Sachin Tendulkar or Vivian Richards?

[Cricket Tragic]

To quote (or paraphrase) Richie Benaud... The result of the game is irrelevant for me because I don't like the idea of penalising a player for the mediocrity of those around him.

[Ultimate_Game]

See that is the problem in these match-winning-knocks-under-pressure arguments.. He did his best and due to incompetence of the rest of the team, the value of the innings goes down in the eyes of 'experts'... I mean how can you evaluate player X's contribution based on what other 10 did ( or did not).

That has always been Tendulkar's burden. He was unfortunate that his team had pathetic bowling and that for majority of his career Tendulkar was the only batsman who won or saved games for India. If he had a similar bowling attack as Ponting or other players had, his knocks would have won lot more games than they did. As I mentioned for me that 136 against Pakistan, along with Gavaskar's 96 (though I only saw highlights as was too young that time) are one of the best knocks of all time - no matter they came in defeats.

[Sachin=GOD]

To quote (or paraphrase) Richie Benaud... The result of the game is irrelevant for me because I don't like the idea of penalising a player for the mediocrity of those around him.

Well, its the same with the haters - except that in case of Goddy, the haters see him and only him to be responsible for defeats!!!

[akshayxyz]

To quote (or paraphrase) Richie Benaud... The result of the game is irrelevant for me because I don't like the idea of penalising a player for the mediocrity of those around him.

++ When you reach that level, you enjoy watching the game even more. Ohh, and (in context of cricket) I have yet to reach there completely :(

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

That has always been Tendulkar's burden. He was unfortunate that his team had pathetic bowling and that for majority of his career Tendulkar was the only batsman who won or saved games for India. If he had a similar bowling attack as Ponting or other players had' date=' his knocks would have won lot more games than they did. As I mentioned for me that 136 against Pakistan, along with Gavaskar's 96 (though I only saw highlights as was too young that time) are one of the best knocks of all time - no matter they came in defeats.[/quote'] Majority of Indian batmen have played with comparatively weaker Bowling attack vs opposition's. For a part he played on surfaces which were designed to help Ind bowlers and make Ind win .... in his early part had support of likes of Azhar, sidhu, etc. Unless you think he was Ind's only good batsman from the day he made his debut .... Later on he had the luxury of being a part of the one of the best batting sides

[Ultimate_Game]

Majority of Indian batmen have played with comparatively weaker Bowling attack vs opposition's. For a part he played on surfaces which were designed to help Ind bowlers and make Ind win .... in his early part had support of likes of Azhar' date=' sidhu, etc. Unless you think he was Ind's only good batsman from the day he made his debut .... Later on he had the luxury of being a part of the one of the best batting sides[/quote'] In most of 90s Tendulkar was the only competent batsman away from sub-continent. Still remember I used to switch off TV occasionally once Tendulkar was dismissed. Azhar, Sidhu etc. were great at home but didn't really do much away.

[pensionplan]

To quote (or paraphrase) Richie Benaud... The result of the game is irrelevant for me because I don't like the idea of penalising a player for the mediocrity of those around him.

A certain Brian Charles Lara readily comes to mind as an example.

[Sachinism]

A certain Brian Charles Lara readily comes to mind as an example.

Alright then! Yet his 153 is always backed with 'but he won the game' I doubt you'll see the hypocrisy, but I thought I'd just point it out

[CSK Fan]

Majority of Indian batmen have played with comparatively weaker Bowling attack vs opposition's. For a part he played on surfaces which were designed to help Ind bowlers and make Ind win .... in his early part had support of likes of Azhar' date=' sidhu, etc. Unless you think he was Ind's only good batsman from the day he made his debut .... Later on he had the luxury of being a part of the one of the best batting sides[/quote'] Dravid scored 3 amazing 100s in England. Yet not one resulted in a win because the rest of the team didnt turn up. Was that Dravid's fault? Thats what Sachin had to deal with half of his career.

[CSK Fan]

A certain Brian Charles Lara readily comes to mind as an example.

Because of 1 match he won?

[zen]

Dravid scored 3 amazing 100s in England. Yet not one resulted in a win because the rest of the team didnt turn up. Was that Dravid's fault? Thats what Sachin had to deal with half of his career.

I only pointed to the side where it is being made out as if Tendulkar never had any kind of support or Ind never had decent batsman in Tendulkar's early career. There was even a thread discussing this, iirc .... And it is no secret has to how he has been a part of a formidable batting line up for over a decade (most part of his career)

[Gambit]

A certain Brian Charles Lara readily comes to mind as an example.

Closeted mind, hence poor example. Lara has 1 ton in matches won by WI since that 153* against non-minnows over a period of 8 years.

