Sachin Tendulkar or Vivian Richards?

[pensionplan]

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.

I do not know how you are allowed to roam free with all these tirades. I am not sure what your contributions are here but if I were a mod you would have been history a long time back. First learn how to take things with a pinch of salt if you want to post on a forum or else sit on the sidelines and just be a passive participant.

[pensionplan]

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:

By the way that goal by the U.S.A to equalize in extra extra time was out of this World. Sad to see Brazil go out that way in penalty kicks.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Crookbond]

I do not know how you are allowed to roam free with all these tirades. I am not sure what your contributions are here but if I were a mod you would have been history a long time back. First learn how to take things with a pinch of salt if you want to post on a forum or else sit on the sidelines and just be a passive participant.

I concur. One can be a little snobbish but abusing is strictly off the radar IMHO. No matter what someone says, abuse should take a back seat. We talk about not abusing on the cricket field same should be followed on a cricket forum. Also, one must be honest enough to not blow off if one is wrong. Just be courteous enough to accept your follies and move on.

[zen]

ONXZJ_8xSac&feature=player_embedded Per Sangakara, during some charity game, Dravid told him that Lara (not Sachin) is the man (from (4.5 onwards in the clip above) Oh boy, it appears as if too much of 'Sachin is the greatest' and undermining the achievements of other greats by SRT fanatics and Indian media like cricketers visiting Ind being asked abt Tendulkar being the greatest like in the clip below: hS3Qg8U3dXA As they say every action has an equal and opposite reaction .... Too bad, that elements in Indian media and SRT fanatics are killing the golden goose in trying to portray him as the greatest :((

[akshayxyz]

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

abey chammak challo... the calculation of speed from video itself is not difficult.. the problem is with - accuracy of the calculation and even if the calculation is accurate within acceptable limits - the question is whether comparison of speeds of fast-bowlers is a valid argument to compare skills of batsmen across era!. Anyway, going by your other posts on ICF, i do not expect you do understand this. Ohh btw, I suggest you stay away from - arguing about 'crappiness of freewares' as put against 'best in the business' / 'professional' alternatives.

[pensionplan]

ONXZJ_8xSac&feature=player_embedded Per Sangakara, during some charity game, Dravid told him that Lara (not Sachin) is the man (from (4.5 onwards in the clip above) ((

I am surprised Sangakarra gave out RD's name there in the end(not a big deal though) but good to know what RD's views are and what his personal preference is between Lara and SRT.

[SachDan]

Sanga: "Sachin came,batted, got out..Brian Lara walks in.." Liar! Sachin was part of that Asian team but he didn't play that particular match. http://www.espncricinfo.com/tsunami/engine/current/match/66387.html

[gaurav92]

^Sanga :fail:

[div]

Sanga:haha:

[Prakat]

First with the toss and now this. :facepalm:

[mishra]

abey chammak challo... the calculation of speed from video itself is not difficult.. the problem is with - accuracy of the calculation and even if the calculation is accurate within acceptable limits - the question is whether comparison of speeds of fast-bowlers is a valid argument to compare skills of batsmen across era!. Anyway, going by your other posts on ICF, i do not expect you do understand this. Ohh btw, I suggest you stay away from - arguing about 'crappiness of freewares' as put against 'best in the business' / 'professional' alternatives.

There were two threads somewhere on icf with videos of Marshall hitting a ganju without helmet.... Ganju just rubbed his head and went on with batting And there was another one Akhtar hitting Kirsen/Lara wearing helmet. They needed medical assistance becasue ball broke the grill and hit them... Based on that i say Marshall the great was express phaast. Phast Bowlers before Malcom were even phaaaster. And batsmen who faced them were even greater. And test cricket/cricket was a treat to watch due to their superior skills.

[Lurker]

By the way that goal by the U.S.A to equalize in extra extra time was out of this World. Sad to see Brazil go out that way in penalty kicks.

Yep, that was smashing goal. I have personally been a bit of critic of women's football in this world cup with the standard at display, or lack thereof. But this was as good as any goal at any level.

[Bublu Bhuyan]

Sanga: "Sachin came,batted, got out..Brian Lara walks in.." Liar! Sachin was part of that Asian team but he didn't play that particular match. http://www.espncricinfo.com/tsunami/engine/current/match/66387.html

:haha::haha:

[Karan114]

Sanga: "Sachin came,batted, got out..Brian Lara walks in.." Liar! Sachin was part of that Asian team but he didn't play that particular match. http://www.espncricinfo.com/tsunami/engine/current/match/66387.html

Sangakkara :hysterical:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Vijay.Sharma]

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.

