Sachin Tendulkar or Vivian Richards?

[Vijay.Sharma]

Something is wrong with those stats if Sachin's stats was 207 runs in 6 innings against Warne and McGrath. As I recall in the 2001 series both the bowlers played all 3 Tests. At Mumbai Sachin scored 2 fifties (one was 70+). At Kolkata he scored two 10s. At Chennai he scored a cent and dont remember the second innings score. So these 6 innings itself show he has scored easily more than 250 runs. This series had 2 wins and 1 loss Then there was the 1999 series in which at Melbourne he scored a cent and a fifty it came in a loss. I am not sure where this guy got those numbers from. Coz obviously 21, 17, 9, 6 innings seem to be too less.

[zen]

I am not a SRT fanboy but these stats prove nothing about how good a batsman really is. Essentially what you are saying is that if a batsman failed in a lost cause he wouldn't be penalized for it, and conversely if a batsman scores big and the team still loses he would lose out. Considering the fact that generally it's bowlers/bowling attack which wins you games these stats will favor batsmen with a better bowling attack. As case in point I would like to mention SRT's 136 against A strong Paki attack of Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain, Mushtaq where he single-handedly took India close to victory where he lost out to bad back and not by the bowlers. It was one of the finest innings ever played - similar to Gavaskar's 96 against Pakistan in 86 where the next best score was 26 on a rank turner. With your selective stats those numbers will never make it to the final analysis which is extremely unfair.

It's you who is drawing the conclusions, I haven't posted any conclusions on importance of performances in wins/draws yet! (Except make an overall conclusion that picking Sachin doesn't offer any real world advantages) Let's discuss your opening statement first: "these stats prove nothing about how good a batsman really is." Are we discussing how good a batsman is or picking from the ones who are already considered to be good? Since we are picking amongst batsmen who are already considered to be the best in business, we need to look at more things than the ability to look the best when hitting a cover drive. We are not even discussing who has a better technique because despite all the blah blah stuff, these guys have proved themselves at the test level, which is why they are amongst the top batsmen. The next question is what do performances in a win/drawn/tied games show? This to me shows (somewhat) how a batsman does when faced with a situation where you need to perform to make your team win/draw (basically not lose) a game. The first pick for a batsman would be someone who knows that he has to deliver no matter what for his team to not lose. He knows that he has to find ways to win. Take Lara or Laxman, for example, they find ways to make their teams win. On the other hand, Sachin's fans lament the fact that Ind couldn't win the game in which he made 136. Other players like a Lara or a Laxman or a Waugh would have found themselves in that situation too, no? But they somehow managed to pull of a win for their team. The pressure when you are facing a win is different then when you are performing with nothing to lose .... If someone is being touted as the 'greatest ever', you expect him to play more such innings , and when you play more such innings against such attacks, invariably you give your team more chances to either win or draw/tie the game! All some people do is cry abt that 136 but hey he had more opportunties to play such knocks. We all know what Sachin's 2nd innings avg was , no? Then you say that: "Considering the fact that generally it's bowlers/bowling attack which wins you games these stats will favor batsmen with a better bowling attack" .... I agree with you on this point that the number of wins depends upon the bowling attacks but how a batsman performs in those games depends upon him and that's reflected in the averages. Are we looking at which teams won the more games or are we looking at how the batsmen performed in wins. And this number can be seen whether your team has won 2 tests or 6 tests. To summerize: we are not taking abt the number of wins/draws a batsman has but how a batsman performed in those games against good bowlers.