[desi.boy]

Dravid scored 3 amazing 100s in England. Yet not one resulted in a win because the rest of the team didnt turn up. Was that Dravid's fault? Thats what Sachin had to deal with half of his career.

and yet people hold it against Lara's greatness tht he got only 1 hundred in 8 yr in team wins. ao it goes both ways. if a player scores runs in comparatively higher pressure situations resulting in team victories or avoiding defeates, his runs should have higher importance or worth on average and tht should be factored in while rating him, right? it should be laxman>dravid>sachin>lara in terms of importance or worth of each run??

[pensionplan]

Closeted mind' date=' hence poor example. Lara has 1 ton in matches won by WI since that 153* against non-minnows over a period of 8 years.[/quote']No because there was a lot of mediocrity around Lara and most of those other solo knocks ended in losses, so no point blaming Lara when all else succumbed around him. I am looking at the other angle in all this.

[CSK Fan]

and yet people hold it against Lara's greatness tht he got only 1 hundred in 8 yr in team wins. ao it goes both ways. if a player scores runs in comparatively higher pressure situations resulting in team victories or avoiding defeates, his runs should have higher importance or worth on average and tht should be factored in while rating him, right? it should be laxman>dravid>sachin>lara in terms of importance or worth of each run??

Doesnt make sense to me. Define high pressure situtations? In your case it will be only be 4th innings while a test match is made of 4 innings. Plus many test matches do not even go into the 4th innings. Discarding 3/4th of a test match just to prove high pressure situtaions is stupid. Plus even if a player pefroms in high pressure it doesnt gaurantee victory. Remember even Laxman's amazing 281 wouldnt have lead to a victory if not for Bhajji's hat-trick. Lots of factors have to click together for a victory BTW dont know how people rate Lara, But all experts have always put Sachin and Lara a league above the other your mentioned. A couple of posters saying opposite will not change anything

[Sachinism]

Brian Lara is the tragic hero of modern international cricket. He has scored three double centuries in losses, two more than anyone else. He has 14 hundreds in the 63 matches that he lost, which is also a record. He has scored more than 5,300 of his almost 12,000 runs in lost causes (another record). Finally, he lost 26 of 47 Test matches as captain which is second only to Stephen Fleming (27). Brian Charles Lara, hero of the greek tragedy called West Indian cricket. A true match loser (stats are not the end of it all)

[CSK Fan]

I only pointed to the side where it is being made out as if Tendulkar never had any kind of support or Ind never had decent batsman in Tendulkar's early career. There was even a thread discussing this' date=' iirc .... [b']And it is no secret has to how he has been a part of a formidable batting line up for over a decade (most part of his career)

Dont know only batsmen win you tests.

[desi.boy]

Doesnt make sense to me. Define high pressure situtations? In your case it will be only be 4th innings while a test match is made of 4 innings. Plus many test matches do not even go into the 4th innings. Discarding 3/4th of a test match just to prove high pressure situtaions is stupid. Plus even if a player pefroms in high pressure it doesnt gaurantee victory. Remember even Laxman's amazing 281 wouldnt have lead to a victory if not for Bhajji's hat-trick. Lots of factors have to click together for a victory

not necessarily 4th innings, it could be any, say in conditions where its difficult to survive or score (due to swing\seam\spin\bounce etc), or situations where winning or saving the match depends on your innings. Those runs normallywill have higher worth than runs scored in, lets says, draws on flats decks or, even in innings which couldn't win or save a match when the finish line was close.

BTW dont know how people rate Lara, But all experts have always put Sachin and Lara a league above the other your mentioned. A couple of posters saying opposite will not change anything

Of course I do, but for me , dravid is a better test batsman than sachin\lara. lara tended to score big and then have a string of failure. 401* in a draw, then even 9 or 10 failures gave him an avg of 50. none-the-less lara was a great player.

[CSK Fan]

not necessarily 4th innings' date=' it could be any,[b'] say in conditions where its difficult to survive or score (due to swingseamspinbounce etc), or situations where winning or saving the match depends on your innings. Those runs normallywill have higher worth than runs scored in, lets says, draws on flats decks or, even in innings which couldn't win or save a match when the finish line was close.

then how can u place Sachin below Dravid, Laxman? Perth 1992? In fact take a look at this http://www.espncricinfo.com/indvsl/content/story/229202.html Also when you are claiming innings which couldnt or could win the match when the finish line was close, it still doesnt make sense. This again takes into account only 4th innings. In many matches when Sehwag scored big, we have won. But if you take out his innings, we wouldnt have won. Same case with many big innings by other batsmen in the first/second innings. If we remove them we would have lost. Yet your way does not put any emphasis on those innings A test match is played over 4 innings. The match is set up over 3 innings and the 4th is just a culmination of 5 days play. To think that the 4th innings is most important is like praising the 4th runner in a relay race for winning the race. The relay race was won because of all four runners, though its the 4th runner who gets to cross the winning line and pose for photos first. Doesnt mean that the other three runners werent equally important