Sachin Tendulkar or Vivian Richards?

[yoda]

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

Didn't he have his highest career score at the *** end of his career? :winky:

[CSK Fan]

Didn't he have his highest career score at the *** end of his career? :winky:

He, he good point, caught me

[Cricket Tragic]

Statsguru has probably been the biggest bane of cricketing discussions. As someone who has followed the game very closely for so long, you would know that before the days of statsguru one formed an impression about a player by following his career through watching the game, reading about it from every source you could find and in general your reading of the game would be confirmed by statistics rather than be driven by them. Just in this thread people are talking about World Cup finals sample size being too small - we are not building a robust statistical model out here. We are discussing who succeeded and who did not in World Cup finals. No one is going to play a statistically significant number of World Cup finals in his career, so should performances in them not factor into rating players? Thanks for sharing that and that's something which cannot be gleamed from statsguru filters. For example, Tendulkar averages pretty much in the same range against McGrath/Gillespie, Akram/Waqar, and Donald/Pollock but if one has followed the matches it is easy to see that he never really struggled against Akram or Waqar despite having a lowish average in the matches they played. On the other hand McGrath and Donald did trouble him quite often. Statsguru is never going to tell you that.

It's one the reasons why I stay away from comparison threads. You have a bunch of people who don't know **** about the game. Re WC finals: Of course they count. I have no issues with people who use it as a tie-breaker. It doesn't mean a lot on its own though. Viv? Yes. You've got someone talking about Gilly. Now I can't agree with that. He was piss poor before the final across 2 WCs. Like a lot of players who have done well in a final (IV MS and RP), he failed in the previous 2 games before the final. Add to that, his career record does not warrant him being mentioned. A WC final knock cannot (and should not) overlook an entire career. The Tendulkar vs Akram argument is laughable. Anyone who watched cricket back then would know that. People who haven't are the only ones who need statsguru for that. According to Dravid, SRT never really saw Akram as a threat and always backed himself against him.

[The Outsider]

It's one the reasons why I stay away from comparison threads. You have a bunch of people who don't know **** about the game. Re WC finals: Of course they count. I have no issues with people who use it as a tie-breaker. It doesn't mean a lot on its own though. Viv? Yes. You've got someone talking about Gilly. Now I can't agree with that. He was piss poor before the final across 2 WCs. Like a lot of players who have done well in a final (IV MS and RP), he failed in the previous 2 games before the final. Add to that, his career record does not warrant him being mentioned. A WC final knock cannot (and should not) overlook an entire career.

Yeah, I agree and Gilchrist is not in the same notch as a batsman as Richards or Tendulkar. Firstly, his role was different. He was never the main batsman of the team - he was there to provide a quick start to the team and throw the opposition off their plans. If he did manage to go on and make a big score that was a bonus much like the roles of Sehwag and Jayasuriya have been. Though, his performances in World Cup finals are truly commendable he does not stand up to a comparison with Richards or Tendulkar who were more complete batsmen with their role in the team being to play as many overs as possible and shift through a variety of gears. A lot of people casually refer to Richards as a one dimensional player, but on occasions he would buckle down for a few overs to get through a tough phase. And yeah, World Cup finals certainly should not be used to compare players who have a significant difference in performance otherwise. Despite their great performances in World Cup finals, DeSilva, Boon, or Jayawardene should never warrant a serious comparison with Richards or Tendulkar.

The Tendulkar vs Akram argument is laughable. Anyone who watched cricket back then would know that. People who haven't are the only ones who need statsguru for that. According to Dravid, SRT never really saw Akram as a threat and always backed himself against him.

The Lara versus Tendulkar thread going on right now is a wonderful example of how statsguru has reduced a lot of cricketing discussion to numbers devoid of context - by filtering and filtering again people are trying to find out if the Zimbabwe bowling attack was comparable to India's during some arbitrary period of 1990-2002.:hysterical:

[pensionplan]

Re WC finals: Of course they count. I have no issues with people who use it as a tie-breaker. It doesn't mean a lot on its own though. Viv? Yes. You've got someone talking about Gilly. Now I can't agree with that. He was piss poor before the final across 2 WCs. Like a lot of players who have done well in a final (IV MS and RP), he failed in the previous 2 games before the final. Add to that, his career record does not warrant him being mentioned. A WC final knock cannot (and should not) overlook an entire career.

