Sachin Tendulkar or Vivian Richards?

[Crookbond]

The one on the right has a ticker of 30 per second - do the Math. It's simple enough - Lindwall was a 150+ kmph bowler. As for the BritishPathe player, I have already shown Lindwall to be a 200 kmph bowler based on that unless if have forgotten.

One also just needs to read his Wisden obituary to understand how great a fast bowler Lindwall was irrespective of whatever 'x' kmph he bowled at. By whatever standard he is judged, RAYMOND RUSSELL LINDWALL must be placed permanently in the gallery of great fast bowlers. The fact that in England his uncommon speed gave him an advantage over many batsmen meeting bowling of such pace for the first time did not detract from Lindwall's superb control of length and direction, his change of pace and general skill, the like of which in a slower bowler could be classed as cunning. http://es.pn/o7tBz2

[pensionplan]

The one on the right has a ticker of 30 per second - do the Math. It's simple enough - Lindwall was a 150+ kmph bowler. As for the BritishPathe player, I have already shown Lindwall to be a 200 kmph bowler based on that unless if have forgotten.

Ouch!!!! Bradman 100.0 average after all this in a league of his own while SRT is stuck with a bunch of other losers in the 50's range despite all those "International" runs. How is that possible? You sure seem to be missing something here. Wonder what that would be.

[sarcastic]

Ouch!!!! Bradman 100.0 average after all this in a league of his own while SRT is stuck with a bunch of other losers in the 50's range despite all those "International" runs. How is that possible? You sure seem to be missing something here. Wonder what that would be.

Even though I agree that SRT may not have unseated Bradman from being called as the "Greatest Batsman" of all time, SRT did prove himself to be greatest in his own way. I do see merit in Bossbhai's argument when he says about the sheer volume of runs that SRT has scored on International arena as compared to anyone else in the history of game. You ppl were talking about the runs against minnows..> OK.. Remove the minnows out of equation and I will still bet SRT's stats are more superior to any of his contemporaries and better than most of the cricketers who ever played the game. SRT is undoubtedly the greatest batsman of modern era and arguably the greatest cricketer of all time too. :hatsoff:

[Sachinism]

Bangladesh : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;opposition=25;template=results;type=batting;view=innings and Zimbabwe : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;opposition=9;template=results;type=batting;view=innings make up for that :yay:

Buy yourself a dictionary, find out the difference between international and domestic and then we'll take this further

[Sachinism]

Not to speak of Namibia's' date=' Kenya's etc etc of the world that make up for like 75-85 odd so called "International" games. Hey let us not touch up on some raw nerves here. I say let things be as they are and just marvel at all those "International" runs without getting into the details of them.[/quote'] yup expected that from you.carry on being marvelled by what you read about others from fiction writers

[Crookbond]

Even though I agree that SRT may not have unseated Bradman from being called as the "Greatest Batsman" of all time, SRT did prove himself to be greatest in his own way. I do see merit in Bossbhai's argument when he says about the sheer volume of runs that SRT has scored on International arena as compared to anyone else in the history of game. You ppl were talking about the runs against minnows..> OK.. Remove the minnows out of equation and I will still bet SRT's stats are more superior to any of his contemporaries and better than most of the cricketers who ever played the game. SRT is undoubtedly the greatest batsman of modern era and arguably the greatest cricketer of all time too. :hatsoff:

This I will categorically agree too. Greatest of Modern Era and Arguably Greatest cricketer of all time. No one has put this so brilliantly. :clap: What I am against is to announce Sachin Tendulkar as the champion of champions. It's unfair to a lot of earlier era cricketers including Vivian Richards, Don Bradman, Sir Jack Hobbs and company.

[pensionplan]

Even though I agree that SRT may not have unseated Bradman from being called as the "Greatest Batsman" of all time, SRT did prove himself to be greatest in his own way.

I have no problem with that assessment. I am a huge fan of SRT myself.

