The Outsider Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 And what do you attribute VVS's so decidedly superior fourth innings' date=' tough-condition success to? Also, why is he not so spectacular in other scenarios?[/quote'] I think there was a recent interview where Laxman himself said something along the lines that he has not been able to cash in as much as he should have under easier batting conditions and used to spend time with Upton(?) to help him in mental conditioning.
CasualVisitor Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Well I might not be the right person to answer this because I don't "perceive" Tendulkar to be some choker or poor performer in the second innings and do agree with your rating that he is the best batsman of his generation. However, that does not necessarily mean that he has also played innings as good as Laxman's 281 or 96. Obviously, he has played a lot of great innings in his career in both forms of the game but what's wrong in admitting that he hasn't been able to deliver a legendary innings like the above? Let's take some common sense criteria to judge an innings quality: 1. Difficulty of pitch and conditions 2. Strength of opposition attack 3. Batting with the tail 4. Performance of others in the match 5. Match situation like chasing a huge target, coming back from a deficit, loss of early wickets etc. Might have missed some, but it is really difficult for me to think of a Tendulkar innings better than the 281 or 96 based on the above common sense criteria. My argument is not to show Laxman is better than Tendulkar on some stats guru filters, just that on these two occasions he took his batting to a level where Tendulkar could not. #3 is a BS IMO. Also include how many times a batsman is able to repeat such feats. If A does it once and B does it 2-3 times then B is slightly better than A and not too far ahead.
The Outsider Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 I don't think any Sachin fan ( fanatics/blind worshipers..what ever we are called with affection) in his sane mind would put any of Sachin innings above Laxman's 281. 136 vs 96 is debatable though. The way people reacted to my statement that Tendulkar has not played an innings like the 281 or 96 would suggest a different story. Even if you consider the 96 as debatable it's certainly not crazy to consider it as better than any of Tendulkar's innings as some people in the thread are making it out to be.
Vijay.Sharma Posted November 25, 2011 Author Posted November 25, 2011 One thing I find very very incredulous is the variety of batsmen that are pitted against Sachin just to show that he isn't the best. It is almost never that Sachin as a whole is compared with another batsman as a whole. Since the mid 90's Sachin has been compared with one or the other great and the moment Sachin bests him a new competitor is found. Once competitors were no longer good enough as whole packages the story moved to picking one aspect from a competitor (ex - Lax second dig, Lara batting style did not change, Pawning against SA, etc). The story now is Sachin should be better than Player A on Aspect 1, Player B on Aspect 2, Player C on Aspect 3, etc in order to be the best. It is totally lost upon people that none of these Players A, B, C, etc can match up to Sachin just by themselves. Is there any doubt that Sachin is the most complete and perfect batsman that the game has witnessed? Forget the black and white era for a second because none of us have watched them play or even have enough footage to compare them. Just place your hands on your hearts and honestly answer to yourself - has / is there a more perfect batsman than Sachin? Yes, Viv had more swagger than Sachin. What about the other aspects of batsmanship? Yes, Lax is a slightly better second innings player than Sachin. What about the other aspects of batsmanship? Yes, Pawning has a better record against SA. What about the other aspects of batsmanship? Yes, Lara kept belting till the end. What about the other aspects of batsmanship? Yes, Viru has 2 triples. What about the other aspects of batsmanship? Yes, Rahul scored 3 cents in England this year. What about the other aspects of batsmanship?
The Outsider Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 #3 is a BS IMO. Also include how many times a batsman is able to repeat such feats. If A does it once and B does it 2-3 times then B is slightly better than A and not too far ahead. Why is it BS? In tight match situations getting the best out the tail is crucially important. In fact Tendulkar himself has batted superbly with the tail on many occasions - Sydney '08 comes to mind. My point is not to argue whether B is slightly better or worse. It's strictly to say that on these two occasions Laxman did better than Tendulkar has ever done - nothing more, nothing less.
punjabi_khota Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 :wall: Shwetabh untill start every one of your posts in threads like these with: SRT is #1 batsman of his generation. , some people will keep second guessing your intentions . Half of the replies in this thread seem off topic because they take it that he you are trying to using "batsman B > SRT in certain situations" to prove "batsman B > SRT" overall.
