Sachin Tendulkar or Vivian Richards?

[TrueWorldChamps]

Viv Richards himself hails Sachin as the greatest batsman of all time Check Google and I saw the news on tv too. "Sachin is 99.94% Perfect" - Viv Richards

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Vijay.Sharma]

Quote by Anathd-

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.

You will notice the same ratio between Sachin and Viv as well. If I were you I'd not go in that direction.

[Vijay.Sharma]

Ananthd, I notice you are using the theory of flat pitches, better protection, bouncer rule, cannibalization of bowlers as valid argument to say that the stats of the modern batsmen are bloated up. Would you then agree to the converse that the bowlers who still manage to have a good stats inspite of "flat pitches, better protection, bouncer rule, cannibalization of bowlers" are better than the previous generations? I'd rather you stick to your original point that comparison across eras is not possible than try to rationalize based on qualitative aspects because they imply the corollary must also be valid which would result in Dale Steyn being greatest ever fast bowler, Bhajji as greater than few others like Underwood, Bedi, etc Edit - To re-emphasize the point here is another perspective. Quoting you,

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.

Similar would be the proportion of the best bowling figures as well. Does it mean bowlers post 89 are the best ever? I can agree to the 90s being best ever but not > 2000s as best ever. To answer this question, "As to why 40 of the 79 top scores in Tests seem to be scored in this period?". It is more likely because the number of tests played since 1989 are in the same range as between 1903 and 1989.

[Vijay.Sharma]

Viv Richards himself hails Sachin as the greatest batsman of all time Check Google and I saw the news on tv too. "Sachin is 99.94% Perfect" - Viv Richards

Did he actually use that number? If he did then it is pretty telling of where he stands as far as 99.94 average is concerned

[ananthd]

Quote by Anathd-You will notice the same ratio between Sachin and Viv as well. If I were you I'd not go in that direction.

Vijay, i'm talking about players of Viv's generation, who played a similar weight of games. I'm sure there are many players who played in Sachin's generation who played about a third of of his games, who have as good a stats or better: Dhoni, Hussey, ABDV etc.

[ananthd]

This is just painfull ... your original post was trying to devalue Tendulkars ODI stats using Mahela's Test Stats. That is as illogical as it gets. It is very difficult to succeed in both formats ( i.e avg 50+ in Tests and avg 40+/80+ ) . Very few batsmen can do that. VVS and Dravid are great examples of players with Good Test records but below par ODI records. Are these guys crap too ?

No they're great Test players. But they're crap ODI players. I made a mistake by picking Mahela. Maybe I should have used a guy like Dhoni.

But you must decide how you want to continue this discussion . You cant keep throwing stats when you feel like it and accuse others of using stats when you don't like them. And when video footage is presented you cant dismiss that and fallback onto stats or something else.

I admit freely, that Bradman's bowlers were probably weaker to today's strongmen.

Otherwise it becomes a circular and pointless discussion. So Please clearly state how you want to go about this comparison business. Me personally I prefer Videos and stats. Incase of oldies the stats become irrelevant once the footage is presented ( unless people want to doggedly pretend that Bill Bowes is being screwed by Black and White footage but otherwise he is Marshallesque as his stats suggest )

I don't want this comparison business. I just want an explanation how someone can dominate his competition to such an extent(for which you've provided an excellent video evidence).

I did answer. Look at the videos and the techniques of the batsmen.

Now I want some more convincing, other than "their technique's sucked that's why batters of DGB's time didn't average atleast in the 70s". From what I can see, DGB's technique doesn't look that different from anyone else's in that video. So what gives? How come only he was able to avg 100 and the rest only about 50? what else could he have done different to be so much better?

Regardless it is all pointless because at the end all those runs are against utterly crap bowlers that you agreed. If beating up trundlers is sufficient criteria to nominate a guy as one of the all time greats you should also accord the same courtesy to Moyo and Ian Bell. If not then I would like to see some evidence of Bradman having faced the likes of Steyn, Shoaib , Waz, McGrath, Ambrose , Warne, Murali to name just a few. And I don't agree with your claim that it is dishonest and fanciful to compare players across ERA's. Today's players play at far higher standards ... sustained top performance at higher standards trumps ANYTHING at lower standards even 99.94. It is like the IIT-JEE and Class X comparison. The chances of a IIT-JEE topper having been a Class X topper is nearly 100% whereas the chances of the reverse are simply miniscule.

