Is Sachin a greater test batsmen or ODI batsmen?

[Ultimate_Game]

And regarding the argument of Viv vs Sachin, i would still go for Sachin in all formats. Viv, as great as he was, ultimately had 3-4 jaw-dropping years and the rest were ordinary. The same is true in Tests as well as ODIs and as such, Sachin wins, simply because Sachin has been a worldclass/great performer from the age of 18 to 38, thats two decades. Viv on the other hand, ceased performing like a great batsman a good 7-8 years before he finally retired. Therfore, the fact that Sachin has performed through a much greater timespan, puts him ahead of Viv.

Not in odis though. He was always a beast in odis. Also in Tests he had poor ending but was a terror rest of his career.

[BeautifulGame]

I don't think Dhoni has ever gotten out on a duck.

2007 WC vs Bangladesh

[I6MTW]

Never did I say Ponting wasn't a good bat. Ponting wasn't an exceptional Bat like there are atleast 10 people who are better than him.

[Muloghonto]

Not in odis though. He was always a beast in odis. Also in Tests he had poor ending but was a terror rest of his career.

Viv in ODIs between 1979- 1986(7 years): 4049 runs @ 57.84 Viv in the other 10 years of his career: 2672 runs @ 36.60

[Ultimate_Game]

Viv in ODIs between 1979- 1986(7 years): 4049 runs @ 57.84 Viv in the other 10 years of his career: 2672 runs @ 36.60

Those are decent nos. in odis especially when the player ends up with an average of 47 and SR of 90. And a 7 year peak is pretty good for a batsman. Plus, Viv played in the days of no power plays or fielding restrictions when a winning total was closer to 240-250 than 300.

[Yoda-esque]

He is a better ODI batsman and that is because in ODIs, he has to attack which is his natural style. In tests, he goes against his instinct and that has led to his downfall many a time.

[Muloghonto]

Those are decent nos. in odis especially when the player ends up with an average of 47 and SR of 90. And a 7 year peak is pretty good for a batsman. Plus' date=' Viv played in the days of no power plays or fielding restrictions when a winning total was closer to 240-250 than 300.[/quote'] Dude, Viv is quite easily in the top 3 ODI batters of alltime. As such, when the argument is between two ATGs, it is quite pointless to point out their awesomeness. That is a given and doesnt lend itself to the argument. We are better off discussing what possible flaws the two have in comparison. Viv for example, rarely got bounced. This is because the Windies of his time had a clear policy that went 'if you bounced Viv, Kalli or Lloyd, we are going to bounce all your batsmen in return and kill them'. Since the Windies had the most brutal pace attack of his time, opposition rarely bounced Viv. For two, Viv batted behind the 2nd greatest opening pair in LOIs ( Greenidge and Haynes, next only to Sachin-Saurav in my books) and as such, had an easier time bashing the bowling than Tendy, who is an opener in ODIs. For three, i simply cannot consider a batsman who's stellar for 7 years and mediocre/average for 10 to be greater than a batsman who's been stellar for 15+ years. Longetivity has a definite contribution to make in discussions about alltime greatness.

[Ultimate_Game]

Dude, Viv is quite easily in the top 3 ODI batters of alltime. As such, when the argument is between two ATGs, it is quite pointless to point out their awesomeness. That is a given and doesnt lend itself to the argument. We are better off discussing what possible flaws the two have in comparison. Viv for example, rarely got bounced. This is because the Windies of his time had a clear policy that went 'if you bounced Viv, Kalli or Lloyd, we are going to bounce all your batsmen in return and kill them'. Since the Windies had the most brutal pace attack of his time, opposition rarely bounced Viv. For two, Viv batted behind the 2nd greatest opening pair in LOIs ( Greenidge and Haynes, next only to Sachin-Saurav in my books) and as such, had an easier time bashing the bowling than Tendy, who is an opener in ODIs. For three, i simply cannot consider a batsman who's stellar for 7 years and mediocre/average for 10 to be greater than a batsman who's been stellar for 15+ years. Longetivity has a definite contribution to make in discussions about alltime greatness.

