-Minnow sides of his time with equal apetite for runs. Similary going back to my point above no matter what the quality of the bowling attack was,Don kept piling on the runs ahead of his contempararies against the Minnows and also against the best available bowling attack. I don't see what's a big deal about Bradman batting at number 7,he clearly was the captain and the best batsman in the side and he had a right to play in whatever position he felt like.It is like saying Dhoni batted higher up the order in wc final because he wanted to hog the spotlight

[Raghav_12]

That works both ways. If Sehwag plays the way he does because he has a strong middle order that shall follow him, surely the middle order benefits immensly as well knowing that Sehwag has already beaten the opposition to death. Heck if anything having a Sehwag open the innings is lot more crucial than having Sachin, VVS or Dravid in middle order. Your premise, if I understand correctly, is that batting works as a unit..which I am in unison with really. Not to nitpick on that but two of the greatest wins for India in 90s would be 92 WC and 96 WC games against Pakistan. And in both Jadeja played a crucial knock. Heck Jadeja's assault on Waqar remains the best by far against any Indian contemprories really. Azhar was awesome in his own right and I can rattle out many a games where he played stellar. The broad point of course is Azhar was India's main bat around late 80s to mid 90s. Sachin was coming along during this time and would be India's best bat by mid 90s. By late 90s the Holy Trinity had arrived. In essence I fail to see when SRT carried India completely on his shoulders. Sure he was the best batsman and all but he had a fairly decent support cast. xx

Surely he had to have support cast, after all India had to put 11 players on field to get the game going. What do you understand by phrase "carried India completely on his shoulders"? India put just one player, Sachin, in the team for these matches? Below link provides numbers of Indian batsmen in later half of 90's in ODI's. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;result=1;spanmax1=01+jan+2000;spanmin1=01+jan+1996;spanval1=span;team=6;template=results;type=batting But I don't think these numbers will make you admit anything as you would rather deny your own experience than conceding a point. Anybody who has watched cricket in 90's knows what was Sachin's importance to Indian team, specially in ODI's. People would stop TV's when Sachin would get out and I am sure you would have done/experienced same , if you were an Indian cricket fan then.

[yoda]

Why don't you answer my questions in the post#303 instead of hurling one liners and making churlish statements ?

I gave you a complete summary of all the arguments made so far. The one-liner was to ask you to confirm if my summary was accurate. So is it accurate or not?

[sarcastic]

Surely he had to have support cast, after all India had to put 11 players on field to get the game going. What do you understand by phrase "carried India completely on his shoulders"? India put just one player, Sachin, in the team for these matches? Below link provides numbers of Indian batsmen in later half of 90's in ODI's. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;result=1;spanmax1=01+jan+2000;spanmin1=01+jan+1996;spanval1=span;team=6;template=results;type=batting But I don't think these numbers will make you admit anything as you would rather deny your own experience than conceding a point. Anybody who has watched cricket in 90's knows what was Sachin's importance to Indian team, specially in ODI's. People would stop TV's when Sachin would get out and I am sure you would have done/experienced same , if you were an Indian cricket fan then.

I used to do that!!!:isalute:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[King]

This question is a no brainer not because there's a clear choice but why would anyone want to just take one? I'd say both... no true cricket fan would just ask for one when you can get to watch both :two_thumbs_up:

[maniac]

And it makes sense to compare the batting skills of someone who beat up far inferior bowlers to someone who had to face the very best of bowlers in the History of the game is based on what logic ? Please note that I am talking purely from Batting skills perspective. Meaning we now know what it takes to tackle Steyn ... where is the evidence that Bradman could do the same ? Nothing. There was no bowler like Steyn in his time. Advantage Tendulkar. Again the names of these supposed bowlers that can be considered equivalent to those that I listed above are .... ? When was the last time you saw bowlers open the batting in an innings?

Once again,Let me make it clear to you that I beleive that SRT is greater than Don. All I am saying is that we cannot devaule Don's Legacy. Going back to the example I quoted before and I don't know if you follow tennis...it is another game that has evolved over time. Just because they have these powerful Graphite racquets now compared to the wooden racquets back in the day and players now are equipped to handle booming serves with incredible speed we cannot discredit all the yesteryear champions. We can compare say a modern day great Federer,Nadal or Sampras to a yesteryear Champion like say Rod laver and analyse the circumstances and pros and cons of their time.Just because an average Joe Tennis player can serve upto 130-140mph on an average or is equipped to handle that we cannot conclude he is better than all the yesteryear champions. Sport is about evolution and adaptability.Hence, we are comparing a modernday legend with a yesteryear legend and the pros and cons of their success.Since we have had debates about this topic in the past some of us have concluded it is Sachin and some still beleive it is Bradman.All I am saying is we cannot discredit Bradman's acheivements. Going back to your point about bowlers opening the batting and Bradman at 7,the end result was Bradman scoring a 200 and his team ending up as winners.Being the captain of the team too this makes him look more like a tactical genius than someone who was scared.

[maniac]

That works both ways. If Sehwag plays the way he does because he has a strong middle order that shall follow him' date= surely the middle order benefits immensly as well knowing that Sehwag has already beaten the opposition to death. Heck if anything having a Sehwag open the innings is lot more crucial than having Sachin, VVS or Dravid in middle order. Your premise, if I understand correctly, is that batting works as a unit..which I am in unison with really. Not to nitpick on that but two of the greatest wins for India in 90s would be 92 WC and 96 WC games against Pakistan. And in both Jadeja played a crucial knock. Heck Jadeja's assault on Waqar remains the best by far against any Indian contemprories really. Azhar was awesome in his own right and I can rattle out many a games where he played stellar. The broad point of course is Azhar was India's main bat around late 80s to mid 90s. Sachin was coming along during this time and would be India's best bat by mid 90s. By late 90s the Holy Trinity had arrived. In essence I fail to see when SRT carried India completely on his shoulders. Sure he was the best batsman and all but he had a fairly decent support cast. xx

Since you spoke about the 92 wc win...I think I don't need to remind you who the mom was in that match. I am not taking away anything from Sehwag's contribution in our upheavel in this decade but we have succeeded even during Sehwag's non-performance or absence thanks to our strength which is our dream-team type of middleorder. 2006-2007 England tour,SA tour the recent SA tour etc...we performed admirably even in Aus in 2008 where Sehwag was hit or miss. We have a good allround team and yes this includes our underrated bowling but let us not kid ourselves our biggest strength is our middle order which is the major contributing factor.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --