carnish Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 But Sachin scored more runs in more matches' date=' doesnt that count? would you rahter someone score winning 100s for 2 match or winning 50 for 5 match? Who is better?[/quote'] see sachin has the advantage of playing since a very young age.... no doubt he had the talents and i dont doubt he is the best Indian batsman ever... but just because one scores more by playing more innings doesnot make him better because the other guy had he been given those number of chances could have been better... Just because ponting has scored 12K runs he doesnot become better than Bradman although the discussion would be true for sachin.. :winky:
carnish Posted November 17, 2011 Posted November 17, 2011 Going back to your list any reason why you left out Tendulkars 155 ? Selective thinking perhaps as MTC , CT , akshay and others have explained in a much better way ? BTW which list are you talking about cause in this thread i remember posting onli one list and that was about VVS... havent listed any list of tendulkars innings .... just mentioned about them. Anyways as usual i am a bit lazy to check so point it out and i can maybe remember why i left it out. And dont worry i have added that innings in my last post with sachin's stats... enjoy
Vijay.Sharma Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 This is what I have been saying in so many other posts. The keyboard warriors have really started that rage agianst Sachin now' date=' stating that Dravid played in tough condiotions in England and Sachin failed. What they don't realize is that Sachin has been scoring runs in the same tough conditions when Dravid was faltering. I have nothing against Dravid, but this Sachin bashing , when Dravid scores,is what I hate.[/quote']In fact even in England series if you look at the averages for the second innings Sachin leaves Dravid behind just like how a Buddha leaves a mere mortal man behind. Yes, yes, it is in the very series when Rahul scored 3 centuries and Sachin none.
Vijay.Sharma Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Carnish beta, here is a pretty detailed analysis of 20 All Time Great batsmen of Test Cricket (folks, forgive my indulgence) http://tinyurl.com/7nwkhm7 Please go through the project...of course the project was done before the start of the season so it won't contain numbers from Tests in the 2011 season. Hopefully all your myths about Sachin's inability to win games, save games, put up a fight in games, on difficult pitches, on easy pitches, against best bowlers, against lalloo bowlers, against top teams, against minnows, etc, etc, etc, etc will be busted.
CSK Fan Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 see sachin has the advantage of playing since a very young age.... no doubt he had the talents and i dont doubt he is the best Indian batsman ever... but just because one scores more by playing more innings doesnot make him better because the other guy had he been given those number of chances could have been better... Just because ponting has scored 12K runs he doesnot become better than Bradman although the discussion would be true for sachin.. :winky: A guy scoring at a consitant rate for a longer period is definitive better. the key here is consitant rate. Sachin still average more than Ponting, Lara and Dravid despite playing longer and thats key Plus its common sense that its easier to excel in a small number of mathces. Yousuf, Younis are prime examples. According to your logic they are better tha Ponting, Sachin, Laral, Richard Cricket is rife with examples where few good batsmen had an amazing run for a couple of years. going by your logic, even Kambli is better than Dravid as longetivity doesnt matter at all. Kambli just didnt get as many chances as Dravid and Ponting or he would have outscored both
pensionplan Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Carnish beta, here is a pretty detailed analysis of 20 All Time Great batsmen of Test Cricket (folks, forgive my indulgence) http://tinyurl.com/7nwkhm7 Load of BS?
SachDan Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Load of BS? Can't be any worse than your bs posts.
Vijay.Sharma Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Load of BS?I would've respected your comment had you tried to provide reasons for saying why it is BS. We all have opinions. Now I have presented my opinion with the backing of some little bit of analysis that I mustered up. You could just be a little more thoughtful and possibly specify where the BS is. Also, provide an alternative way of looking at it to improve the analysis, maybe?
Sachin=GOD Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Load of BS? yeah, yeah, we know all of your posts are just loads of BS - you don't need to tell us.
carnish Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 A guy scoring at a consitant rate for a longer period is definitive better. the key here is consitant rate. Sachin still average more than Ponting, Lara and Dravid despite playing longer and thats key Plus its common sense that its easier to excel in a small number of mathces. Yousuf, Younis are prime examples. According to your logic they are better tha Ponting, Sachin, Laral, Richard Cricket is rife with examples where few good batsmen had an amazing run for a couple of years. going by your logic, even Kambli is better than Dravid as longetivity doesnt matter at all. Kambli just didnt get as many chances as Dravid and Ponting or he would have outscored both Laxman is playing consistently since 10 years... what do you want from the guy and i never said that he is better than sachin i just said that he handles pressure better... why do you want to show that i am an anti-sachin person or something like that... i have said it many times that sachin is a better bat than dravid or laxman.... what i dont agree is he bats better under pressure..just that much... where comes question of longevity or few years and better stats... All i said in games we lost laxman has very poor average and has probably never had a good innings apart from sydney 1999 and so basically in games he hasnt performed it has been hard for IND. However in case of sachin in games we lost he has a higher average meaning he has batted well yet hasnt been able to help IND win or atleast save the games...
carnish Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Carnish beta, here is a pretty detailed analysis of 20 All Time Great batsmen of Test Cricket (folks, forgive my indulgence) http://tinyurl.com/7nwkhm7 Please go through the project...of course the project was done before the start of the season so it won't contain numbers from Tests in the 2011 season. Hopefully all your myths about Sachin's inability to win games, save games, put up a fight in games, on difficult pitches, on easy pitches, against best bowlers, against lalloo bowlers, against top teams, against minnows, etc, etc, etc, etc will be busted. sorry vijay ji... abhi i dont have so much time to go through that... but i will read that when i have some free time definitely... thanks for sharing... appreciate your hardwork.