But what if a player who's not so stellar for majority of his career (Viv) puts up better nos. than the said stellar player? Viv has a better average, a better SR and was the difference maker in 2 of the 3 WC finals he played in (in 75 he had 3 run outs to induce a collapse, in 79 he hammered a brutal 100 and in 83 he was still the 2nd highest scorer in the match and his wkt was the one which turned the match on its head).

[Muloghonto]

But what if a player who's not so stellar for majority of his career (Viv) puts up better nos. than the said stellar player? Viv has a better average' date=' a better SR and was the difference maker in 2 of the 3 WC finals he played in (in 75 he had 3 run outs to induce a collapse, in 79 he hammered a brutal 100 and in 83 he was still the 2nd highest scorer in the match and his wkt was the one which turned the match on its head).[/quote'] Then he is inferior in my books. Simple. The first fundamental dictum to being a greater player, in my books, is not how well you've done in your best years (every dog has his day,etc) but how well you did in your worse years. And if you end up with a superior average than the other guy, i will still rate the other guy better, provided he was stellar for most of his career and you did a Bradman for your first half of career and Harbhajan with the next half.

[Ultimate_Game]

Then he is inferior in my books. Simple. The first fundamental dictum to being a greater player' date= in my books, is not how well you've done in your best years (every dog has his day,etc) but how well you did in your worse years. And if you end up with a superior average than the other guy, i will still rate the other guy better, provided he was stellar for most of his career and you did a Bradman for your first half of career and Harbhajan with the next half.

That's weird bit of logic. If A is so much better than B for say 7 years that his overall nos. are better than B, how can B be better than A? Why not "A is better coz he was so much better than B at his peak that A's overall nos. are better than B despite A's relative slump". You make it sound Viv was at the top of his game for only a couple of years.

[Muloghonto]

That's weird bit of logic. If A is so much better than B for say 7 years that his overall nos. are better than B' date=' how can B be better than A? Why not "A is better coz he was so much better than B at his peak that A's overall nos. are better than B despite A's relative slump". You make it sound Viv was at the top of his game for only a couple of years.[/quote'] because as a player of competitive sports, i know that the first fundamental dictum of the sport is 'what have you done for me lately'. As such, i'd have player A, who's peak is 80% of player B's peak and who's fallow years are 50% better than player B's. In this case, i'd take a 50 average and 88 strike rate over 15 years than 57 average and 95 strike rate for 7 years, with 36 average and 85 strike rate for 10. I consider consistency & performance over entire career to be one of the defining features of a sportsman, which is why i don't rate the ones who have 'brilliant peaks but are nobodies in their fallow years', who end up with better career stats, than someone who is worldclass for his entire career and not so brilliant at his peak. This is why i rank VVS greater than Hussey, Dravid better than Clarke, Ganguly better than Jimmy Adams, Becker better than Wilander, etc. If you have a significant dip in your performance for the duration of half your career, it counts against you in my books.

[Sachin=GOD]

Aah!!! such a new topic and such a refreshing discussion going on...... Keep going guys :cheer: :cheer:

[Ultimate_Game]

because as a player of competitive sports, i know that the first fundamental dictum of the sport is 'what have you done for me lately'. As such, i'd have player A, who's peak is 80% of player B's peak and who's fallow years are 50% better than player B's. In this case, i'd take a 50 average and 88 strike rate over 15 years than 57 average and 95 strike rate for 7 years, with 36 average and 85 strike rate for 10. I consider consistency & performance over entire career to be one of the defining features of a sportsman, which is why i don't rate the ones who have 'brilliant peaks but are nobodies in their fallow years', who end up with better career stats, than someone who is worldclass for his entire career and not so brilliant at his peak. This is why i rank VVS greater than Hussey, Dravid better than Clarke, Becker better than Wilander, etc.

You don't give any weightage to performances in big matches, say WC finals? What good is a consistent player when he can't take the match by the scruff of its neck and change the course in his team's favor? Viv was much better than this respect and for me this factor rates higher than being consistent for longer.