Assuming it was directed at me for the record I did not rate Gilly highly just because of his finals exploits in WC or just based on a few games here or there. He was someone who brought a new dimension to the game and who teams used to game plan around(setting unothodox fields at the onset to negate the Gilly threat). For you to rate someone as a dominant or a great oneday batsman may be they need to average 45 for others that may not be the criteria. May be the high S/R coupled with the impact they have on the game with a quickfire 60 or 70 for example could be enough to seal the deal. Besides Gilly did score 10k runs with a 96 S/R at a decent average which gives someone enough sample size to judge how special he was and why he was so feared while he was at the crease and the impact he had on matches.

[SachDan]

Ofcourse with such exploits Kapil went on to become the best cricketer India has ever produced and not Tendulkar.

Can you open another thread to discuss the greatest Indian cricketer instead of derailing this one?

sfs ke bolti bandh :giggle:

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[rkt.india]

We learn new things at ICF on a daily basis ... so today we learn that Viv Richards and Tendulkars ODI careers are "EVENLY matched" (just don't ask why and how ) . Small mercies that the same isn't being said about the test records.

Agree. Dont think Richards can be compared to SRT with regards to their career. Richards may have swagger and all and was a destructive batsman, but even List A career of Richards is not comparable to SRT's ODI career if we compare whole stats.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[pensionplan]

Agree. Dont think Richards can be compared to SRT with regards to their career. Richards may have swagger and all and was a destructive batsman' date=' but even List A career of Richards is not comparable to SRT's ODI career if we compare whole stats.[/quote']Good thing you brought List 'A' into this. Taking this a step fowrard when one looks at the combined First Class, List 'A', 20-20 (Richards never played the format nevertheless I want to include it given my percieved bias towards SRT - I admit it) the records are as follows. Richards - 53,207 runs. Tendulkar - 48,457 runs. So SRT needs another 5000 runs to catch up with IVAR. Of course without the swagger. Being a huge SRT fan I want him to get that record as well despite Viv being a better ODI batsman than SRT as per the majority of people here.

[SachDan]

Good thing you brought List 'A' into this. Taking this a step fowrard when one looks at the combined First Class, List 'A', 20-20 (Richards never played the format nevertheless I want to include it given my percieved bias towards SRT - I admit it) the records are as follows. Richards - 53,207 runs. Tendulkar - 48,457 runs. So SRT needs another 5000 runs to catch up with IVAR. Of course without the swagger. Being a huge SRT fan I want him to get that record as well despite Viv being a better ODI batsman than SRT as per the majority of people here.

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Stop embarassing yourself further mopfu :icflove:

[akshayxyz]

Agree. Dont think Richards can be compared to SRT with regards to their career. Richards may have swagger and all and was a destructive batsman' date=' but even[b'] List A career of Richards is not comparable to SRT's ODI career if we compare whole stats.

:giggle: Does that mean 80's List A matches were tougher than today's ODIs?

[akshayxyz]

Good thing you brought List 'A' into this. Taking this a step fowrard when one looks at the combined First Class, List 'A', 20-20 (Richards never played the format nevertheless I want to include it given my percieved bias towards SRT - I admit it) the records are as follows. Richards - 53,207 runs. Tendulkar - 48,457 runs. So SRT needs another 5000 runs to catch up with IVAR. Of course without the swagger. Being a huge SRT fan I want him to get that record as well despite Viv being a better ODI batsman than SRT as per the majority of people here.

picture abhi baaki hai dost..2-3k tou IPL mein hee ban jaayenge, and who knows Sachin already has that in mind. but anyway, what are your expert comments on viv's List A vs SRT's ODI... statistically speaking...

[saneindian]

Good thing you brought List 'A' into this. Taking this a step fowrard when one looks at the combined First Class, List 'A', 20-20 (Richards never played the format nevertheless I want to include it given my percieved bias towards SRT - I admit it) the records are as follows. Richards - 53,207 runs. Tendulkar - 48,457 runs. So SRT needs another 5000 runs to catch up with IVAR. Of course without the swagger. Being a huge SRT fan I want him to get that record as well despite Viv being a better ODI batsman than SRT as per the majority of people here.