[zen]

Performances in won/tied/drawn games against: * Warne and McGrath * Donald and Pollock * Wasim and Waqar Batsmen: * Lara - 58 (1222 runs in 21 innings) * Waugh - 50 (846 runs in 17 innings) * Anwar - 45 (407 runs in 9 innings) * Tendulkar - 35 (207 runs in 6 innings)

Updated Tendulkar's as I missed his performance against Pak * tendulkar - 32 (349 runs in 11 innings)

[zen]

Summery: Performances against: * Warne-McGrath * Donald-Pollock * Wasim-Waqar Overall: * Waugh - 46 (971 runs in 21 innings against SA and Pak) * Lara - 42 (2342 runs in 55 innings against Aus, SA and Pak) * Ten - 40 (1257 runs in 31 innings against Aus, SA and Pak) * Anwar - 40 (765 runs in 19 innings against Aus and SA) Note: Lara has 55 completed innings against these bowlers! 50 or more score per inning: * Waugh - 33% (7/21) * Ten - 32% (10/31) * Lara - 29% (16/55) * Anwar - 27% (7/26) Performances in won/tied/drawn games : * Lara - 58 (1222 runs in 21 innings) * Waugh - 50 (846 runs in 17 innings) * Anwar - 45 (407 runs in 9 innings) * Ten - 32 (349 runs in 11 innings) Honarable mention - Overall: Gooch - 54 (1417 runs in 26 innings against Pak w/ the two Ws and WI w/ Ambrose and Walsh) PS * Gooch - 51 (1534/30, added McGrath-Warne)

[ananthd]

Wow 17 pages! For ODIs Viv, Tests Sachin(I know that SRT's ODI stats are otherworldy, but the post 2K stats inflation with journeymen like Mahela averaging 50+ in Tests) you have to take them with a pinch of salt. I just felt Viv was the first godfather of One Day cricket who separated himself from the pack so much in one day cricket. Compare the amount of double tons scored after 2000 vs before 2K, it's remarkable. As for dissers of the Don: almost certainly, the bowling was of a lower quality and maybe the variety was less, but the Don was a statistical marvel. If he was a minnow basher, then he was one hell of a minnow basher. And I don't think the bowling or competition was as bad. For example a guy like Neil Harvey(very fine player), who made his debut with the invincibles of 48 played for 15 years with guys like Sobers, who played with guys SMG who played with SRT(almost, since SMG easily could have toured Pak 1989). What I'm saying is: if Bradman had such bad technique, then how is it possible for a guy like Harvey who played with him, to have such a successful career almost into modern greats such as Sobers & Sunny? And if Bradman's foes all bowled lollipops, why weren't his teammates or other players able to average even in the 60s? SRT's stats are amazing, but they are largely a product of his consistent longevity(which by itself is his greatest achievement). He's certainly the greatest player in the last quarter century. But I would be loathe to compare him or any player across eras as they're so hypothetical.

[pensionplan]

Jeff Dujon's take on Viv... -- You have always maintained that Vivian Richards was the best batsman you ever saw... Without a doubt. I have never seen anyone bat in such an authoritative manner against fast bowling. He never wore a helmet but had the courage to hook the fastest of deliveries off his face. He never liked to be dominated. http://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/article2208126.ece

[pensionplan]

Wow 17 pages! For ODIs Viv, Tests Sachin(I know that SRT's ODI stats are otherworldy, but the post 2K stats inflation with journeymen like Mahela averaging 50+ in Tests) you have to take them with a pinch of salt. I just felt Viv was the first godfather of One Day cricket who separated himself from the pack so much in one day cricket. Compare the amount of double tons scored after 2000 vs before 2K, it's remarkable. As for dissers of the Don: almost certainly, the bowling was of a lower quality and maybe the variety was less, but the Don was a statistical marvel. If he was a minnow basher, then he was one hell of a minnow basher. And I don't think the bowling or competition was as bad. For example a guy like Neil Harvey(very fine player), who made his debut with the invincibles of 48 played for 15 years with guys like Sobers, who played with guys SMG who played with SRT(almost, since SMG easily could have toured Pak 1989). What I'm saying is: if Bradman had such bad technique, then how is it possible for a guy like Harvey who played with him, to have such a successful career almost into modern greats such as Sobers & Sunny? And if Bradman's foes all bowled lollipops, why weren't his teammates or other players able to average even in the 60s? SRT's stats are amazing, but they are largely a product of his consistent longevity(which by itself is his greatest achievement). He's certainly the greatest player in the last quarter century. But I would be loathe to compare him or any player across eras as they're so hypothetical.

Nice post.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Jeff Dujon's take on Viv... -- You have always maintained that Vivian Richards was the best batsman you ever saw... Without a doubt. I have never seen anyone bat in such an authoritative manner against fast bowling. He never wore a helmet but had the courage to hook the fastest of deliveries off his face. He never liked to be dominated. http://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/article2208126.ece

Did he mention in particular that Viv was better than Tendulkar? Now here's someone who mentioned particularly that he has never seen a better batsman than Tendulkar, not even Viv -

Here I was sitting in the stands and watching Sachin Tendulkar unfold his genius. Time and again I thought, has there been a better batsman I have watched in my life? I couldn't think of anyone, not even Viv Richards. Tendulkar is cricket's 'Kohinoor'. Nobody comes remotely close.

Link: http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2004/mar/17latif.htm P.S. I'm the last person to indulge in such topics, but your post referring Jeff Dujon had me in stitches, hence my reply.

[pensionplan]

Did he mention in particular that Viv was better than Tendulkar? .

Nice comprehension skills!!!!

[ganeshran]

LOL at using cricketers testimonies to determine the better player. I can pull out many more who say Tendulkar was the better player.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Nice comprehension skills!!!!

Looks like the second part of my post caught you with your pants down :giggle:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

I would love to see BB making the same case for Alastair Cook that he does for Tendulkar based on the number of test runs scored. If anything, it just reduces Tendulkar's brilliance by using the volume of runs and centuries to support his batting class. :hysterical:

[akshayxyz]

^ if it is so easy to play 'volumes' of matches, then why others have not yet managed - while maintaining class. In fact, it has only upped in last couple of years.

[The Outsider]

^ if it is so easy to play 'volumes' of matches' date=' then why others have not yet managed - while maintaining class. In fact, it has only upped in last couple of years.[/quote'] Because in Bradman, Sobers, Gavaskar, and Richards' time there wasn't this 'volume' of cricket played to pile up the 'volume' records - that's a historic fact. Check it up. And as I said, Cook is going to slam Richards, Chappell, Gavaskar, Bradman, Sobers into oblivion in 'volume' records. I am just waiting for you guys to show consistency and make fools out of yourselves by proclaiming him a better batsman than them.

[akshayxyz]

Because in Bradman, Sobers, Gavaskar, and Richards' time there wasn't this 'volume' of cricket played to pile up the 'volume' records - that's a historic fact. Check it up.

I was talking about his contemporaries. I usually stay away from cross-era comparisons.

[The Outsider]

I was talking about his contemporaries. I usually stay away from cross-era comparisons.

Last I checked this and a lot of other threads have not been about comparisons with contemporaries in which you have not hesitated to give your vishesh tippani, unless you are counting the 2-3 year overlap between Tendulkar and Richards to be 'contemporary'.

[akshayxyz]

Last I checked this and a lot of other threads have not been about comparisons with contemporaries in which you have not hesitated to give your vishesh tippani' date=' unless you are counting the 2-3 year overlap between Tendulkar and Richards to be 'contemporary'.[/quote'] My ati-vishisht tippaniyan have always been about - stop this cross era nonsense - and time and again I repeat, there are far too many variables to be considered to warrant a quantitative comparison across eras. I usually indulge only in individual points of arguments. and I stay away from giving overall verdict. Anyway, so back to my query - why Sachin's contemporaries have not been able to play as much volumes of cricket while maintaining the class/form.

[The Outsider]

But I've never said that any of Tendulkar's contemporaries are better than him, so not sure what point you are trying to make by quoting my 'volumes' post clearly addressing cross era comparisons.