I don't buy this, since for example, you can't compare the matriculate of the 1990s with someone in the 1920s. The exam paper of the 20s may look laughable today, doesn't mean the guys were dumb then. They were as smart as any other student of that day. It's not Class X vs JEE, but's like the India Civil Service of the Raj vs the IAS exam of today. It's totally different student body, subject matter.

http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=585832&postcount=158 you can read your posts in that thread two yrs ago ... heres a tidbit :

I still stand by this. If SRT were to average 70 in Tests then he'd statistically be the PRESENT-DAY equivlant of DGB. Of course 70 is an arbitrary number, but he'd be so far ahead of the next guy such as Kallis or Ponting that his super-emulation of his peers would be complete. It still wouldn't mean SRT is the GOAT; it still wouldn't mean DGB isn't the GOAT. GOAT is a myth. What it would mean is that SRT's emulation of his peers would be equivalent of what DGB did to his peers.

[yoda]

I don't buy this, since for example, you can't compare the matriculate of the 1990s with someone in the 1920s. The exam paper of the 20s may look laughable today, doesn't mean the guys were dumb then. They were as smart as any other student of that day. It's not Class X vs JEE, but's like the India Civil Service of the Raj vs the IAS exam of today. It's totally different student body, subject matter. I still stand by this. If SRT were to average 70 in Tests then he'd statistically be the PRESENT-DAY equivlant of DGB. Of course 70 is an arbitrary number, but he'd be so far ahead of the next guy such as Kallis or Ponting that his super-emulation of his peers would be complete.

+1 BTW, the exact same explanation has been given to BB and others by me in the past, but for some reason, it doesn't seem to sink in. Good luck with your attempt. :nice:

[ananthd]

Ananthd, I notice you are using the theory of flat pitches, better protection, bouncer rule, cannibalization of bowlers as valid argument to say that the stats of the modern batsmen are bloated up. Would you then agree to the converse that the bowlers who still manage to have a good stats inspite of "flat pitches, better protection, bouncer rule, cannibalization of bowlers" are better than the previous generations?

Absolutely. I think today's bowlers have the toughest job of all time. But there are few with great stats though. Today you'll rarely find active bowlers averaging below 25. Exceptions such as Steyn are there. But he's an honorable exception. This was common even in the 90s. Very rare today. I can only think of Pollock, Murali, McGrath & Warne maybe. A guy like Ambrose(who was the last great W. Indian bowler) retired in 2000. Also, scoring rates are quicker even in Tests due to increasing forms of instant cricket. SRs are generally higher therefore for both batters & bowlers(due to the greater risk taking by the batters in general.

I'd rather you stick to your original point that comparison across eras is not possible than try to rationalize based on qualitative aspects because they imply the corollary must also be valid which would result in Dale Steyn being greatest ever fast bowler, Bhajji as greater than few others like Underwood, Bedi, etc

Dale Steyn is one of the greatest, so far. The only question is, will he become an Ian Bishop or a Curtley Ambrose. Bhajji OTOH, is not the greatest, but he wasted some of his talent, IMHO, since he had potential to be even better than Murali. He doesn't attack often enough in my opinion. He'll be patchy for a few games, then suddenly come up with a 5wpi or an 8wpm. This is what I think is the difference between him and a guy like Kumble or Warne who were more consistent throughout their careers. Let me put it this way: Bhaj was more like Lara, Kumble more like Sach. He's of course statistically one of the best.

Edit - To re-emphasize the point here is another perspective. Quoting you, Similar would be the proportion of the best bowling figures as well. Does it mean bowlers post 89 are the best ever? I can agree to the 90s being best ever but not > 2000s as best ever.

I don't think so. I think you won't find too many great bowling performances post 90 or atleast the proportion would be reversed(pre-89). Ofcourse you'll find Kumble's 10fer, Murali, Warne etc there., but I still the proportion would be reversed.

To answer this question, "As to why 40 of the 79 top scores in Tests seem to be scored in this period?". It is more likely because the number of tests played since 1989 are in the same range as between 1903 and 1989.

You could be right. I still think there were more Tests played pre-89, but I agree in general the volume is higher since there are more nations playing these days. However, you'll also not only find the proportion of tall scores higher post 90, but likely the average also. I mean Sober's record has been eclipsed 4 times in the last few years, with post 90 batters dominating the triple hundred charts.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[ananthd]

Thanks for acknowledging that the bowlers were mediocre during Bradmans times. Regarding DGB's record being significantly higher than the rest ... yes nobody is questioning that and perhaps if we do a really detailed and excruciating research we may find some evidence as to why. My money is on Techniques and Amateur Era that limits competition. Times were very hard then and pursuing sports wasnt really economically viable for people to follow thereby restricting the talent pool. And ofcourse there were really only 2 countries that played cricket seriously and even there cricket was not the first choice sport.