Lets take this purely mathematical thing a little further Sachin across all formats, total 1062 innings, 48,457 runs@50, 139 100s Viv Richards across all formats, total 1262 innings, 53,207 runs@47, 140 100s If Sir Viv was to play the same number of innings as Sachin, his record would read 1062 innings 44762 runs@47 with 117 100s. Tailing by 4000 runs and 22 100s. :--D

[pensionplan]

Lets take this purely mathematical thing a little further Sachin across all formats, total 1062 innings, 48,457 runs@50, 139 100s Viv Richards across all formats, total 1262 innings, 53,207 runs@47, 140 100s If Sir Viv was to play the same number of innings as Sachin, his record would read 1062 innings 44762 runs@47 with 117 100s. Tailing by 4000 runs and 22 100s. :--D

But the fact remains that SRT has 5000 runs lesser than Viv at the moment. Let him score 5k more runs then we can debate. You never know if SRT will hit a lean patch that will have him hang up even before reaching the select 50k club let alone the 53k+ club. :-) As Bossbhai would say just because Lara scored his test runs in 15 lesser innings than SRT took to cross him does not guarantee that he would have scored many more Test runs than SRT had he played the same number of innings that Tendulkar has to date by the method of extrapolation because what a player is today cannot be tomorrow(for the better or the worse). So I demand the same standard be applied here(SRT vs Lara analogy) and see where things will end up once SRT is done playing. As the rest of the SRT fans I too would want SRT to go past the 54k mark in all formats clubbed together. :-)

[saneindian]

But the fact remains that SRT has 5000 runs lesser than Viv at the moment. Let him score 5k more runs then we can debate. You never know if SRT will hit a lean patch that will have him hang up even before reaching the select 50k club let alone the 53k+ club. :-) As Bossbhai would say just because Lara scored his test runs in 15 lesser innings than SRT took to cross him does not guarantee that he would have scored many more Test runs than SRT had he played the same number of innings that Tendulkar has to date by the method of extrapolation because what a player is today cannot be tomorrow(for the better or the worse). So I demand the same standard be applied here(SRT vs Lara analogy) and see where things will end up once SRT is done playing. As the rest of the SRT fans I too would want SRT to go past the 54k mark in all formats clubbed together. :-)

So that will make Viv a better batsmen than Sachin across all formats. Use the same logic and do say that Sachin is a better international test and ODI batsman than Viv. :)

[pensionplan]

picture abhi baaki hai dost..2-3k tou IPL mein hee ban jaayenge, and who knows Sachin already has that in mind.

I will be one of the happiest the day SRT crosses Viv. :-)

but anyway, what are your expert comments on viv's List A vs SRT's ODI... statistically speaking

Keeping aside the stats for a second since you asked for my comments the way I look at it is given the vast difference in S/R(one of the important metrics to judge batsman in the shorter formats) between Viv and the next best of his time when oneday game was in its infantary stages when he began added to the way Viv scored his runs and dominate games to me is the best ODI batsman ever. All this while maintaining a 40+ average(I think 47 average in ODI's) another metric to judge the consistency of a player over a span of time.

[pensionplan]

So that will make Viv a better batsmen than Sachin across all formats. Use the same logic and do say that Sachin is a better international test and ODI batsman than Viv. :)

I said nothing about who is better based on stats. All I posted were the numbers to counter a post without any qualifiers. You can refer to that post again if you want. :-)

[akshayxyz]

I will be one of the happiest the day SRT crosses Viv. :-) Keeping aside the stats for a second since you asked for my comments the way I look at it is given the vast difference in S/R(one of the important metrics to judge batsman in the shorter formats) between Viv and the next best of his time when oneday game was in its infantary stages when he began added to the way Viv scored his runs and dominate games to me is the best ODI batsman ever. All this while maintaining a 40+ average(I think 47 average in ODI's) another metric to judge the consistency of a player over a span of time.

I am not bothered about viv's ODI numbers anymore. I am curious to know, why such a dominant force in ODIs couldn't maintain performance over List A matches...whereas Sachin had better average in as many ODIs.

[velu]

I am not bothered about viv's ODI numbers anymore. I am curious to know' date=' why such a dominant force in ODIs couldn't maintain performance over List A matches...whereas Sachin had better average in as many ODIs.[/quote'] dont go by List 'A' or First Class stats :icflove: atleast 5 of our youngsta beauties average more than sachin :hatsoff: