Sachin Tendulkar or Vivian Richards?

[pensionplan]

See' date=' the thing is when other players score heavily then they are always given the benefit of doubt and its said they tried their best and played very well irrespective of the result of the match but when Goddy scores heavily, then because of the unrealistically high expectations people have of him, many people expect India to win, whatever be the circumstances of the match or whatever the caliber of the other 10 players in the team or whatever the ground. People have raised the expectations so very, very high for him that even if he scores heavily, some people expect him to somehow magically elevate the level of the other 10 guys in the team and when that does not happen then they have got a fantastic scapegoat for the loss in form of this guy who scored the highest number of runs.[/quote']okay.

[The Outsider]

Since this Tendulkar versus Richards thread has already been mauled beyond recognition from the original topic, thought I would bring up one point here. The irksome thing about Tendulkar fanatics is they just can't visualize him being the second best in anything. It's not good enough for them that Tendulkar is the most complete batsman of his times and arguably the second best overall. If someone makes a comment that Laxman has fared better in last innings chases or has pulled innings of the calibre of 281 or 96 for which Tendulkar has no match or something like Gavaskar's 221, they will not accept it or even let the other person have his opinion. They will start digging stats guru to come up with weird statistics or out and out lies to discredit other players like Tendulkar had no support in the 90s. Or if someone comments that Richards dominated bowlers like Tendulkar did not, they can't accept that Richards was the more attacking cricketer of the two - cue for them to rush to youtube and post some videos of Tendulkar's attacking innings. For them to get a good night's sleep it's simply not enough that Tendulkar is a once in a lifetime, all time legend of the game, they have to discredit each and every other batsman so no other batsman can even be better than Tendulkar in some particular aspect of batting.

[sarcastic]

Since this Tendulkar versus Richards thread has already been mauled beyond recognition from the original topic, thought I would bring up one point here. The irksome thing about Tendulkar fanatics is they just can't visualize him being the second best in anything. It's not good enough for them that Tendulkar is the most complete batsman of his times and arguably the second best overall. If someone makes a comment that Laxman has fared better in last innings chases or has pulled innings of the calibre of 281 or 96 for which Tendulkar has no match or something like Gavaskar's 221, they will not accept it or even let the other person have his opinion. They will start digging stats guru to come up with weird statistics or out and out lies to discredit other players like Tendulkar had no support in the 90s. Or if someone comments that Richards dominated bowlers like Tendulkar did not, they can't accept that Richards was the more attacking cricketer of the two - cue for them to rush to youtube and post some videos of Tendulkar's attacking innings. For them to get a good night's sleep it's simply not enough that Tendulkar is a once in a lifetime, all time legend of the game, they have to discredit each and every other batsman so no other batsman can even be better than Tendulkar in some particular aspect of batting.

++

[pensionplan]

Since this Tendulkar versus Richards thread has already been mauled beyond recognition from the original topic, thought I would bring up one point here. The irksome thing about Tendulkar fanatics is they just can't visualize him being the second best in anything. It's not good enough for them that Tendulkar is the most complete batsman of his times and arguably the second best overall. If someone makes a comment that Laxman has fared better in last innings chases or has pulled innings of the calibre of 281 or 96 for which Tendulkar has no match or something like Gavaskar's 221, they will not accept it or even let the other person have his opinion. They will start digging stats guru to come up with weird statistics or out and out lies to discredit other players like Tendulkar had no support in the 90s. Or if someone comments that Richards dominated bowlers like Tendulkar did not, they can't accept that Richards was the more attacking cricketer of the two - cue for them to rush to youtube and post some videos of Tendulkar's attacking innings. For them to get a good night's sleep it's simply not enough that Tendulkar is a once in a lifetime, all time legend of the game, they have to discredit each and every other batsman so no other batsman can even be better than Tendulkar in some particular aspect of batting.

And one more thing - The end of the pitch that Tendulkar bats on always is a landmine and turns into patta once the other batsman comes on strike upon taking a single or after an over ends. Plus it has also been found that all the great knocks played by other batsman happened because opposing bowlers were taking it easy on them while only bowling their best stuff and focused on Sachin=GOD. So unfair.

[zen]

those thinking that SRT had support in the 90s have no sense of honesty or integrity :P

[ganeshran]

The irksome thing about Tendulkar fanatics is they just can't visualize him being the second best in anything. It's not good enough for them that Tendulkar is the most complete batsman of his times and arguably the second best overall.