CSK Fan Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 What a load of rubbish.If u take records as it is then Samaraweera is a better batsmen than Viv Richards and VVS Laxman nearly as good as Sachin. U need necessary filters or criteria to differentiate quality of players. Average is not the ONLY criteria of course, again common sense. A guy can average a lot in less innings
The Outsider Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 :wall: Shwetabh untill start every one of your posts in threads like these with: SRT is #1 batsman of his generation. ' date= some people will keep second guessing your intentions . Half of the replies in this thread seem off topic because they take it that he you are trying to using "batsman B > SRT in certain situations" to prove "batsman B > SRT" overall. Good suggestion - added to my signature. Hopefully will have to waste less time trying to get the point across. :wall:
SachDan Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Good one - please introduce some of these people to us. Edit: Oh man even CRICINFO, the decider of everything, rated it as one of Hayden's Top 5. Please forgive me for doubting you Sachin's runs against Zimbabwe are deducted. But someone else bashes them and its suddenly rated as a great knock. And you're point was about significant difference between batsmen on the same pitch, same match and when that was destroyed, you bring up conditions and 'many people rate it highly' :haha: Sachin has pounded teams in Chennai, but I guess conditions there are extremely mild and comfortable.
Number Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Thread title says Sachin v/s lax for Carnish , Aur carnish(poster's nick) ka koi ataa-pata nahi hai is thread me. :giggle:
CasualVisitor Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Why is it BS? In tight match situations getting the best out the tail is crucially important. In fact Tendulkar himself has batted superbly with the tail on many occasions - Sydney '08 comes to mind. My point is not to argue whether B is slightly better or worse. It's strictly to say that on these two occasions Laxman did better than Tendulkar has ever done - nothing more, nothing less. Can't refute that! An eternal SRT fan that I am, I wouldn't be replacing that "has ever done" with "would ever do". You probably would :winky:. I guess that's the only skirmish you have with SRT fans!
SachDan Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Good suggestion - added to my signature. Hopefully will have to waste less time trying to get the point across. :wall: Now that won't go well with rett and sfs..you were the last hope for them as far as support goes :--D
The Outsider Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Good one - please introduce some of these people to us. Edit: Oh man even CRICINFO, the decider of everything, rated it as one of Hayden's Top 5. Please forgive me for doubting you Sachin's runs against Zimbabwe are deducted. But someone else bashes them and its suddenly rated as a great knock. And you're point was about significant difference between batsmen on the same pitch, same match and when that was destroyed, you bring up conditions and 'many people rate it highly' :haha: Sachin has pounded teams in Chennai, but I guess conditions there are extremely mild and comfortable. Think you are confusing two knocks here. I never said Hayden's triple hundred is one of the best, but was referring to his Sharjah knock. Have also posted a clipping from Dileep rating that innings.
BeautifulGame Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Average is not the ONLY criteria of course' date=' again common sense. A guy can average a lot in less innings[/quote'] So jayawardne has played more innings than Viv Richards , Scored more runs and has a better average then does it mean he is a better batsman than Viv? Just looking at records wont tell u the difference btw Sachin(at his prime in 90s) and Viv when compared with the likes of Jayawardne or Kallis.U have look at criteria 's the quality of attack and conditions sachin and Viv played against to see the difference in quality.Otherwise there is not much difference btw the quality of Jayawardne and Sachin if no filters are applied.
Cricket Tragic Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 One thing I find very very incredulous is the variety of batsmen that are pitted against Sachin just to show that he isn't the best. It is almost never that Sachin as a whole is compared with another batsman as a whole. Since the mid 90's Sachin has been compared with one or the other great and the moment Sachin bests him a new competitor is found. Once competitors were no longer good enough as whole packages the story moved to picking one aspect from a competitor (ex - Lax second dig, Lara batting style did not change, Pawning against SA, etc). The story now is Sachin should be better than Player A on Aspect 1, Player B on Aspect 2, Player C on Aspect 3, etc in order to be the best. It is totally lost upon people that none of these Players A, B, C, etc can match up to Sachin just by themselves. Is there any doubt that Sachin is the most complete and perfect batsman that the game has witnessed? Forget the black and white era for a second because none of us have watched them play or even have enough footage to compare them. Just place your hands on your hearts and honestly answer to yourself - has / is there a more perfect batsman than Sachin? Yes, Viv had more swagger than Sachin. What about the other aspects of batsmanship? Yes, Lax is a slightly better second innings player than Sachin. What about the other aspects of batsmanship? Yes, Pawning has a better record against SA. What about the other aspects of batsmanship? Yes, Lara kept belting till the end. What about the other aspects of batsmanship? Yes, Viru has 2 triples. What about the other aspects of batsmanship? Yes, Rahul scored 3 cents in England this year. What about the other aspects of batsmanship? Outsider has said that Tendulkar is the best batsman of his generation and I've seen several posts where he mentions SRT/Lara and then Ponting/Kallis etc as his ranking. Saying that someone is better than SRT is one aspect or that someone has done something that he hasn't does not imply that he is a better batsman than SRT overall. Obviously some people argue things that way but it is clearly not what he is doing. :dontknow:
Vijay.Sharma Posted November 25, 2011 Author Posted November 25, 2011 Outsider has said that Tendulkar is the best batsman of his generation and I've seen several posts where he mentions SRT/Lara and then Ponting/Kallis etc as his ranking. Saying that someone is better than SRT is one aspect or that someone has done something that he hasn't does not imply that he is a better batsman than SRT overall. Obviously some people argue things that way but it is clearly not what he is doing. :dontknow:Errrr....how exactly was I referring to Outsider? My post was a general post and did not address any particular person. And as for Outsider (well if he is Howzatt anyway) I already know that he considers Sachin as the most complete batsman he has ever seen
Cricket Tragic Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Errrr....how exactly was I referring to Outsider? My post was a general post and did not address any particular person. And as for Outsider (well if he is Howzatt anyway) I already know that he considers Sachin as the most complete batsman he has ever seen Ah, my bad!
SachDan Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Thread title says Sachin v/s lax for Carnish , Aur carnish(poster's nick) ka koi ataa-pata nahi hai is thread me. :giggle: Bradman v Tendulkar Richards v Tendulkar Lara v Tendulkar Ponting v Tendulkar Dravid v Tendulkar Murali v Tendulkar
zen Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 Ten vs Lax, from the title, I thought may be this is comparing the two batsmen, in which case there is no comparision as Ten wins But it's no doubt that VVS has played some 'very very special' innings .... Don't know what the fuss is all about :dontknow:
Sachin=GOD Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 No. It is about a rigid, unyielding perception. An example - For someone perceived as a 4th innings dud, his average is a mere 1 run lower than Dravid's. In the last 3 years, Dravid's 3rd and 4th innings' average is 33(1 100). Tendulkar's is 70(4 100s). Dravid's 4th innings avg against top 8 in last 3 years is a risible 27, Tendulkar's 81. Yet, no one calls Dravid a choker or Tendulkar a rock. Different batsmen are found to compare to Tendulkar using different metrics to ensure he is bested. Fact is, Tendulkar is a more complete batsman than all of his peers(Lara included). this. Maybe Lara can play longer innings, Laxman may (or may not :--D) be better in 4th innings, Viv Richards may have been more attacking, Ponting may have scored more in matches won and some other batsmen may (or may not) be better than him in some other dimensions of the game but when you talk about a complete package as a batsman then there is one and only one guy - Goddy.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now