Sachin Tendulkar vs Sunil Gavaskar

[The Outsider]

Brett Lee, a lethal bowler? Surely, you're kidding!

[The Outsider]

What I meant was that your average always does not reveal your true performance. This was not meant to demean SMG. There have been many instances like this in Sachin's career as well like in the SA tour of 2001 where as per averages Sachin fared well, but he only had that 1 inning of 155. Other than that he did not do well or Sachin's record in the Pakitan series was bolstered by that 194*.

Well, one can also say Tendulkar's 241* and 60* in '04 also bolstered his average? When you are looking at small sample sizes of a handful of test matches, you are bound to get such results. When the argument to show Gavaskar's failure against a full strength West Indies attack is itself being made on a total sample of 4 test matches, and you are also going to remove the innings in which he made a high score there really isn't much to say.

I have an outsider's view of SMG's records but do n't have the in-depth stories like I have from Sachin's career.

In 1983 India and West Indies played 11 test matches - Gavaskar did very well in one of the series and was mediocre in the other one. That would be a fair assessment of his performance, IMO. To call him an acute failure against a full strength West Indies attack is just being ignorant.

Also, regarding collective bowling units, would not an attack of the SAffers of the 90's(a raw Pollock, Donald, McMillan and another fast bowler) or the Oz attack(McGrath,Gillespi, Lee and Warne) be comparable to any other great attack?

The Australian attack with would be comparable to the West Indies attack, but the strength of that attack was hugely dependent on Warne while the topic of discussion right now seems to be performance against fast bowling units. Don't think anyone can doubt Gavaskar's ability to play spin, though he did have some troubled times against Underwood.

[The Outsider]

Actually, now I see what happened there. If we remove "Lethal Lee" and add Ambrose to the list, certainly more deserving of the lethal tag, things don't look all that good for Tendulkar anymore: http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;player_involve=1765;player_involve=1775;player_involve=1884;player_involve=2011;player_involve=2101;player_involve=47154;player_involve=5649;template=results;type=allround

[singhprakash72]

Assuming both faced quality of attack and purely on overall batting & bowling condition if you see ...the last two decades Batting is more favorable (rarely us see green tops or rank turner) while 70s /80s had its share of favorable bowling condition (WACA,Sabina park,Oval etc). Having said that a SRT in 70/80s would have coped with it similar to SMG the only exception here is how he would played without helmet (till late 70s) which I guess we would never know.

[Lurker]

Sunil Gavaskar has one record of getting out on most number of occasions on the very first ball of the test match and twice the bowler was Imran. Kapil Dev has the record of taking the wicket most number of times on the first ball of the match. Sunil Gavaskar in the matches were Imran Khan, Denis Lillie, Jeff Thompson, M MArshall, Holding, Garner have played averages 51.46 which is similar to his overall average which means lethal bowler or ordinary bowlers he played them with similar ease. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/28794.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;player_involve=1369;player_involve=1383;player_involve=1401;player_involve=1451;player_involve=1522;player_involve=1571;template=results;type=allround Sachin Tendulkar in the matches were A Donald, Walsh, Akhtar, B Lee, Steyn, Glenn Mcgrath, Wasim Akram has played averages 49 which is less than his career average of 55 which means Sachin has been able to exploit ordinary bowlers much better but noticeable thing is his average is not very less when compared to Sunny wrt the lethal pace bowlers. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=default;player_involve=1765;player_involve=1775;player_involve=2011;player_involve=2101;player_involve=47154;player_involve=5649;player_involve=5966;template=results;type=allround Lethal Bowlers: Both equal, Sunny having slight edge because of tough rules of that era. Ordinary bowlers: Sachin much better than Sunny in handling them or exploiting them.

You could have stopped right there :cheer::cheer:

[The Outsider]

Assuming both faced quality of attack and purely on overall batting & bowling condition if you see ...the last two decades Batting is more favorable (rarely us see green tops or rank turner) while 70s /80s had its share of favorable bowling condition (WACA' date=Sabina park,Oval etc). Having said that a SRT in 70/80s would have coped with it similar to SMG the only exception here is how he would played without helmet (till late 70s) which I guess we would never know.