Yeah but consider this argument. If A averages 47 (including 14% of his innings as NO) with a SR of 90 over 167 innings is great. Then what is the status of B who averages 49 (including 25% NO) with an SR of 88 over 166 innings? What is the status of C who averages 51 (including 30% NO) with an SR of 88 over 131 innings? What is the status of D who averages 38 (including 15% NO) with an SR of 88 in 252 innings? I am sure each one of B, C, and D come close enough to A (except D has a lesser average) to be ODI greats. But if A was appointed the greatest based on his performance in 167 innings, surely you would consider a guy, E, who performed almost (to be precise at 96% of Viv's average with at least 5% less number of NOs than Viv [buddha has 9% NO], and an SR which is 96% of Viv's SR) as good as Viv BUT maintained such high performance for 2.67 times that Viv could. Wouldn't it be more rational to anoint E as the best ever? The ONLY argument favoring A over E is the subjective argument that A had swagger...he played without helmet, he chewed gum, etc, etc, etc (and there are counter arguments as well). No doubt that is valid (and so will the counter arguments be). But my suggestion, please don't use stats to back up the claim because you will fail miserably. Per me, I rate the Buddha as the Buddha of Batting be it Test cricket or ODI cricket. Kings, Emperors, Princes, Nawabs, Sultans, Express Trains all these come after the Buddha. The Buddha is the zenith and possibly the Don (by sheer weight of numbers because honestly none of us have seen him play) can be elevated to stand in the shade of the Boudh Gaya tree under which the Buddha meditates. I rate, Ricky Pawning as good as if not better than Viv in ODI. I have seen all of Viv's defining innings of the mid-late 80s...right from his 189, his 181, his last ODI cent at Rajkot - that was brutal, and a few others too. But for sheer savagery, Kapil and Botham were better in my book (just a subjective opinion...also a bias for Kapil coz he be me hero and he the only guy who brought a worried look on Richards' face) People who do not accept the Buddha as the Buddha of Batting will never accept him...no matter how rational an argument you present them. All they will do is throw up one candidate after another to fight the Buddha and lose it. Same case goes for the Buddha acceptors. The better propaganda (no it is not to be interpreted as an evil thing. propaganda simply means 'marketing of an opinion'. Help me with a better word and I'll use that.) will end up defining the History that future generations will learn. And over here, I am sorry the Buddha naysayers are fighting a lost cause.

[Vijay.Sharma]

I'll not discuss the subjective things coz there it is, 'to each his own'.

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.

How about we use actual data to clarify this? Can you please substantiate this with some real data. And while doing so, lets not go into decimal points and say 13.31 > 13.26 so I am right you are wrong. Let's define a band of significance. I propose 10% on either side. If both values fall within a range of 10% from each other then they can be deemed to be similar...no great difference. My take is the following: a. The number of high scores you see is because there is an increase in the volume of Tests being played b. Increase in Average has more to do with increase in scoring rates than supposed flatness or helmets or whatever else. While before the late 90s 200-250 per day was considered a god score, today 300 is bare minimum. Given the total number of batsmen who score these runs has remained constant, it quite clearly indicates that the by-product is an increase in batting average and an increase in bowling average as well. But, those increase in numbers is not trend setting or totally different from previous decades. Again, look back at proportions of total batsmen playing the game and it will be similar. i.e. Number of 40+ batsmen / total batsmen in 2000s is similar to number of 40+ batsmen / total batsmen in 1980s is simil;ar to number of 40+ batsmen / total batsmen in 1950s is similar to number of 40+ batsmen / total batsmen in 1930s. If you want you can change it to 50 or better still find out what the data sez for 40, 45, 50, 55, and 60. In fact, my hunch sez number of batsmen averaging 40+ / total batsmen will be the highest in 1930's and 1950s. Possibly lowest in 1990s. Also, I am considering figures only since 1920s after WW1 when cricket became a more balanced game than the bowler friendly thing it was until the time. If I am not wrong, the general eras of cricket are considered as follows: Before Great War: Bowling dominated, 1920s - end of 1950s: Battting dominated, and since 1960s it is considered balanced. I notice this thread has gone into different loops. I'd hope you can argue with me decently and keep it to the subject without having to use any derogatory or try to be funny. Please let me know if you'd wish to test your hypothesis.

