Is Sachin a greater test batsmen or ODI batsmen?

[Ultimate_Game]

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.

Somehow I don't think your assertion that "most coaches, player, etc. do not consider a 100 in a world cup final to be greater than the 100 in the pepsi cup" is correct. Every analysis and hall of fame selections I have seen across different sports I have seen, one factor has universally remained constant, which is rising up to the occasion and performing on the biggest stage. In baseball A Rod (Alex Rodriguez) gets so little respect coz he never shows up in playoffs and he's widely regarded as "Miss April" rather than "Mr. October". Same with performances in playoffs in NFL. In fact LeBron James has started getting more respect after he and Miami Heat won the NBA Championships. To say performances on the big stage doesn't matter is naý×e in the extreme and I don't believe for a second cricket is any different. It's in human nature to look up to those who shine under pressure and that's why we have defined terms/phrases like "clutch", "performing under pressure" etc. As I said earlier our parameters are so different we are poles apart. For me being clutch the way it's universally interpreted is a key factor in determining GOAT (Greatest Of All Time) whereas for you putting up numbers without context is good enough. You may be fine with someone scoring runs in a random odi series but for me context plays a huge part in sports and a performance on a big stage (WC final) carries high weightage. I would rate Gambhir as an ordinary batsman but for his knocks in T20 Cup and World Cup finals. Dhoni may well score more hundreds but I doubt he would ever play a more special knock than the one he played on April 2nd, 2011 unless one of those hundreds comes in 2015 WC final.

[Muloghonto]

Somehow I don't think your assertion that "most coaches' date= player, etc. do not consider a 100 in a world cup final to be greater than the 100 in the pepsi cup" is correct. Every analysis and hall of fame selections I have seen across different sports I have seen, one factor has universally remained constant, which is rising up to the occasion and performing on the biggest stage. In baseball A Rod (Alex Rodriguez) gets so little respect coz he never shows up in playoffs and he's widely regarded as "Miss April" rather than "Mr. October". Same with performances in playoffs in NFL. In fact LeBron James has started getting more respect after he and Miami Heat won the NBA Championships.

You are setting up a strawman argument here. Alex Rodriguez, who never shows up for the playoffs, is a moot point here. Try someone like Sydney Crosby, who scored 2 points in 6 matches of Stanley Cup Final series. He is unanimously considered the best hockey forward since Gretsky and one of the best clutch performers ever. His playoff numbers are stellar. But in the series that would be his team's greatest success, he scored 2 points in 7 games, all in one game. Choker ? not-clutch ? hardly, since Crosby has bailed out his team so many times in must-win situations throughout the playoffs. I am yet to see a hall of famer coach or player basing their argument on 1/2 games such as cricket world cup finals or stanley cup final round like you are doing. Clutch is more than about one or two 'flaghsip/high profile games/series'. You ask about clutch performance, but you are defining clutch performance from the 'eye of a fan', not from the optics of a player/coach. FYI, an elimination match in world cup is no less a clutch performance as in the final, despite the fact that the fans only remember finals, not other elimination rounds. As such, you'd have a case if Sachin was significantly lacking compared to Viv in world cups- which he is not. I simply reject the basis of your entire 'clutch or not clutch' definition boiling down to one or two matches, which is, to put it mildly, bunk.

You may be fine with someone scoring runs in a random odi series but for me context plays a huge part in sports and a performance on a big stage (WC final) carries high weightage. I would rate Gambhir as an ordinary batsman but for his knocks in T20 Cup and World Cup finals. Dhoni may well score more hundreds but I doubt he would ever play a more special knock than the one he played on April 2nd, 2011 unless one of those hundreds comes in 2015 WC final.

You are speaking like a fan. I am speaking like a coach. That is the difference. FYI, i used to coach hockey in my 30s. I am yet to find a single coach- in the whole 'my weekend warrior U-15 team' or 'AHL level coaches who will one day coach NHL teams', who's idea of clutch is as naive and simplistic as yours. One or two matches are hardly a justifiable barometer for clutch performance. But for you fans, that is all the optics that matters. Thus Viv's century or Dhoni's knock in the world cup finals will always be seen in greater light than Kapil's 180-odd runs, which IMO, is just as clutch a performance as Viv's finals century. Outside of these fan-forums, i am yet to find a single legitimate sporting thinktank that equates clutch to a couple of high profile matches.