The same thing can be applied to Bradman fans as well. Most of them have never seen extended footage of him bat or analyzed his technique. But the moment someone suggests that any other batsmen of any era is better because of some particular reason (e.g. facing better bowling attack) , they run to statsguru and pull out arguments like "Being much better than anyone in the era that he played in" or the usual 99.94 argument.

[Sid]

Since this Tendulkar versus Richards thread has already been mauled beyond recognition from the original topic, thought I would bring up one point here. The irksome thing about Tendulkar fanatics is they just can't visualize him being the second best in anything. It's not good enough for them that Tendulkar is the most complete batsman of his times and arguably the second best overall. If someone makes a comment that Laxman has fared better in last innings chases or has pulled innings of the calibre of 281 or 96 for which Tendulkar has no match or something like Gavaskar's 221, they will not accept it or even let the other person have his opinion. They will start digging stats guru to come up with weird statistics or out and out lies to discredit other players like Tendulkar had no support in the 90s. Or if someone comments that Richards dominated bowlers like Tendulkar did not, they can't accept that Richards was the more attacking cricketer of the two - cue for them to rush to youtube and post some videos of Tendulkar's attacking innings. For them to get a good night's sleep it's simply not enough that Tendulkar is a once in a lifetime, all time legend of the game, they have to discredit each and every other batsman so no other batsman can even be better than Tendulkar in some particular aspect of batting.

Awesome post.

[SachDan]

And one more thing - The end of the pitch that Tendulkar bats on always is a landmine and turns into patta once the other batsman comes on strike upon taking a single or after an over ends. Plus it has also been found that all the great knocks played by other batsman happened because opposing bowlers were taking it easy on them while only bowling their best stuff and focused on Sachin=GOD. So unfair.

..

[The Outsider]

The same thing can be applied to Bradman fans as well. Most of them have never seen extended footage of him bat or analyzed his technique. But the moment someone suggests that any other batsmen of any era is better because of some particular reason (e.g. facing better bowling attack) ' date=' they run to statsguru and pull out arguments like "Being much better than anyone in the era that he played in" or the usual 99.94 argument.[/quote'] Firstly, I don't know of any Bradman 'fans'. I would say I've been a fan of Gavaskar, Kapil, Azhar, Tendulkar, Laxman etc. etc. but I've never seen or followed a game of cricket in which Bradman featured so I can't be his fan. The closest I've met someone who watched Bradman was this old guy in a pub who claimed to have watched Bradman in '48 when he was 10 years old. But even so if people say that Hobbs was a better player than Bradman on sticky wickets, I would readily agree to it because there is so much written on it from writers of the time and not try to run stats guru queries to figure out sticky wickets and how much they averaged on them. But there is a difference - the majority of arguments against Bradman are of the negative kind. Putting down the number of countries he played against, putting down the number of places he played at, putting down the quality of bowling and cricket of his time etc. etc. And it's no surprise because on the single most important metric to gauge a batsman that is the number of runs he scores between dismissals there is no one close to him. So, people have to resort to negative arguments which if extended to other players give results like Rameez Raja was better than Hammond. It's the very basic foundation of any model building exercise that your model should be applicable to more than one data point. Even so, I have no issues with people saying that they are different eras and can't be compared. What makes no sense is to bring about volume records in these extrapolations. Shahid Afridi is about to overtake Kumble in the number of ODI wickets and might end up with many more wickets than Kumble. Does it make sense to say he is better than Kumble in ODIs? I can very well resort to arguments like Afridi was good enough to be playing since the age of 16 and has managed longevity and consistency over such a huge number of years and matches. Let's see how that flies. Anyhow, don't really have the time these days to get into any detailed discussion - just wanted to make these few points.

[zen]

The same thing can be applied to Bradman fans as well. Most of them have never seen extended footage of him bat or analyzed his technique. But the moment someone suggests that any other batsmen of any era is better because of some particular reason (e.g. facing better bowling attack) ' date=' they run to statsguru and pull out arguments like "Being much better than anyone in the era that he played in" or the usual 99.94 argument.[/quote'] ah ha, whose posts am I seeiing ..... You do realize that what avg 100 after 50 odd tests, interupted by wars, and when others didn't means? Facing good bowlers or whatever is not something 'exclusive' to Tendulkar, which is many would rate likes of Gavaskar, Lara, etc as better test batsmen

[Sachin=GOD]