[Crookbond]

Buy yourself a dictionary' date=' find out the difference between international and domestic and then we'll take this further[/quote'] You try and read more about cricket and we will carry forward our discussions. Irfan Pathan would easily be the best bowler of the decade by the number of wickets he has taken against Bangladesh & Zimbabwe. Why don't you answer the earlier poster about the difference in Viv versus SRT's ruuns? My post was just a prestige to that post.

[Crookbond]

I have no problem with that assessment. I am a huge fan of SRT myself.

Add me to the SRT fan club. I am a huge fan and have absolutely no problem which such assessments too!

[Trichromatic]

No takers. Sab ki Bolti Bandh especially the ones who want to have a cocktail mix of Tests and ODI's just to arrange stats as they please.

Tests and ODIs are international cricket. Sachin has played lesser domestic matches than Richards. If one goes by FC records then it would be difficult for event the greats of game to catch up with many players.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

Ok Windows move maker has the same accuracy. The problem here is with the ball you have chosen ... cant simply tell when it has past the batsmans bat/crease. Even then 0.47 seconds equates to 135KMPH = ( 17.68 * 3600/1000) / t = 63.48 / t ( where 17.68 = distance traveled in meters to get to the batting crease )

:hysterical::hysterical: Even a blind man can tell you that the frame chosen is after the shot has been played. You just can't get around the fact that the very videos you were swearing by are showing you up.

[Crookbond]

:hysterical::hysterical: Even a blind man can tell you that the frame chosen is after the shot has been played. You just can't get around the fact that the very videos you were swearing by are showing you up.

To add, saying that Windows Movie Maker accuracy is equivalent to Final Cut Pro is like LMAO! As you said, Ab phirse Rona Mat!

[The Outsider]

But anyhow, here is your preferred yorker - 0.43 seconds - even quicker. :hysterical:

[Crookbond]

But anyhow' date=' here is your preferred yorker - 0.43 seconds - even quicker. :hysterical:[/quote'] :two_thumbs_up:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

:acute: why have you chosen the frame where the bat is still behind the pads ? ... here are the snapshots that I took .. and the frame where the ball is hitting the bat is at 00:48.39 the start frame is at 00:47.89 giving a time of 0.50 seconds or a speed of 127 KMPH and I have ignored the fact that the ball is released a few inches ahead of the bowling crease

Because that is where the impact is - I know you are an intellectually dishonest person and won't admit being wrong even after being whipped by clear evidence, so will not bother wasting any more time on you. I've put up the evidence from the best video editing software in the world and it clearly shows Lindwall was a 150+ kmph bowler - modern speed guns measure release speed which is a lot quicker than than the average speed. I also know it is a big blow to your players from the older era were trundlers theory and you will possibly need a drink and a good night's sleep to perhaps accept the facts you have been slapped with using your beloved videos. I doubt you will accept the facts though, but one can always hope. :bye:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

lol you are not even willing to download the original video and are now accusing me of dishonesty ?

LOL! I can't download it because the software you gave is for Windows and is of no use to me. Anyhow, here is another 0.43 seconds in case you decide to be honest to yourself - no question of bat behind the pad here, clearly in front.

[ananthd]

This makes no sense at all. Are you trying to say that post 2000 its easier to avg 50 in Test Cricket than avg 40 @ a SR of 80 in ODIs ?

Yes, when a guy like Mahela, who I consider inferior to the likes of Vishy/Jimmy/Vengy can average more than SMG, that tells you a lot about: - the nature of wickets, - the quality of the best bowling of all time(according to you). The fact that Mahela struggles in the ODIs is also indicative of the repertoire he lacks.

If everything is not about stats why are you using stats to run down Jayawardene ?

No, poor Mahela, I'm not picking on him. He's just an example of a bozo elevated by his environment. You can insert Chanderpaul/Younis Khan/Samaraweera in place of Mahela. It wouldn't make a difference. The point was you have to take these modern batting stats with a large pinch of salt because of the flattening of the wickets, the protection offered, cannibalisation of the rules in favor of the batters

Why are you using Vivs stats in the 80s and comparing them to others of his time ?