Yeah, the inherent ability of these great cricketers would mean that they would have adapted themselves to the different unique challenges of each era. Tendulkar's game would have evolved differently to confront the unique challenges of the 70s and 80s and barring some freak injury as a result of not wearing a helmet, he would have done as well as other greats of those times like Gavaskar, Richards, and Chappell.

[Lurker]

Assuming both faced quality of attack and purely on overall batting & bowling condition if you see ...the last two decades Batting is more favorable (rarely us see green tops or rank turner) while 70s /80s had its share of favorable bowling condition (WACA' date=Sabina park,Oval etc). Having said that a SRT in 70/80s would have coped with it similar to SMG the only exception here is how he would played without helmet (till late 70s) which I guess we would never know.

I think thats a fair summation, then again we cant leave it at a "we would never know", can we? What would be the fun of Who was better then? :--D

[zen]

Since Dravid has retired and with SRT planning to see if he can carry on till 2015 WC, may be SRT should bat at #3, something (batting in 1 to 3) he has avoided doing in his test career for "some" reason :dontknow: SRT bat at #3 and then the comparision would be a bit more fair :orderorder:

[The Outsider]

^ Not really from a comparison point of view, but from the team's perspective it would be a good idea for Tendulkar to move to the number 3 spot and allow the newcomers to settle in lower down the order first. India is not playing a test away from home for the next 2 years anyway, so it's not that batting at 3 would be much more challenging than batting at 4. Right now, India would have to throw in a newcomer at 3, move Kohli to 3 before he has fully adapted to test cricket, or have Laxman, who should not be playing anymore, at the position.

[singhprakash72]

I think thats a fair summation' date=' then again we cant leave it at a "[i']we would never know", can we? What would be the fun of Who was better then? :--D

The reason "we would never know" is each player has different technique when facing bouncer or short pitch stuff that they develop through their career. A good example is Mohinder Amarnath he was fed with Bouncers and hit many times early in his career...in fact he once fell on his stumps trying to hook (almost ending his career in late 70s) !!! but when he returned in 82/83 Pak series he came back with helmet and more confidence....now imagine if he was playing in 60s or 50s his career would have ended (a la Nari contractor way).

[mhr123]

Well this shows the stature of the Great Sachin... each and every one is being compared to him class... it shows he has become a benchmark of class , technique , grace , elegance... so now using him ask a bench mark people compare DON,Viv,Punter,Hobbs,Sunny etc with him.

[Lurker]

Well this shows the stature of the Great Sachin... each and every one is being compared to him class... it shows he has become a benchmark of class ' date=' technique , grace , elegance... so now using him ask a bench mark people compare DON,Viv,Punter,Hobbs,Sunny etc with him.[/quote'] Thats one way to look at it. Sure. The other is that he is consistently coming second best to Don, Viv and now Sunny. But hey whatever rocks your boat mh:--D

[Khalpat]

You could have stopped right there :cheer::cheer:

He is my most fav Indian Cricketer. No body can come close to him. You know why I hate when people start using nonsense logic of batsman being great only when his team wins, look at the second inning of this match, only Kapil Paaji could have done that 129 runs out of 215 that too against Donald and team and that too when he was in his last legs nearing retirement. You know what this is also the record of any Indian batsman having highest percentage of run in the whole team score now I think its broken by Laxman not sure. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63588.html

[Lurker]

The reason "we would never know" is each player has different technique when facing bouncer or short pitch stuff that they develop through their career. A good example is Mohinder Amarnath he was fed with Bouncers and hit many times early in his career...in fact he once fell on his stumps trying to hook (almost ending his career in late 70s) !!! but when he returned in 82/83 Pak series he came back with helmet and more confidence....now imagine if he was playing in 60s or 50s his career would have ended (a la Nari contractor way).

Snap, you didnt just say that, did you? Now what is the helmet-does-not-do-anything-for-batsmen crowd gonna do? Seriously though, wasnt it Rodney Hogg who felled Amarnath?

