saneindian Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Huh? Tendulkar and Lara were the greatest things to have hit world cricket in the early 90s! You'll look back and pick up some stats guru filters and I won't be able to present my case to stats guru' date=' but if you were alive and kicking in the early 90s you would know what Tendulkar and Lara were disregarding any statistics.[/quote'] Lara and Sachin were earmarked for greatness from an early age, perhaps even before they started playing international cricket. I wasn't even born when Richards or Gavaskar made their debut, but not sure if they were thought of prodigies in their early careers. Lara and Sachin being geniuses from an early age cannot be held against the likes of Kallis and Dravid (or ABDV and Sanga for that matter).
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 I Know we cannot debate about Lara and SRT's greatness' date=' but I was just giving an example that whoever Tendulkar was or touted to be, [b']but to be called an ATG it took 10-15 years even for him, so why taking decision on ABDV on hsi 7 year career where his average is around 50 already and is one of the most gifted player around in stroke play and in elegance. What about Sangakkara? Can he be a candidate of a great batsman. He too has scored at most overseas tours for SL and has been consistent. Tendulkar was called at his home by a recluse like Bradman in '98 - neither Richards, Gavaskar, or even Chappell being from the same country got that kind of recognition. I am not saying recognition by Bradman is the ultimate prize, but for someone who was a recluse to make this kind of a gesture there must have been something great in Tendulkar which De Villiers does not have. Sangakkara and Sehwag as I mentioned in an earlier post are probably the last batsmen I have seen coming close to the top echelons - a decade ago. The standard of test cricket has gone so much down the drain that after Steyn's debut test cricket has given neither an all time great batsman nor an all time great bowler. So much for competitiveness giving rise to quality theory.
rkt.india Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Tendulkar was called at his home by a recluse like Bradman in '98 - neither Richards' date=' Gavaskar, or even Chappell being from the same country got that kind of recognition. I[b'] am not saying recognition by Bradman is the ultimate prize, but for someone who was a recluse to make this kind of a gesture there must have been something great in Tendulkar which De Villiers does not have. Sangakkara and Sehwag as I mentioned in an earlier post are probably the last batsmen I have seen coming close to the top echelons - a decade ago. The standard of test cricket has gone so much down the drain that after Steyn's debut test cricket has given neither an all time great batsman nor an all time great bowler. So much for competitiveness giving rise to quality theory. But It does not mean other cannot be great. Tendulkar had alreayd spent 10 years in international cricket by 1999. ABDV has the class of a great batsmen and if he can score runs in access of any other great, he too can be one of them. South African test pitches are few of the toughest batting tracks in modern times.
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Lara and Sachin were earmarked for greatness from an early age, perhaps even before they started playing international cricket. I wasn't even born when Richards or Gavaskar made their debut, but not sure if they were thought of prodigies in their early careers. Lara and Sachin being geniuses from an early age cannot be held against the likes of Kallis and Dravid (or ABDV and Sanga for that matter). From what I've read/heard Richards was, Gavaskar wasn't. I am not holding anything against anyone, but there is a difference of class between Tendulkar/Lara and Dravid/Ponting/Kallis, forget about DeVilliers - at least I feel there is, but some stats guru filters might prove me wrong.
rkt.india Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 From what I've read/heard Richards was, Gavaskar wasn't. I am not holding anything against anyone, but there is a difference of class between Tendulkar/Lara and Dravid/Ponting/Kallis, forget about DeVilliers - at least I feel there is, but some stats guru filters might prove me wrong. Yes. There is difference in class, but at the end runs matter too. Dravid, Ponting, Kallis are not far behind like other batsmen were from Bradman.
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 But It does not mean other cannot be great. Tendulkar had alreayd spent 10 years in international cricket by 1999. ABDV has the class of a great batsmen and if he can score runs in access of any other great' date=' he too can be one of them even Sangakkara who has 28 100s average of 55 in tests and third most double 100s in test cricket. South African test pitches are few of the toughest batting tracks in modern times.[/quote'] Man! De Villiers does not even average 50 after playing 80 test matches - has he ever averaged 50 - and this is the most pitiful bowling era in test match cricket I've ever witnessed! For some people statistics confirm greatness and for other like De Villiers you would need the crutch of stats to prove greatness.
rkt.india Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Man! De Villiers does not even average 50 after playing 80 test matches - has he ever averaged 50 - and this is the most pitiful bowling era in test match cricket I've ever witnessed! For some people statistics confirm greatness and for other like De Villiers you would need the crutch of stats to prove greatness. But Devilliars has not finished his career yet. He still has good 6-8 years ahead. His career average is 49.16 despite playing most home tests on few of the toughest tracks for batsmen.
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Yes. There is difference in class' date=' but at the end runs matter too. Dravid, Ponting, Kallis are not far behind like other batsmen were from Bradman.[/quote'] In the number of runs scored they might not have been, but the manner and the quality of those runs set Tendulkar and Lara apart like Richards, Chappell, and Gavaskar were apart - despite his superior average no one in his right mind would compare Miandad to Richards or Gavaskar.