Who else can I compare him to, other than his competition? I find it dishonest and fanciful to compare players across eras

But SMG himself considers Tendulkar to be far better than him. Perhaps your Gut feeling is wrong ?

WTF is SMG supposed to say, when SRT has about a 100 international tons or when SRT is so beloved? Again SMG revealing his innermost thoughts to you? And we should accept what SMG or anyone else for that matter mouths off in the media as gospel?

Again why are you using his stats ?

Again, Mahela is merely a representative, used to illustrate that there has been a huge inflation in stats(atleast 6-7 points IMO for Test batters & 5-6 points for ODI SRs), in favor of the batters in the last 10-12 years.

Same reason as why the other Nincompoops couldnt come within a small matter of 5000 ODI runs. And BTW why are you using stats again ?

I'm using stats, because you seem to be saying Sachin's stats SHOULD MAKE ME CHOOSE him over IVAR. What same reason? The Reason SRT has about 5K run difference is because he's played about a 100 more matches than his nearest guy. Sach has a about a 7 year adv over a guy like Ponting. What's the per-match run advantage of Sachin over the next best ODI player of his era? 5 points? more? What was the per-match avg/sr adv IVAR had over his peers? Name one guy who scored as fast as Richards did and who averaged as much as did? Don't give Zed, who played only a third of the games Richards played.

Stats again

WTF am I supposed to do since you keep comparing players across eras using stats? Look, it's not all about the stats. OK? I don't need stats to tell if a player is good: I've seen the 136@Chennai, seen Desert Storm, seen the 96@Bangalore and the last ball six against Hendrick and the swept six of Imran. But since you so get all defensive about my quality points, eg I like Viv's style of play, you say Sehwag has a higher SR, conveniently omitting higher general scores, more batter friendly rules, the protection factor etc. Let me say this again: if chewing gum equated swagger, then Dessie Haynes would have more swagger than Viv Richards. Swagger is playing Thommo & Lillee & whoever without protection; swagger is telling the ump "Don't stop him" after Lenny Pascoe bounces you 6 off 8 balls. Maybe a guy like Viru/Sachin would have been equally successful in that era. But we'll never know right? These guys have a chest, elbow, grille, 2 bouncer limit etc even before they walk on. It's easy to be brave when you know, you can simply shrug if a bowler hits you, since you know nothing will happen. You, who is so quick to dismiss the bowlers of the 30s ilk as pie-chuckers, should give no quarters to the men who played in that era without much protection, without coaches, trainers, videos and the like.

Stats again ... and even though you tried to compare SRTs worst injury ridden phase with Pontings Prime ... he still is ahead on SR and slightly ahead on Avg even without the benefit of notouts. If anything this tells me that a SRT batting with a broken arm shattered toe and being a medical wreck owned Ponting at his peak.

WTF man? You ask for a phase where Ponting matched SRT, I give it. And then this is your comeback? Whose problem is it if you are injured for 8 years? Again, I don't want to give stats for everything. But you leave me no choice, with your chronic usage of stats. My choice of Richards is personal, but you say no, there's no basis for that based on stats. So I have to resort to some stats Richards had in his time.

I have answered this in every single Bradman thread ..... all that means is that Bradman could badly beat a bunch of minnows and the proof of how poor the bowling was lies in the videos.

Ok. Let's accept this as your theory: A) DGB's bowlers excelled in lollypops. B) DGB crushed lollipops. C) Because of A & B DGB averaged 100.

The others sucked even while facing such mediocre bowlers. If you look at their techniques it is very evident as to why they sucked.

D) All other batters of DGB's era had sucky technique. E) Therefore they could not hit even the bowlers of who were pie chuckers. So that's why they averaged only 50 about 4.5 sigma's(sigma = 10 here, mean = 50) below Bradman. Nice! If you call this an answer, do you realize how improbable this is? Eitherway it means Bradman was a freak who has not been equalled in any endeavor since. And you call this an answer? This is not an answer, this is your imagination.