[The Outsider]

Perhaps you didnt start watching cricket till your teens' date=' there are plenty who did in their pre-teens. I am sure you can do the math.[/quote'] I am not disputing that a 41 year old could/would have watched cricket in the 70s/80s but your ignorance with regards to Richards having watched cricket in the 70s/80s.

[Muloghonto]

I am not disputing that a 41 year old could/would have watched cricket in the 70s/80s but your ignorance with regards to Richards having watched cricket in the 70s/80s.

? So you are not disputing that i was watching cricket in the late 70s/80s but that i didnt watch Richards in the 70s/80s ?! :blink:

[Ultimate_Game]

You are setting up a strawman argument here. Alex Rodriguez' date=' who never shows up for the playoffs, is a moot point here. Try [b']someone like Sydney Crosby, who scored 2 points in 6 matches of Stanley Cup Final series. I am yet to see a hall of famer coach or player basing their argument on 1/2 games such as cricket world cup finals or stanley cup final round. You ask about clutch performance, but you are defining clutch performance from the 'eye of a fan', not from the optics of a player/coach. FYI, an elimination match in world cup is no less a clutch performance as in the final, despite the fact that the fans only remember finals, not other elimination rounds. As such, you'd have a case if Sachin was significantly lacking compared to Viv in world cups- which he is not. I simply reject the basis of your entire 'clutch or not clutch' definition boiling down to one or two matches, which is, to put it mildly, bunk. You are speaking like a fan. I am speaking like a coach. That is the difference. FYI, i used to coach hockey in my 30s. I am yet to find a single coach- in the whole 'my weekend warrior U-15 team' or 'AHL level coaches who will one day coach NHL teams', who's idea of clutch is as naive and simplistic as yours. One or two matches are hardly a justifiable barometer for clutch performance. But for you fans, that is all the optics that matters. Thus Viv's century or Dhoni's knock in the world cup finals will always be seen in greater light than Kapil's 180-odd runs, which IMO, is just as clutch a performance as Viv's finals century. Outside of these fan-forums, i am yet to find a single legitimate sporting thinktank that equates clutch to a couple of high profile matches.

About Crosby, he's also known for clinching Olympic gold for Canada with a winning goal in OT against US. It was one of the Winter Olympics' highlights and that performance was as clutch as it comes. Fact remains unless you show up at big stage you don't get much respect just like A Rod. About talking like a fan, of course I am talking like a fan, just like most of the folks on this forum. Why do you think this site is called "Indian Cricket Fans" but I highly doubt coaches or players consider performances on big stage as special as say in Pepsi Cup. Clutch performances will always have a higher weightage and definition of clutch is consistent across sports, fans and players/coaches, i.e. a performance in World Series, Superbowl, Olympics final, Word Cup final are deemed clutch by almost everyone whereas you will be hard pressed to compare such a performance with a similar performance in say Pepsi cup. Another example... Bolt lost to one of his countrymen a couple of times before the Olympics, but came back to win the Olympics gold medal. As per your logic both performances should be deemed equal and Bolt should be considered at the same level as the guy who beat him prior to Olympics but we all know the truth. Occasion, or a stage on which you perform does matter to the legacy of the players. You may call it a "Strawman" argument or call it seeing from a "fan" perspective, truth is sportspersons are defined by their performances on a big stage. Sehwag and Tendulkar have both scored a double ton in an odi but those innings will never be considered better than Ponting's masterclass in 2003 WC final, or Aravinda's 100 in 96 WC final etc. Context matters in sports and that's why fans & sportspersons cherish stellar performances on big stage. Fairly or unfairly stellar performances, or lack thereof, do end up defining legacies for sportspersons and that's how it has always been and will continue to be. A ton in a WC final will always be worth much more than a bunch of tons in no-name bi-lateral series.

[Old guy]

? So you are not disputing that i was watching cricket in the late 70s/80s but that i didnt watch Richards in the 70s/80s ?! :blink:

he means ur statement about richards makes him feel u never watched him play.. not that at ur age its not possible..but going by ur comment he finds it hard to believe that u watched him play..

