Sachin Tendulkar or Vivian Richards?

[CSK Fan]

So what I learned from this thread is that in 21 years of career, only thing which matters is the 2 world cup finals. So i am just sending a mail to ICC requesting them to scrap all other meaningless ODIs, including quarter finals and semis of world cup. Lets put all team names in a hat and draw two to play the final. Then the whole world can watch the all important final and not waste times with other matches

[The Outsider]

So what I learned from this thread is that in 21 years of career' date=' only thing which matters is the 2 world cup finals. So i am just sending a mail to ICC requesting them to scrap all other meaningless ODIs, including quarter finals and semis of world cup. Lets put all team names in a hat and draw two to play the final. Then the whole world can watch the all important final and not waste times with other matches[/quote'] Instead what you should have learned is that if the overall career performance of two players is too close to call, then there is nothing wrong in preferring the one who performed in World Cup finals as opposed to the one who failed.

[CSK Fan]

Which ever way the fanboys sugar coat it and put all the if's and but's around it Sachin is not as clean a strker and a power hitter in the league of a Viv or Gilly that would have players scurry for shelter. That does not make Sachin a bad One day player excepting the other two are more feared and could change the course of a game in a matter of a few overs than Sachin ever could when one looks at their careers and no wonder the teams that had these two turned out to be the best ever when they played and that is not a coincidence. They were very much the reason for that.

Gilly had an amazing opener in Hayden, a Ponting who could build long innings, a Beaven and then a Hussey who could finsih the game. Sachin for a long time was all of these rolled into one. He had to maintain the strike rate, had to build long innings, had to finsih the match or people will still screw it up I know very well you are aware of all these facts but deliberately ignoring it. Also the fact that before 99, Sachin was as destructive as Gilly and could play longer innings. In fact his innings of strike rate over 120 would be more than the number of innings Gilly had in his career. Ignore this too, because Sachin's batting was only what you saw in the last 5 years, not him as a youngster when bowlers literally used to have nightmares about him

[CSK Fan]

Instead what you should have learned is that if the overall career performance of two players is too close to call' date=' then there is nothing wrong in preferring the one who performed in World Cup finals as opposed to the one who failed.[/quote'] Even when the sample is one match for one. Yes, i get it, its like tossing a coin between the two, only tossing the coin is fairer and not loaded in favor of one so much than the other BTW lets also ignore the fact that in the second final, Sachin is at the *** end of his 21 years in cricket, not in his prime

[asterix]

Only a WWE/WWF match between SRT and VR can settle the issue now....

[akshayxyz]

last comment was not for you. I know you are a fanboy. It was for others as I supported SRT in that post' date= they may say I am another bhakt.:winky:

:yousuck: too.

[zen]

Only a WWE/WWF match between SRT and VR can settle the issue now....

haha, I can see the fanboys already thinking how unfair it would be :P

[Old guy]

Only a WWE/WWF match between SRT and VR can settle the issue now....

thats unfair.. have u even seen vr ? :omg:

[tothepoint]

In ODIs, Viv > Sachin , because Sachin never quite stood out like Viv did. In Tests, Sachin > Viv , because Viv never quite stood out like Sachin did in the 90s. Plus, Viv was just so pathetic in his last 5 years or so, averaging like 20-30s. Sachin cannot do worse than that, even if he retires when he will turn 50. So overall, Sachin > Viv because Tests > ODIs, but have respect for both. End of. :icflove: PS : Isn't this what everyone is saying out here?

[asterix]

haha' date=' I can see the fanboys already thinking how unfair it would be :P[/quote'] Aila! :giggle:

[pensionplan]

Gilly had an amazing opener in Hayden, a Ponting who could build long innings, a Beaven and then a Hussey who could finsih the game. Sachin for a long time was all of these rolled into one. He had to maintain the strike rate, had to build long innings, had to finsih the match or people will still screw it up I know very well you are aware of all these facts but deliberately ignoring it. Also the fact that before 99, Sachin was as destructive as Gilly and could play longer innings. In fact his innings of strike rate over 120 would be more than the number of innings Gilly had in his career. Ignore this too, because Sachin's batting was only what you saw in the last 5 years, not him as a youngster when bowlers literally used to have nightmares about him

I ignored nothing. SRT in ODI's always had a decent batting batting line up so all of what you are suggesting are excuses. All said and done Viv and Gilly are more feared and I bet on them to change the course of a game than Tendulkar more times than not.

[The Outsider]

Even when the sample is one match for one. Yes, i get it, its like tossing a coin between the two, only tossing the coin is fairer and not loaded in favor of one so much than the other

A sample size of two - yeah the odds were against him in '03, but Warne was bowling with a wet ball in '96 yet he was able to perform on the second attempt. Let me ask you a simple question - what kind of a sample size would make you happy for World Cup finals to be considered as a parameter in evaluating someone's career? If Tendulkar had scored a couple of centuries in these finals would you still say that the sample size is too small and ignore it while evaluating his career?

BTW lets also ignore the fact that in the second final, Sachin is at the *** end of his 21 years in cricket, not in his prime

McGrath was at the end of his career in the '07 WC final, Imran was at the end of his in '92. So, in '03 it was because the target was too large and in '11 it was because he was at the end of his career (he was the second highest scorer of the tournament)?