How does all this translate into Bradman being an ATG without ever having to face bowlers of the class of a Steyn or McGrath ? It wont unless you resort to Lahori Logic. You evaluate pedigree based on a Best-vs-Best contest not on a Best-vs-Crap contest.

Where did I claim Bradman as GOAT? I do think he was the greatest of his time.

If you disagree then I would like to put forth Tendulkars avg of 136 vs BD. Iam pretty sure it wont go down well with the Bradman bhakts.

WTF? Kallis averages 170 v Zim.... Waugh averaged 145....Hayden 250 v Zim Is that all your defense against DGB's stats?

Great. So it appears that you have changed your stance from last time.

No change in stance. I never said anywhere, Bradman or Sachin or anyone for that matter is the "Greatest of All Time" since this is futile.

Answered. But you are the first poster that has acknowledged that Bowes is a trundler. All Bradman bhakths have carefully avoided answering that question so far.

Your answer, is basically admitting Bradman was inhumanly above the average of HIS TIME. Nothing more. You don't have an answer as to why this was. You only have an answer as to why Bradman averaged 100, not why his peers didn't. And your answer for why DGB averaged a 100(he was facing trundlers) flies in the face of the other answer why his peer batters couldn't score heavily(since they were also facing trundlers)

And my point is that simply because SRT has managed to excel in both formats of the game ( and achieve those gazillion other things that I wont bore you with ) ... it doesnt mean that all those other Greats would automatically play as long as SRT and be as succesfull and all that ... I will take only what is on record not some hypothetical junk where X is equated with Y when there is simply no evidence to suggest that X faced the sort of bowlers that Y faced. This is like saying since I cracked Class X exams I could have cracked IIT-JEE exams as well.

I'm not into this equation business. I admit freely that SRT's the greatest post 89. Nothing more. Who is to say someone better will not come along? Once again, comparing eras is fraught with danger.

heres why your judgement is wrong : http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=38954 see if you can identify who the "Crazies" are.

Don't give me the videos. I picked Tyson & Griffith because they played with Harvey who played with Bradman. Yes that Harvey with allegedly sucky technique(otherwise he'd ve outscored the 40 year old DGB in 48). I picked Griffith because he nearly killed Contractor and I picked Tyson because I've read he hit a few in his time and was fast(allegedly!)

Which is not backed by much else other than your own "gut feel" .. otherwise SRT has done pretty much everything Viv has and has done it for nearly 3 times the no.of runs.

Of course, when you go for the "nearly 3 times the no of runs" I have to go with the nearly 300 extra matches as opener card.... Look man: I've seen the 189* in full, the highlights of 149@Jamshedpur, him sweeping Imran for six and 32(he made live!) as well some Packer videos. You can take your stats, I'll pick Smoking Joe every time for a ODI team over Sachin Tendulkar.(Sachin would be the second pick though!)

Yes I have seen them. But why are you using stats again ?

Sure you've seen a few. My question was have you seen every bowler that has been an opponent of the parties in question: IVAR, DGB, SRT? or even DGB or SRT?

Iam more than comfortable discussing SRT based purely on video evidence and highlighting how he is the best batsman.

He's clearly the best Post 89.

The stats will become meaningless if you blindly ignore the larger context. And in case of DGB it is a well known fact that the bowling , fielding and strategy standards were very modest when compared to modern times.

OK. But does your "larger context" includes, helmets, 2 bouncer limit, chest guards, trainers, coaches, magic sprays and the like?

Nobody even by mistake nominates bowlers from DGBs time as the best in the business. The discussion on best bowlers usually revolves around bowlers post 70s and 80s.

Is this stats based? IF SO:why we also seem to be having the finest period for batters post 89? As to why 40 of the 79 top scores in Tests seem to be scored in this period? That range spans 1903-2011, yet more than half of that have been scored since 90. Some best bowlers, those guys that bowled/bowling post 70s & 80s. Post 2K it's even worse.