[ananthd]

I'll not discuss the subjective things coz there it is, 'to each his own'. How about we use actual data to clarify this? Can you please substantiate this with some real data. And while doing so, lets not go into decimal points and say 13.31 > 13.26 so I am right you are wrong. Let's define a band of significance. I propose 10% on either side. If both values fall within a range of 10% from each other then they can be deemed to be similar...no great difference. My take is the following: a. The number of high scores you see is because there is an increase in the volume of Tests being played b. Increase in Average has more to do with increase in scoring rates than supposed flatness or helmets or whatever else. While before the late 90s 200-250 per day was considered a god score, today 300 is bare minimum. Given the total number of batsmen who score these runs has remained constant, it quite clearly indicates that the by-product is an increase in batting average and an increase in bowling average as well. But, those increase in numbers is not trend setting or totally different from previous decades. Again, look back at proportions of total batsmen playing the game and it will be similar. i.e. Number of 40+ batsmen / total batsmen in 2000s is similar to number of 40+ batsmen / total batsmen in 1980s is simil;ar to number of 40+ batsmen / total batsmen in 1950s is similar to number of 40+ batsmen / total batsmen in 1930s. If you want you can change it to 50 or better still find out what the data sez for 40, 45, 50, 55, and 60. In fact, my hunch sez number of batsmen averaging 40+ / total batsmen will be the highest in 1930's and 1950s. Possibly lowest in 1990s. Also, I am considering figures only since 1920s after WW1 when cricket became a more balanced game than the bowler friendly thing it was until the time. If I am not wrong, the general eras of cricket are considered as follows: Before Great War: Bowling dominated, 1920s - end of 1950s: Battting dominated, and since 1960s it is considered balanced. I notice this thread has gone into different loops. I'd hope you can argue with me decently and keep it to the subject without having to use any derogatory or try to be funny. Please let me know if you'd wish to test your hypothesis.

Vijay, I don't get personal. It's very easy to be brave behind a keyboard and the things we discuss after all not so important in the grand scheme of things. I'll try digging up stats. It will be interesting to see. I don't think it's as balanced as you think since the 60s, especially since 2K.

[ananthd]

Yeah but consider this argument. If A averages 47 (including 14% of his innings as NO) with a SR of 90 over 167 innings is great. Then what is the status of B who averages 49 (including 25% NO) with an SR of 88 over 166 innings? What is the status of C who averages 51 (including 30% NO) with an SR of 88 over 131 innings? What is the status of D who averages 38 (including 15% NO) with an SR of 88 in 252 innings? I am sure each one of B, C, and D come close enough to A (except D has a lesser average) to be ODI greats. But if A was appointed the greatest based on his performance in 167 innings, surely you would consider a guy, E, who performed almost (to be precise at 96% of Viv's average with at least 5% less number of NOs than Viv [buddha has 9% NO], and an SR which is 96% of Viv's SR) as good as Viv BUT maintained such high performance for 2.67 times that Viv could. Wouldn't it be more rational to anoint E as the best ever? The ONLY argument favoring A over E is the subjective argument that A had swagger...he played without helmet, he chewed gum, etc, etc, etc (and there are counter arguments as well). No doubt that is valid (and so will the counter arguments be). But my suggestion, please don't use stats to back up the claim because you will fail miserably. Per me, I rate the Buddha as the Buddha of Batting be it Test cricket or ODI cricket. Kings, Emperors, Princes, Nawabs, Sultans, Express Trains all these come after the Buddha. The Buddha is the zenith and possibly the Don (by sheer weight of numbers because honestly none of us have seen him play) can be elevated to stand in the shade of the Boudh Gaya tree under which the Buddha meditates. I rate, Ricky Pawning as good as if not better than Viv in ODI. I have seen all of Viv's defining innings of the mid-late 80s...right from his 189, his 181, his last ODI cent at Rajkot - that was brutal, and a few others too. But for sheer savagery, Kapil and Botham were better in my book (just a subjective opinion...also a bias for Kapil coz he be me hero and he the only guy who brought a worried look on Richards' face) People who do not accept the Buddha as the Buddha of Batting will never accept him...no matter how rational an argument you present them. All they will do is throw up one candidate after another to fight the Buddha and lose it. Same case goes for the Buddha acceptors. The better propaganda (no it is not to be interpreted as an evil thing. propaganda simply means 'marketing of an opinion'. Help me with a better word and I'll use that.) will end up defining the History that future generations will learn. And over here, I am sorry the Buddha naysayers are fighting a lost cause.

Vijay, I've always maintained that Viv was a personal choice over SRT. Viv's stats are mentioned since they buttress an argument that he wasn't merely a sentiemental choice but had some claim to greatness. The personal choice was due to his batting style and some live viewing in a Test match and of course a lot of video. He was an outlier for his time. No batter came close to him when he played(except for Zed who has a similar avg & sr for about a third of Viv's games). And why are we talking about Dhoni, Hussey, Ponting etc and comparing them with Richards numbers? These guys played 20 years apart! Tendulkar atleast a part of his career coincides with these guys. The OP's question was Tendulkar or Richards and my choice was Richards, who I still think dominated One Day cricket like DGB did for Tests. Again, there will some who'll say I'm arguing Richards or the Don as the greatest. I'm not claiming that.