[Ultimate_Game]

Aah!!! such a new topic and such a refreshing discussion going on...... Keep going guys :cheer: :cheer:

I promise I am out and this would be my last post on the thread :--D

[Sachin=GOD]

I promise I am out and this would be my last post on the thread :--D

array its good entertainment - keep going :--D

[Muloghonto]

You don't give any weightage to performances in big matches' date=' say WC finals? [/quote'] Not really. This whole 'big game performer' tag is a red herring. I don't give a rats hiney about one or two innings, there are so many factors to why a batsman fails on a given innings, i don't attach 'occasion' as a huge determinant factor either. And if you pay close enough attention, how a batsman failed to perform in a one/two innings special case scenario is, is usally never parroted as a reason for admiration or derison amongst professionals. Batting has a far higher share of '**** happens' as a valid reason, where batters are powerless to've done otherwise than for bowling in a given match. IMO, big game performers is a far more of an earned tag for veterans, in the whole sense of how important they are to their team for the role given and how efficiently they pull off their primary role when the team needs it ( which is largely irrepespective of the match occasion if you are a professional). This is a bit of a red herring, because both Tendy and Viv are capable of taking the match by the storm. As i said, Viv marginally scores over Sachin for having an Afridi-esque strike rate in comparison, but there are mitigating factors: a) Sachin averages almost 50 in ODI cricket (as opener) for almost twice the matches Viv's played, with a far more consistent record over the years. As i said, how good a player you are, *has* to function in how good they are over their careers. Peaks are useful, but only so much: Sachin could've averaged 10+ more in his peak and India would probably only have won 10% of those matches, at most. It doesnt matter that Viv on his heydey was God in the ODI arena. For most of his career, he was good but not great. That does make his peak to be secondry to Tendy's long mileage. Give me a player who is 90% as good as their best, for 15 years, over a guy who is only 50% as good in half as his career as his peak, provided they are the same level of players (ie, it is an ATG vs ATG comparison, or extremely good vs extremely good comparisons, etc).

[The Outsider]

And regarding the argument of Viv vs Sachin, i would still go for Sachin in all formats. Viv, as great as he was, ultimately had 3-4 jaw-dropping years and the rest were ordinary. The same is true in Tests as well as ODIs and as such, Sachin wins, simply because Sachin has been a worldclass/great performer from the age of 18 to 38, thats two decades. Viv on the other hand, ceased performing like a great batsman a good 7-8 years before he finally retired. Therfore, the fact that Sachin has performed through a much greater timespan, puts him ahead of Viv.

You claim to be 41 years old and have followed cricket in the 70s and 80s. :hysterical:

[Ultimate_Game]

Not really. This whole 'big game performer' tag is a red herring. I don't give a rats hiney about one or two innings' date= there are so many factors to why a batsman fails on a given innings, i don't attach 'occasion' as a huge determinant factor either. And if you pay close enough attention, how a batsman failed to perform in a one/two innings special case scenario is, is usally never parroted as a reason for admiration or derison amongst professionals. Batting has a far higher share of '**** happens' as a valid reason, where batters are powerless to've done otherwise than for bowling in a given match. IMO, big game performers is a far more of an earned tag for veterans, in the whole sense of how important they are to their team for the role given and how efficiently they pull off their primary role when the team needs it ( which is largely irrepespective of the match occasion if you are a professional). This is a bit of a red herring, because both Tendy and Viv are capable of taking the match by the storm. As i said, Viv marginally scores over Sachin for having an Afridi-esque strike rate in comparison, but there are mitigating factors: a) Sachin averages almost 50 in ODI cricket (as opener) for almost twice the matches Viv's played, with a far more consistent record over the years. As i said, how good a player you are, *has* to function in how good they are over their careers. Peaks are useful, but only so much: Sachin could've averaged 10+ more in his peak and India would probably only have won 10% of those matches, at most. It doesnt matter that Viv on his heydey was God in the ODI arena. For most of his career, he was good but not great. That does make his peak to be secondry to Tendy's long mileage. Give me a player who is 90% as good as their best, for 15 years, over a guy who is only 50% as good in half as his career as his peak, provided they are the same level of players (ie, it is an ATG vs ATG comparison, or extremely good vs extremely good comparisons, etc).