[Muloghonto]

About Crosby' date=' he's also known for clinching Olympic gold for Canada with a winning goal in OT against US. It was one of the Winter Olympics' highlights and that performance was as clutch as it comes. Fact remains unless you show up at big stage you don't get much respect just like A Rod. [/quote'] Do you understand what a strawman argument is ? Because you are continuing to make one. My point is not that playoffs/world cups dont matter, that your 2nd ODI vs Paksitan is more important than world cups. My point is, reducing 'clutch performance' to one or two matches is nonsense. As such, my examples, such as Crosby or Tendulkar, is about clutch players who've shown up for important matches (playoffs/world cups) and produced clutch performances in must-win situations a plenty. You are equating failing in the final series of stanley cup/failing in world cup finals to the entire gamut of clutch performance, which is assinine. Clutch performance is not just about world cup finals. It is also about the semis, the quarters, the 'must win round-robin' matches. Showing up for those, is showing up for the big stage. Your Alex Rodrigues example is irrelevant here. Coaches & players define clutch performance according to the situation, depending on the quality of the opposition, the necessity of a 'must win' scenario, with whether it is 'final shift/final batting pair, etc' stuff. Just about a million more relevant things than whether it is Hero cup final or world cup final, world cup semi final or quarter final, etc. To you clutch is all about the prestige of the stage, to coaches and players, it is all about the team situation. Do not bring in individual competition to team sport. The bolt example is irrelevant here, because clutch or not clutch in sports are defined very differently in solitary or team sports. Bolt, like all runners, only ever compete against himself. They are not trying to accomplish something while actively being discouraged or impeded by the opposition. Again, you are making a strawman argument. Again, i urge you to look up the definition of a strawman. In simple terms, it is debunking an argument that is never made. Your bringing in Alex Rodgriguez, Bolt, etc. is demonstrative of your strawman argument. My point is, your definition of clutch,is ridiculous, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with match/team/performance situation, which is the real definition of clutch performance, instead, it is about the glamor of the stage only. There is a bloody good reason why not every single batsman/bowler rates his world cup final performance as their best (assuming they've done well in it, that is) and that is because unlike you, their definition of clutch is not solely tied to one or two glamour events and is based on a lot more than just 2 games in a decade. If you think Tendy's double ton against the likes of Steyn is not a better century than Punter's 100 against a mediocre attack, then you know nothing about the game and are only interested in the glamor shots of the game without understanding context or the realities of the game. Ofcourse context matters. Stop making a strawman argument! The point you are simply refusing to understand, is not that clutch performance is irrelevant or context doesnt matter, but that players and coaches define the criterias of clutch performance in far more realistic and astute terms than you, who only cares about the occasion of a world cup final and therefore by default, it must be more clutch than a semi-final match, which is also an elimination match. That is ridiculous, to say the least. As i said, only you and the fans can make an argument that makes a world cup final performance as 'evidence of clutch' but a must-win elimiation game as not clutch. Apparently scoring a bazillion runs with no pressure ( Punter came in at what ?100/1 and took the team to 350+?) is more 'clutch' than Kapil's performance in a must-win game when all that was left was Kapil between India and existing the world cup. Which, in actual playing terms, is complete bunk.

[The Outsider]

? So you are not disputing that i was watching cricket in the late 70s/80s but that i didnt watch Richards in the 70s/80s ?! :blink:

Yeah because if you had watched Richards in the 70s and 80s you would not be making idiotic statements like he was ordinary except for 3-4 years.

[Muloghonto]

Yeah because if you had watched Richards in the 70s and 80s you would not be making idiotic statements like he was ordinary except for 3-4 years.

i was out by 2-3 years ? He was ordinary in ODIs except for a seven-odd years stretch in the late 70s to mid 80s. Seems about right for going by memory, no ? being off by a couple of years instead of being wrong in the assertion, that is.

[Old guy]

i was out by 2-3 years ? He was ordinary in ODIs except for a seven-odd years stretch in the late 70s to mid 80s. Seems about right for going by memory' date=' no ? being off by a couple of years instead of being wrong in the assertion, that is.[/quote'] 3-4 to 7 is big difference i cannot comment about it as i never seen him bat ..but his stats in odi in that era were just miles ahead of anyone else..specially strike rate.. was he really crap in rest of years? or bad by his high standards? :hmmm:

[Muloghonto]

3-4 to 7 is big difference i cannot comment about it as i never seen him bat ..but his stats in odi in that era were just miles ahead of anyone else..specially strike rate.. was he really crap in rest of years? or bad by his high standards? :hmmm:

He was in Dhoni zone for six-seven years, then Inzy zone (much more sedate,averaging in the mid 30s' for the rest of his career, which is a total 17 year career, with a Ponting-esque drop-off near the end. Only in the very end ( 89,90, etc) Viv was in Afridi zone ( a six and out, etc), though. Sachin, in ODIs, never went into the 'walking wicket mode' like Viv did near his end, nor did he bat like a God for 1/3rd of his career and a mere mortal for the rest 2/3rds.