Firstly' date=' I don't know of any Bradman 'fans'. I would say I've been a fan of Gavaskar, Kapil, Azhar, Tendulkar, Laxman etc. etc. [b']but I've never seen or followed a game of cricket in which Bradman featured so I can't be his fan. The closest I've met someone who watched Bradman was this old guy in a pub who claimed to have watched Bradman in '48 when he was 10 years old. But even so if people say that Hobbs was a better player than Bradman on sticky wickets, I would readily agree to it because there is so much written on it from writers of the time and not try to run stats guru queries to figure out sticky wickets and how much they averaged on them. But there is a difference - the majority of arguments against Bradman are of the negative kind. Putting down the number of countries he played against, putting down the number of places he played at, putting down the quality of bowling and cricket of his time etc. etc. And it's no surprise because on the single most important metric to gauge a batsman that is the number of runs he scores between dismissals there is no one close to him. So, people have to resort to negative arguments which if extended to other players give results like Rameez Raja was better than Hammond. It's the very basic foundation of any model building exercise that your model should be applicable to more than one data point. Even so, I have no issues with people saying that they are different eras and can't be compared. What makes no sense is to bring about volume records in these extrapolations. Shahid Afridi is about to overtake Kumble in the number of ODI wickets and might end up with many more wickets than Kumble. Does it make sense to say he is better than Kumble in ODIs? I can very well resort to arguments like Afridi was good enough to be playing since the age of 16 and has managed longevity and consistency over such a huge number of years and matches. Let's see how that flies. Anyhow, don't really have the time these days to get into any detailed discussion - just wanted to make these few points.

I'll ask you again - how is it that you rank Bradman ahead of all other batsmen when you have not even seen him play??

[Lurker]

Firstly, I don't know of any Bradman 'fans'. I would say I've been a fan of Gavaskar, Kapil, Azhar, Tendulkar, Laxman etc. etc. but I've never seen or followed a game of cricket in which Bradman featured so I can't be his fan. The closest I've met someone who watched Bradman was this old guy in a pub who claimed to have watched Bradman in '48 when he was 10 years old. But even so if people say that Hobbs was a better player than Bradman on sticky wickets, I would readily agree to it because there is so much written on it from writers of the time and not try to run stats guru queries to figure out sticky wickets and how much they averaged on them. But there is a difference - the majority of arguments against Bradman are of the negative kind. Putting down the number of countries he played against, putting down the number of places he played at, putting down the quality of bowling and cricket of his time etc. etc. And it's no surprise because on the single most important metric to gauge a batsman that is the number of runs he scores between dismissals there is no one close to him. So, people have to resort to negative arguments which if extended to other players give results like Rameez Raja was better than Hammond. It's the very basic foundation of any model building exercise that your model should be applicable to more than one data point. Even so, I have no issues with people saying that they are different eras and can't be compared. What makes no sense is to bring about volume records in these extrapolations. Shahid Afridi is about to overtake Kumble in the number of ODI wickets and might end up with many more wickets than Kumble. Does it make sense to say he is better than Kumble in ODIs? I can very well resort to arguments like Afridi was good enough to be playing since the age of 16 and has managed longevity and consistency over such a huge number of years and matches. Let's see how that flies. Anyhow, don't really have the time these days to get into any detailed discussion - just wanted to make these few points.

Touche :hatsoff::hatsoff: Good to see life, and online debates, have not turned you cynical Shwetabh. :hatsoff:

[Sachin=GOD]

Since this Tendulkar versus Richards thread has already been mauled beyond recognition from the original topic, thought I would bring up one point here. The irksome thing about Tendulkar fanatics is they just can't visualize him being the second best in anything. It's not good enough for them that Tendulkar is the most complete batsman of his times and arguably the second best overall. If someone makes a comment that Laxman has fared better in last innings chases or has pulled innings of the calibre of 281 or 96 for which Tendulkar has no match or something like Gavaskar's 221, they will not accept it or even let the other person have his opinion. They will start digging stats guru to come up with weird statistics or out and out lies to discredit other players like Tendulkar had no support in the 90s. Or if someone comments that Richards dominated bowlers like Tendulkar did not, they can't accept that Richards was the more attacking cricketer of the two - cue for them to rush to youtube and post some videos of Tendulkar's attacking innings. For them to get a good night's sleep it's simply not enough that Tendulkar is a once in a lifetime, all time legend of the game, they have to discredit each and every other batsman so no other batsman can even be better than Tendulkar in some particular aspect of batting.

says someone who rates a batsman he has never even seen only by going to stats guru and seeing an average of 99.94 :confusedman:

[The Outsider]

I'll ask you again - how is it that you rank Bradman ahead of all other batsmen when you have not even seen him play??