DGB was from a small town and of modest means. How come aristocrat cricketers weren't able to use the best coaches to better him?

But I have a very basic question : How can anybody take his record which is a product of beating up modest bowlers and then say that he was the best?

Who says he is? Why do you keep drawing that conclusion? The only thing I'm concluding regarding DGB is that his domination of his peers has been something unseen/before or since. It is you seem, who seem to be making that leap that I'm concluding Bradman is the GOAT.

Any serious cricket fan would want to know how a great batsman did against Top quality bowling on different surfaces. And in todays times in different formats. Bradmans record has no answers to such pointed questions. So Why are the standards soo lenient for Bradman ?

Not so. DGB did face the BEST bowling of HIS TIME and the BEST VARIETY in terms of playing surfaces of his time. I'm sure you can take something like Bodyline to provoke discussion on this. But to what end?

But when it comes to Tendulkar all sorts of Trolls come out of their woodwork and start asking things like : hey you know between 2004 and 2007 he had only X runs and Y centuries and his away average was crap if you exclude Bangladesh hence he is just ordinary. Shall we do the same to Bradman ?

Sure feel free to do so with DGB. Once again I'm not belittling Sachin. To me he's the greatest of the past quarter century. The whole thing started with my defense of IVAR for the ODI team. However, I still say to call someone the greatest is impossible in anything(unless it is intellectual such as Number Theory or Particle Physics or Chess where their theorems/body of work can be objectively analyzed today).

Iam talking about Class X of todays time with IIT of today. If you want another analogy then this bradman situation is like someone saying hey you know I have this piece of metal that was considered as Gold during my Grandfathers time so why don't you treat it as Gold now ? So what if the Goldsmith says its not Gold it WAS considered as Gold many years ago.

No. Nobody is saying SRT needs to average a 100. That's the equivalent of "Gold during my Grandfathers time so why don't you treat it as Gold now". All I'm saying is if Tendulkar were to average something like 15 points above his nearest guy, he'd be the equivalent of Bradman's domination OF HIS TIME, which was about 45 points above his nearest guy.

If you stand by it then it means that you have nominated Bradman as the best there ever was (as there is nobody that averages 70 today) thereby contradicting yourself.

No I'm not. Don't make the leap. I'm saying Bradman's domination of his time is equivalent to someone averaging 70 today. Does NOT mean DGB is the greatest. Just that DGB dominated like no one else.

But this evaluation process which is based on batting average alone is a non starter because Today a batsman is not just measured by Averages ...A batting average of 50 is just a basic qualifier and beyond that many many more parameters are considered and evaluated. Chief amongst them are ability to play on different surfaces and different formats against top bowlers etc etc . And sadly for Bradman there is no data for these aspects as he never played anywhere else other than England. Its not his fault but you cant simply arbitrarily reduce the bar and dilute the level playing field.

Of course it's not just BA. But the BA is still the single most important number for a batter(in Test cricket). Also you can only by what is available for DGB's time to compare himself to HIS PEERS. He apparently played in similar surfaces to his competition and did extraordinarily well. Anyway, my choice still is Richards for ODIs, SRT for Tests(Between the 2!). They'll be 1 & 2 for my ODI team though!

[The Outsider]

the distance traveled will be lesser as he is playing on the front foot so not a good sample ... plus I get different readings ... anyhow here is the original video ... download it and try the yorker again. as you are stepping thru the frames you can see the dark ball clearly as it is in the white background of the pad which corresponds to the frame you posted. http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QFMGYQQC

Front foot? You really are getting desperate. The guy's front foot is stuck on the crease and he plays the ball from there. Can't you see his front foot cutting the crease through the tears of desperation which have included : a) Can't say when shot was played, even though it's clear that the frame is after the shot b) Some sophistry about shadows c) Front foot which is cutting the crease. So here is another one - 0.47 seconds and the ball is past the crease, so the distance would have to be adjusted accordingly. No confusion of bat, foot here. But I will wait for the next desperate measure, now. Also, the frame rate of the video is 25 fps - something which when pointed out by others you had tried to deny by comparing to Charlie Chaplin movies. The video owners themselves claim a frame rate of 25, so the only Charlie Chaplin here appears to be you, who was able to make authoritative statements about the frame rate with his 'trained' eye.