[Lurker]

He is my most fav Indian Cricketer. No body can come close to him. You know why I hate when people start using nonsense logic of batsman being great only when his team wins, look at the second inning of this match, only Kapil Paaji could have done that 129 runs out of 215 that too against Donald and team and that too when he was in his last legs nearing retirement. You know what this is also the record of any Indian batsman having highest percentage of run in the whole team score now I think its broken by Laxman not sure. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/63588.html

Arre yaar tum to chupe rustam nikale. Kya baat hai meri jaan! Lage raho Khalpat miyaan, hum tumhare saaath hain :dance:

[Raghav_12]

What do you mean bolstered by 140 odd? Every batsman's average is bolstered by innings in which he scores more runs. That's specially going to be true for an opener against a quality pace attack - a batsman would be more vulnerable at the start of the innings and cash in if and when he gets set. Try to understand the context in which the above numbers were given. Gavaskar was called as having failed very badly against a full strength West Indies bowling attack - the definition of full strength bowling attack was provided as all of Marshall, Holding, Roberts, and Garner should have been playing. I showed that they played a grand total of 6 test matches together in their entire lives out of which Gavaskar played 4 and averaged 37. Now, since the West Indies played a huge sample size of 2 tests besides those with a full strength bowling attack why even bring up this point when there is no benchmark to suggest whether that performance was poor? Yeah, as individual bowlers the ones from the 90s were as good as the 80s but as a collective fast bowling unit nothing compares to the West Indies of the 80s. And even with 2 great/very good fast bowlers in the attack Tendulkar averages about as much as Gavaskar averaged when he is supposed to have failed miserably, despite coming in the middle order and facing up to 4 great/very good fast bowlers in an attack instead of 2.

So you say that Gavaskar didn't fail in that 83 test series in WI? He scored less runs than Amarnath, Vegsarkar, Yashpal Sharma, Kapil and Shastri in that series. 147 of his 240 runs came in a test which was already dead for as long as dodos have been. And that means less than 100 runs in remaining 8 innings, and you think Gavaskar didn't fail in that series? Would be good if answer could be direct instead of tangential one.

[Raghav_12]

Don't know what we are debating here, other than fighting along the lines which have been long established on ICF. I have been big fan of Gavaskar and of course fan of Sachin, but there are some things which are undeniable. Nobody can deny that Gavaskar has been one of the best player of fast bowling ever and he proved this many times in his career. But anybody who is saying that Gavaskar didn't fail in that series must be kidding themselves. However, in following series, when WI came to India, Gavaskar proved that previous WI tour was just an aberration and nobody can question his prowess against fast bowling.

[vvvslaxman]

That was a memorable series for more than one reason. First test Richards absolutely ripped open Indian bowling on the last day. Second test.. someone had a bet that Greenidge/Haynes/Ricahrds combined will not score more than Sunil Gavaskar. Sunny was out for 1.. would you believe it.. Greenidge/Haynes/Richards had a combined score of 1 ( 2 out for duck) and he won the bet. Third test... 1 run to win.. that ended up being a noball lol. 4th test was on patta wicket. St.johns where lara made 375/400 Gayle made 317. Sunny was out of form. It was a flat pitch. Couldn't cash it in. Kapil dev played a blinder.

[akshayxyz]

Comparing "Facing a fast bowling quartet"(e.g. WI-80s) vs "Facing 2-3 fast bowlers, 1-2 top class spinners" (e.g. Aussie of 2000s) - is not entirely valid - in matters of difficulty of facing a bowling attack. Facing 4 bowlers of similar style/speed has its advantage too - overall less variety to prepare for, and deal with. We see more examples of batsmen dominating one type of bowling/pitch conditions, than ones who manage to maintain performance above certain level in variety of conditions/bowling.

[vvvslaxman]

Comparing "Facing a fast bowling quartet"(e.g. WI-80s) vs "Facing 2-3 fast bowlers, 1-2 top class spinners" (e.g. Aussie of 2000s) - is not entirely valid - in matters of difficulty of facing a bowling attack. Facing 4 bowlers of similar style/speed has its advantage too - overall less variety to prepare for, and deal with. We see more examples of batsmen dominating one type of bowling/pitch conditions, than ones who manage to maintain performance above certain level in variety of conditions/bowling.

That is true when you face Irfan pathan , Praveen kumar, Vinay kumar.. not Andy roberts, Marshall, Holding, Garner :cantstop: . Each bowler was lethal in their own way. Garner had a mean yorker and could produce lifting deliveries from good length. Roberts had a good bouncer. Marshall had great swing and pace.