Do you have comprehension problems? That point has been answered many times, but let me get it down to your level so you might understand this time : Have you seen Gavaskar bat? No. Have you seen Chris Marttin bat? Yes. How can you rank Gavaskar above Chris Martin when you not even seen him play? Or maybe you do rank Chris Martin above Gavaskar?

[ganeshran]

But there is a difference - the majority of arguments against Bradman are of the negative kind. Putting down the number of countries he played against, putting down the number of places he played at, putting down the quality of bowling and cricket of his time etc. etc. And it's no surprise because on the single most important metric to gauge a batsman that is the number of runs he scores between dismissals there is no one close to him. So, people have to resort to negative arguments which if extended to other players give results like Rameez Raja was better than Hammond. It's the very basic foundation of any model building exercise that your model should be applicable to more than one data point.

Totally agree about the negative arguments. It is always irritating when a particular line of though it espoused solely to bring a player and his achievements down. When applied to other batsmen, the argument brings meaningless conclusions but they are peddled time and again just to prove one's side of discussion as being correct. I usually dont get into a Bradman discussion for the simple fact that I havent seen him play that much. He might or might not have been better than SRT - adjusting for averages and runs tally across eras is ridiculously difficult given the number of variables involved and the tally that we arrive usually is subject to our internal biases and the side we are arguing for.

Even so, I have no issues with people saying that they are different eras and can't be compared. What makes no sense is to bring about volume records in these extrapolations. Shahid Afridi is about to overtake Kumble in the number of ODI wickets and might end up with many more wickets than Kumble. Does it make sense to say he is better than Kumble in ODIs? I can very well resort to arguments like Afridi was good enough to be playing since the age of 16 and has managed longevity and consistency over such a huge number of years and matches. Let's see how that flies. Anyhow, don't really have the time these days to get into any detailed discussion - just wanted to make these few points.

You are right that it is meaningless to argue solely based on volume records. But surely volume records combined with a good average brings weightage to the argument and the ability of the player. I mean an average of 50 over 10 matches is far more easier to achieve than average 50 over 150 matches.

[Sachin=GOD]

Do you have comprehension problems? That point has been answered many times, but let me get it down to your level so you might understand this time : Have you seen Gavaskar bat? No. Have you seen Chris Marttin bat? Yes. How can you rank Gavaskar above Chris Martin when you not even seen him play? Or maybe you do rank Chris Martin above Gavaskar?

If I have not seen Gavaskar bat then I will not go around claiming that he is the greatest batsman ever to have played the game.

[The Outsider]

If I have not seen Gavaskar bat then I will not go around claiming that he is the greatest batsman ever to have played the game.

But you will go around and claim he is better than Chris Martin despite never having watched Gavaskar play? Or for your money, Chris Martin is a better batsman than Gavaskar?

[yoda]

If I have not seen Gavaskar bat then I will not go around claiming that he is the greatest batsman ever to have played the game.

So I assume you are okay with folks who start watching cricket after Sachin's retirement simply ignore him when they talk about ATGs.

[Sachin=GOD]

But you will go around and claim he is better than Chris Martin despite never having watched Gavaskar play? Or for your money, Chris Martin is a better batsman than Gavaskar?

where exactly have I said that?? In fact its you who have said that Bradman is better than Richards, Gavaskar and all the contemporary batsmen even though you have not seen him bat. and BTW I have seen Gavaskar play so i can say that he was better than Chris Martin :P

[pensionplan]

I usually dont get into a Bradman discussion for the simple fact that I havent seen him play that much. He might or might not have been better than SRT - adjusting for averages and runs tally across eras is ridiculously difficult given the number of variables involved and the tally that we arrive usually is subject to our internal biases and the side we are arguing for.

That is because you have no leg to stand on. SRT averages in the 50's with a ton of others in the same era he played in while Bradman was in a league of his own averaging 100 while no one else crossed 60 during the era he played in. All this comparing across eras BS not withstanding Bradman was disputed No.1 in his era while Tendulkar is bunched with a group of other greats like Lara, Ponting etc all good and worthy in their own way in the era he played in.