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 But Devilliars has not finished his career yet. He still has good 6-8 years ahead. His career average is 49.16 despite playing most home tests on few of the toughest tracks for batsmen. So Kallis is the greatest because he scored at 56 on the toughest tracks for batsmen?
rkt.india Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 So Kallis is the greatest because he scored at 56 on the toughest tracks for batsmen? I am not saying he is the greatest, but he is certainly one of them among SRT, Lara, Ponting, Dravid.
saneindian Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 From what I've read/heard Richards was, Gavaskar wasn't. I am not holding anything against anyone, but there is a difference of class between Tendulkar/Lara and Dravid/Ponting/Kallis, forget about DeVilliers - at least I feel there is, but some stats guru filters might prove me wrong. That's all right. We can all have different opinions. ABDV was earmarked for greatness in his country from an early age, people were in fact frustrated when he couldn't somehow do well in test matches early in his career. It took him time to get there, but he is slowing stamping his class showing consistency and dominating attack, irrespective of how rubbish they are. What he's lacking is that breakthrough season say something like what Sachin had in 1998 or Dravid had in 2002 or Ponting in 2003.
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 I am not saying he is the greatest' date=' but he is certainly one of them among SRT, Lara, Ponting, Dravid.[/quote'] And that's where I disagree - Lara and Tendulkar are in a different class. Ponting, Dravid, Kallis come behind them, regardless of stats guru filters. You are free to have your opinion on it, let me be free to have mine.
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 That's all right. We can all have different opinions. ABDV was earmarked for greatness in his country from an early age, people were in fact frustrated when he couldn't somehow do well in test matches early in his career. It took him time to get there, but he is slowing stamping his class showing consistency and . What he's lacking is that breakthrough season say something like what Sachin had in 1998 or Dravid had in 2002 or Ponting in 2003. Yaar, tell me one knock De Viliers has played and rolls off the tongue like Tendulkar '92, Lara '99, Tendulkar '99, Lara '99 - there is nothing. It's hapless bashing of hopeless bowling attacks around the world - tell me the name one bowler apart from Steyn playing test cricket who would make an all time great list. The standard of test cricket is down in the dumps and will most likely get worse.
rkt.india Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 And that's where I disagree - Lara and Tendulkar are in a different class. Ponting' date=' Dravid, Kallis come behind them, regardless of stats guru filters. You are free to have your opinion on it, let me be free to have mine.[/quote'] Agree. Lara and Tendulkar are in different class, but is class enough? Their class is not visible if we compare their overall career. They all are very similar in terms of run scoring and average. Yes class make one look better but should is be a criteria of greatness?
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Agree. Lara and Tendulkar are in different class' date=' but is class enough? Their class is not visible if we compare their overall career. They all are very similar in terms of run scoring and average. Yes class make one look better but should is be a criteria of greatness?[/quote'] No, class makes themselves differentiate from the pack in the circumstances they made some runs in - for example Tendulkar's century at Perth in '92, Lara's 277 at Sydney, Tendulkar's 136 at Chennai, Lara's 153 - those kind of innings - among the other names Dravid would have a few, Ponting fewer and Kallis fewer still. Chalo, why prolong this debate - let's wait and watch - I say De Villiers will never be in the same class as Tendulkar and Lara and you say he will, let's just wait and see how things turn out.
rkt.india Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Yaar' date=' tell me one knock De Viliers has played and rolls off the tongue like Tendulkar '92, Lara '99, Tendulkar '99, Lara '99 - there is nothing. It's hapless bashing of hopeless bowling attacks around the world - tell me the name one bowler apart from Steyn playing test cricket who would make an all time great list. The standard of test cricket is down in the dumps and will most likely get worse.[/quote'] 100 chasing 414 against Australia at Perth in 2008 was one of his best innings.
rkt.india Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 No' date=' class makes themselves differentiate from the pack in the circumstances they made some runs in - for example Tendulkar's century at Perth in '92, Lara's 277 at Sydney, Tendulkar's 136 at Chennai, Lara's 153 - those kind of innings - among the other [b']names Dravid would have a few, Ponting fewer and Kallis fewer still. Chalo, why prolong this debate - let's wait and watch - I say De Villiers will never be in the same class as Tendulkar and Lara and you say he will, let's just wait and see how things turn out. Dravid's twin 50s At Sabina Park in 2006 are better than many great centuries others have made.
saneindian Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Yaar' date=' tell me one knock De Viliers has played and rolls off the tongue like Tendulkar '92, Lara '99, Tendulkar '99, Lara '99 - there is nothing. It's hapless bashing of hopeless bowling attacks around the world - tell me the name one bowler apart from Steyn playing test cricket who would make an all time great list. The standard of test cricket is down in the dumps and will most likely get worse.[/quote'] He can play against the bowlers of his era not against the legends of a previous era. Should not be held against him at all. has played enough good knocks IMO, 200* in India vs Bhajji and Kumble which totally shut us out of the match, a cool 100 in a world record 4th innings chase vs Aus, a 100 vs a red hot Jhonson in the return leg of the Aus-SA series in SA..not against the Mcgrath, Ambrose or Wasim and Waqar, but surely good enough on tough tracks against high class bowling. Taking that argument further, does Dravid's 233 at Adelaide or 270 at Rawalpindi or 148 at Headingley become not so great knocks because he didn't face any legendary bowlers during those innings?
The Outsider Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 I'll quit the discussion on De Villiers here - you guys think he will be counted as an all time great I don't, let things pan out and we'll see. I just don't see enough class to be an all time great and play a 136 Chennai or 153 Barbados.
saneindian Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 Has already played a great 4th innings knock, 100* chasing 414 against the best side of his era..not made against legendary bowlers, but a great knock nonetheless. Will play many more such knocks. May not have the press running behind him as a Lara and Sachin, but by the time he is done in the next 7-8 years, would have done enough to join other greats of the game. Statistically, his struggled in the first 3-4 years of his test career, would hold him back, but he would do enough to be counted among the greats of the game.
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