MCcricket Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 I have watched the Indian team bat , it was then that I became a fan of Ganguly as a spectator u see a good ball being bowled and with a slight moment which u would think is a pust by the batsmen and then u will see the fielder picking up ball from the boundry ropes, he had superb timing.I would love to watch live 1 Lara 2 Richards 3 Laxman 4 Sehwag 5 Tendulkar.
CSK Fan Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 Laxman is playing consistently since 10 years... what do you want from the guy and i never said that he is better than sachin i just said that he handles pressure better... why do you want to show that i am an anti-sachin person or something like that... i have said it many times that sachin is a better bat than dravid or laxman.... what i dont agree is he bats better under pressure..just that much... where comes question of longevity or few years and better stats... All i said in games we lost laxman has very poor average and has probably never had a good innings apart from sydney 1999 and so basically in games he hasnt performed it has been hard for IND. However in case of sachin in games we lost he has a higher average meaning he has batted well yet hasnt been able to help IND win or atleast save the games... can you provide those numbers? I think you are making stuff up. Also compare those numbers when both played together
ganeshran Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 All i said in games we lost laxman has very poor average and has probably never had a good innings apart from sydney 1999 and so basically in games he hasnt performed it has been hard for IND. However in case of sachin in games we lost he has a higher average meaning he has batted well yet hasnt been able to help IND win or atleast save the games... What a load of crap :facepalm: Atleast bother to check the numbers before posting. SRT has an average of 66 in the matches we won as opposed to 51 in matches we lost VVS has an average of 55 in won matches as opposed to 42 in lost/draw/Tied matches Win matches Lost/Draw/NR/Tied
CSK Fan Posted November 18, 2011 Posted November 18, 2011 What a load of crap :facepalm: Atleast bother to check the numbers before posting. SRT has an average of 66 in the matches we won as opposed to 51 in matches we lost VVS has an average of 55 in won matches as opposed to 21 in lost/draw/Tied matches Win matches Lost/Draw/NR/Tied I am sure if you take the last five years when we became no 1, Sachin's win average will go up while loss will go down http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=20;qualval1=matches;result=1;spanmax2=19+Nov+2011;spanmin2=19+Nov+2006;spanval2=span;team=6;template=results;type=batting
Mariyam Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 Since we're still dabbling with numbers and in the realm of advanced trigonometric equations to zero in on the purported greatness of Viv and Sachin, heres another method: The Impact Index It has been discussed in greater detail in this thread. Here is the article. According to this school of mathematics, King ViV is greatest ODI player ever According to the 'impact index' , this is how the cricketers stack up #1 Sir Viv Richards #2 Imran Khan #3 Richard Hadlee #4 Adam Gilchrist #5 Ian Botham #6 Hansie Cronje #7 A Flintoff #8 Jacques Kallis #9 Kapil Dev #10 Carl Hooper #11 S Jayasuria #12 Shaun Pollock #13 M S Dhoni #14 Lance Klusner #15 Wasim Akram #16 Shane Watson #17 Chris Cairns #18 S Tendulkar #19 Chris Gayle #20 Joel Garner #21 Jeremy Coney #22 S O'Donnel #23 S Afridi #24 Lance Cairns #25 Heath Streak The way the impact index works is that players are given an impact rating from 0-5 for every game they play. A rating of 1 indicates that the player has performed equivalent to the effort of one player in that game. A rating of 5 ( max rating) indicates that the player has done equivalent to 5 peoples work in that game. :shock: The basic philosophy behind the new performance measurement system is that in a team game how well you have done has to be seen in the context of how much it helped your team win, which after all is the ultimate objective of whatever you do as a cricketer. Hence, it measures performance in a match on a 0 to 5 scale, which roughly translates into saying that someone who gets a score of 3 on this scale contributed the equivalent of what three people did in that particular game and so on. Note: Lest you people accuse of favouritism and taking sides in this arguement, let me declare that the above are not my views. For I have none. I'm just regurgitating what I once came across on a newspaper. According to these people, Viv Richards is the greatest ODI player and Sachin is the 17th greatest ODI player.
pensionplan Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 What a load of crap :facepalm: Atleast bother to check the numbers before posting. SRT has an average of 66 in the matches we won as opposed to 51 in matches we lost VVS has an average of 55 in won matches as opposed to 42 in lost/draw/Tied matches How do the numbers look in Won matches if we take BD out a proven minnow out of the mix?
zen Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 How do the numbers look in Won matches if we take BD out a proven minnow out of the mix? Link Since Dravid, lax man and ganguly burst into the scene
ganeshran Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 How do the numbers look in Won matches if we take BD out a proven minnow out of the mix? ok
pensionplan Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 Link Since Dravid, lax man and ganguly burst into the sceneHa...That clears it up a bit without BD, ZIM in the mix.
Recommended Posts