I think we differ greatly in the way we rank players. For me, and plenty of sports fans, "being clutch" is a huge factor. This is why likes of Joe Montana are so highly regarded compared to likes of Peyton Manning. If you go by stats manning will be way ahead of Montana but he's not even close. As much as you may want to disregard the "big game performance" factor, truth is it's a huge part of how the players are perceived by fans and their peers. There are some players who bring their best when the occasion is bigger and Viv was one of those. And to me that counts a lot. I can't equate a 100 in a WC final with a 100 scored in a Pepsi trophy. Both Viv & Tendulkar were capable of taking the matches away from the opponent but we saw Viv do it a lot more than Tendulkar. As for Tendulkar's stats where you claimed he averaged near 50, Viv actually averages more than Tendulkar at a higher SR and playing in the days without power plays, without bowling & fielding restrictions, and when 240-250 was considered a winning total.

[Muloghonto]

You claim to be 41 years old and have followed cricket in the 70s and 80s. :hysterical:

Perhaps you didnt start watching cricket till your teens, there are plenty who did in their pre-teens. I am sure you can do the math.

[Muloghonto]

I think we differ greatly in the way we rank players. For me' date=' and plenty of sports fans, "being clutch" is a huge factor. This is why likes of Joe Montana are so highly regarded compared to likes of Peyton Manning. If you go by stats manning will be way ahead of Montana but he's not even close. [/quote'] The perception of what is and what is not 'clutch performance' differs significantly, in my experience from those of the viewing public and those of the coaches & sportsmen. As such, what i am syaing is, i differ on your definition of clutch performance and what determines it. It is pretty much only the fans who care about who performed and who did not in a one-off match, such as the world cup finals or stanley cup finals series. To most of the coaches/players, it is nothing more than a one-off and hardly ever merits considertion into whether it makes one a clutch or a non clutch player. Clutch, you will find, is a vastly different thing to professional sportsmen and staff. Not statistically great sounding stuff that the average fan concerns himself with. You may not be able to equate a 100 in a world cup final to a 100 in pepsi trophy. But most coaches, player, etc. do not consider a 100 in a world cup final to be greater than the 100 in the pepsi cup simply as a function of the occasion. That is hogwash from a playing perspective and everyone who plays the sport, knows that. Different times and different methods. For one, run-scoring in Viv's era was easier for the bashers, simply because the captains still kept more of an aggressive 'test-like' field setting in the 80s instead of the 'everyman at the rope' you see today. Not to mention, Viv also came behind Greenidge and Haynes, who were the best opening duo in ODIs till the rise of Sachin-Saurav. As such, if Dhoni came in after Sachin-Saurav, where his job would be to put the game out of the reach, rather than rebuild/build a base, he too would have excellent strike rates. Tendulkar has done it for over twice the matches, over twice the span. As i said, they were both quite impressive in their own eras. Tendy towers over every other bat in his era (in ODIs) like Viv did. Like Viv, there isnt anyone who's scored at a higher average and strike rate than Tendy either. The fact is, Tendy also played in eras of far superior fielding and your field restrictions argument is a bit of a red herring, as in ODIs in the 80s, it was still common to see two slips and a gulley, for most of the game - the fielding placement hadnt shifted to a 'run denial' setting as much as it has today, it was still aggressive in the 'wicket taking' setting. the only reason Viv even belongs to this discussion, is because his numbers as a whole are so stunning. But the fact that Tendy has produced qualitatively equal performances to Viv's for over twice the matches and years, is enough for me to rate Tendy ahead of Viv in ODIs. 7 years of 'Dhoni-esque' numbers and 10 years of Inzy-esque numbers does not make him better than Tendy in my books.