[rkt.india]

Gilly had an amazing opener in Hayden, a Ponting who could build long innings, a Beaven and then a Hussey who could finsih the game. Sachin for a long time was all of these rolled into one. He had to maintain the strike rate, had to build long innings, had to finsih the match or people will still screw it up I know very well you are aware of all these facts but deliberately ignoring it. Also the fact that before 99, Sachin was as destructive as Gilly and could play longer innings. In fact his innings of strike rate over 120 would be more than the number of innings Gilly had in his career. Ignore this too, because Sachin's batting was only what you saw in the last 5 years, not him as a youngster when bowlers literally used to have nightmares about him

Agree.:two_thumbs_up:

[rkt.india]

:yousuck: too.

:cleveland:

[pensionplan]

Tendulkar's fanboys without proper reasoning claim that he is a better ODI bat than Viv who was stellar in finals all through his career WC or in other important ones. Yet when the opportunity presented itself for Tendulkar to be declared the greatest ODI batsman ever laid an egg in the 2003 final. They blame the bowlers for it. I say if you are the greatest you need to make more noise than that while chasing the stiff target. After all the greatest of them is expected to chase down big totals. No. Even if one were to discount that last year SRT got another shot to redeem himself. A lesser total to chase(275), better batting conditions and more importantly in your own backyard. What does he do? Being in very good form he falters only to be bailed out by GG, Kohli and then MSD eventually to save the day for us. I mean you got 2 shots in the finals and you did not do much and yet there were players who in the similar number of chances did something which is very rare. Score a century in the biggest stage of them all for a One day game. What is one supposed to do? Shrug it off and dismiss it as a fluke while we find excuses for Tendulkar. Come on now. These are players of the calibre of Viv and Gilly who mastered the format and when it mattered they scored centuries in the finals for their respective teams and won the WC. Ofcourse people will pick them over Tendulkar in ODI's.

[Sachinism]

Outsider, you decided that WC finals are most important because they're too close to call. But if you were given stats of how player A dominated player B in WC finals, but player B dominated player A everywhere else, wouldn't that WC final stat then become irrelevant? So while you made it the decider in choosing between the two, would you say its fair for someone else to reject that?

[The Outsider]

Coming to the topic of sample sizes - Tendulkar has played in 3 World Cup semifinals. That's also a statistically insufficient number, but because he has done well in those they are offered as examples of his success, rightly so if I may add. But in the interest of fairness his failures in World Cup finals with a sample size of two can't or shouldn't be ignored either.

[akshayxyz]

Tendulkar's fanboys without proper reasoning claim that he is a better ODI bat than Viv who was stellar in finals all through his career WC or in other important ones.

How do you evaluate importance?

Yet when the opportunity presented itself for Tendulkar to be declared the greatest ODI batsman ever laid an egg in the 2003 final. They blame the bowlers for it. I say if you are the greatest you need to make more noise than that while chasing the stiff target. After all the greatest of them is expected to chase down big totals. No. Even if one were to discount that last year SRT got another shot to redeem himself. A lesser total to chase(275), better batting conditions and more importantly in your own backyard. What does he do? Being in very good form he falters only to be bailed out by GG, Kohli and then MSD eventually to save the day for us. I mean you got 2 shots in the finals and you did not do much and yet there were players who in the similar number of chances did something which is very rare. Score a century in the biggest stage of them all for a One day game. What is one supposed to do? Shrug it off and dismiss it as a fluke while we find excuses for Tendulkar. Come on now. These are players of the calibre of Viv and Gilly who mastered the format and when it mattered they scored centuries in the finals for their respective teams and won the WC. Ofcourse people will pick them over Tendulkar in ODI's.

As if 1v1 comparisons were not enough. Now we need to club two players to compare against one.

[Sachinism]

The problem in general is that there is too much of lazy analysis. You've got people on both sides debating about players that they have never watched or followed. On one hand you have people who post random YouTube videos which obviously show players in great light. It leads people to believe that former players never failed while they see the weaknesses and failings of current players everyday. The others filter the **** out of statsguru to show that someone wasn't that good. Statsguru might show that Tendulkar got out just before the target but it won't tell you how he played the innings. You need to have watched the game for that. While we are on the topic of Tremlett, his dad Timothy presents an example of what I'm talking about. Hampshire had Roberts and later Marshall in their team. I think stats might show that Viv wasn't all that hot when he played them in county cricket. However, the man who troubled him (and also dismissed him a fair bit) was not Marshall or Roberts but Timothy Tremlett. A left armer called Southern also had a bit of success against him. There lies the problem with the "avg when xyz played" stat right there.

Reminds me of something Sidvee said in his article about RD

So if my grandson were to ask me about your batting, I would be lost. The only way anyone can begin to understand your craft is by watching you bat through a whole day, by experiencing your pain. There are no short cuts. There are a million links that pop up on YouTube when I type Á³ahul Dravid? All of them show you batting. None of them contain your essence. There is no Rahul Dravid in there.

Video highlights shows boundary balls and misses out everything in between that makes a player great

[The Outsider]

Outsider, you decided that WC finals are most important because they're too close to call. But if you were given stats of how player A dominated player B in WC finals, but player B dominated player A everywhere else, wouldn't that WC final stat then become irrelevant? So while you made it the decider in choosing between the two, would you say its fair for someone else to reject that?

Obviously, it would and you don't see me saying David Boon, Jayawardene, or DeSilva are better ODI players than Tendulkar because they performed better in World Cup finals, do you? But that's hardly the case between Richards and Tendulkar, where they are evenly matched across their careers. As for someone to reject it, anyone is welcome to reject whatever and I am not here imposing my opinion of Richards being better than Tendulkar in ODIs on someone. But if someone is going to ignore his failure in the finals then in the interest of fairness his success in semi finals should be ignored as well, because that's hardly a bigger sample size.