[Crookbond]

Front foot? You really are getting desperate. The guy's front foot is stuck on the crease and he plays the ball from there. Can't you see his front foot cutting the crease through the tears of desperation which have included : a) Can't say when shot was played, even though it's clear that the frame is after the shot b) Some sophistry about shadows c) Front foot which is cutting the crease. So here is another one - 0.47 seconds and the ball is past the crease, so the distance would have to be adjusted accordingly. No confusion of bat, foot here. But I will wait for the next desperate measure, now. Also, the frame rate of the video is 25 fps - something which when pointed out by others you had tried to deny by comparing to Charlie Chaplin movies. The video owners themselves claim a frame rate of 25, so the only Charlie Chaplin here appears to be you, who was able to make authoritative statements about the frame rate with his 'trained' eye.

Don't worry you won't be disappointed. Coffee table experts would be planning their next saas-bahu move soon.

[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)

Richards - for his ability to play quicks better, handle pressure better and dismantle bowling attacks As you can see from the record above, throw in two AT level bowlers and Ten is likely to struggle. The reasons for such a struggle could be many including pressure. We have seen on occasions his inability to finish thing off (Test against Pak for example), comparatively poor 2nd innings avg earlier on. In ODIs too, he could not pick himself up in the two WC finals (probably the two greatest ODI games of his life). If someone were to be touted as the greatest batsman then you have to look at other stuff as well besides technique and how great he looks when hitting a straight drive And if anyone is planning to make dumb arguments to say that the above record doesn't matter, please read the following: * The record above considers the sum (the total number of innings against these bowlers) and not just its parts. So if your point is 'he played 4 tests against Pak', then it doesn't count as those innings are only a part of the total of 31 innings. If due to some unfortunate circumstances, he could not deliver against one team, he had the opportunity to make it up against other bowlers. Which isn't the case. * Keep arguments like 'oh that doesn't show he can't play those bowlers' to discuss cricket with your girlfriend. What's important is that his performance level goes down when you have two AT level bowlers in the opposition. And there could be other reasons (ability to handle pressure) for it besides how good you are with the bat against them. There is no need to say that these bowlers have the ability to put batsmen under pressure. You are expecting some good balls being bowled at you and ofc quite a few appeals. * His performance in draws/wins when playing against these bowlers isn't great either. Avg falls to 32 (from 40). This could show that when Ind is expected to not do well , he is under less pressure and thus does well comparatively but in scenarios where a win/draw is possible/expected, he couldn't deliver. In fact, from the record one can deduce that its the others in the team who stood up to win/draw games against the teams with these bowlers. Despite being one of the great batsman of AT, I would hesitate to pick Tendulkar over some of the other greats when playing against a team with AT bowlers because like Karan in Mahabharata, his skills fail to make a difference when the moment arrives. /closed

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Lurker]

Proff, At this point you need to decide how you want to continue this discussion w.r.t being courteous and general ettiquettes. You have largely two choices ( i.e if you even want to respond to my posts ) 1. Continue being Hostile, juvenile puerile and generally reduce the thread to a free for all slanging match. 2. Talk cordially without throwing insults put downs and such.

3. You(Proff) can realize that I (BB) is equal part intellactual dishonest and equal part moron who calculates speed of Lindwall by his Oxford-Cambridge-MIT backed methodologies and proudly claims to decipher what smartest Alecs dont. In other words Proff you can save your Sunday and maybe watch ongoing World Cup FIFA female soccer match between US-Brazil than spending time arguing with a sanaki budhao Bas mera $.02c :hatsoff:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[punjabi_khota]

:WTF: is this thread

[Lurker]

yo you ***k face m@@darchodd harmakhor ... that method was suggested by him ... and your bones are as ancient as mine ... either that or you were making statements about having followed Kapil / SMG from your ass.

Arre kya bandhu main to aapke MIT-Cambridge method ki taareef kar reha tha. :hysterical: Seriously though, do you realize how amateurish stupid you sound trying to calculate the speed of yesteryear greats via online videos of 1940s etc?? These videos have been around for ages, do you seriously think the best in the business have even tried what you do routinely downloading some crappy freeware and trying to come across as an expert :giggle: By the by whats with your defensive mechanism via sanaki budhao part? Which part hurt home more? Sanaki part or budhao part..or both :giggle: Do share so I can continue to use this hereon. By the by I am busy watching the game and highlights that I just talked about so dont wait with baited breath on my response :--D