[The Outsider]

i was out by 2-3 years ? He was ordinary in ODIs except for a seven-odd years stretch in the late 70s to mid 80s. Seems about right for going by memory' date=' no ? being off by a couple of years instead of being wrong in the assertion, that is.[/quote'] http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/52812.html?class=2;template=results;type=batting I don't think I have the patience to indulge in a discussion about Richards being an ordinary cricketer.

[Ultimate_Game]

Do you understand what a strawman argument is ? Because you are continuing to make one. My point is not that playoffs/world cups dont matter, that your 2nd ODI vs Paksitan is more important than world cups. My point is, reducing 'clutch performance' to one or two matches is nonsense. As such, my examples, such as Crosby or Tendulkar, is about clutch players who've shown up for important matches (playoffs/world cups) and produced clutch performances in must-win situations a plenty. You are equating failing in the final series of stanley cup/failing in world cup finals to the entire gamut of clutch performance, which is assinine. Clutch performance is not just about world cup finals. It is also about the semis, the quarters, the 'must win round-robin' matches. Showing up for those, is showing up for the big stage. Your Alex Rodrigues example is irrelevant here. Coaches & players define clutch performance according to the situation, depending on the quality of the opposition, the necessity of a 'must win' scenario, with whether it is 'final shift/final batting pair, etc' stuff. Just about a million more relevant things than whether it is Hero cup final or world cup final, world cup semi final or quarter final, etc. To you clutch is all about the prestige of the stage, to coaches and players, it is all about the team situation. Do not bring in individual competition to team sport. The bolt example is irrelevant here, because clutch or not clutch in sports are defined very differently in solitary or team sports. Bolt, like all runners, only ever compete against himself. They are not trying to accomplish something while actively being discouraged or impeded by the opposition. Again, you are making a strawman argument. Again, i urge you to look up the definition of a strawman. In simple terms, it is debunking an argument that is never made. Your bringing in Alex Rodgriguez, Bolt, etc. is demonstrative of your strawman argument. My point is, your definition of clutch,is ridiculous, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with match/team/performance situation, which is the real definition of clutch performance, instead, it is about the glamor of the stage only. There is a bloody good reason why not every single batsman/bowler rates his world cup final performance as their best (assuming they've done well in it, that is) and that is because unlike you, their definition of clutch is not solely tied to one or two glamour events and is based on a lot more than just 2 games in a decade. If you think Tendy's double ton against the likes of Steyn is not a better century than Punter's 100 against a mediocre attack, then you know nothing about the game and are only interested in the glamor shots of the game without understanding context or the realities of the game. Ofcourse context matters. Stop making a strawman argument! The point you are simply refusing to understand, is not that clutch performance is irrelevant or context doesnt matter, but that players and coaches define the criterias of clutch performance in far more realistic and astute terms than you, who only cares about the occasion of a world cup final and therefore by default, it must be more clutch than a semi-final match, which is also an elimination match. That is ridiculous, to say the least. As i said, only you and the fans can make an argument that makes a world cup final performance as 'evidence of clutch' but a must-win elimiation game as not clutch. Apparently scoring a bazillion runs with no pressure ( Punter came in at what ?100/1 and took the team to 350+?) is more 'clutch' than Kapil's performance in a must-win game when all that was left was Kapil between India and existing the world cup. Which, in actual playing terms, is complete bunk.

Only things I understand from your post are... 1. Almost everything is a "Strawman Argument". 2. There's no such thing as clutch performance or performing on the biggest stage. 3. Clutch performances, or performances at the biggest stage of all don't impact sports-persons. And I disagree with all the points. As for your contention performances in big matches shouldn't matter as they are so few. But that's precisely the point. If there was a WC final every other day, there wouldn't be anything termed "clutch". It's only a few select sportspersons who can rise up to the occasion for the big matches and that's the skill which is termed as "clutch". If anyone could do it, it wouldn't be highly regarded in the first place.

[Muloghonto]

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/52812.html?class=2;template=results;type=batting I don't think I have the patience to indulge in a discussion about Richards being an ordinary cricketer.

I dont think i have time or the patience to indulge in a discussion revolving around strawman arguments from you, as i expect you to be a bit more intellectually honest and capable than the median on this board. This is twice i can recollect you engaging in pityful shenanigans trying to preserve a sense of dignity over a sense of authenticity, so perhaps i should review my esteem towards you if such behaviour continues.

[Old guy]

one interesting thing is in many years they played maximum of 20 odd matches so even if he was bad in one year (actually average by today's standard and good in 70's and 80's) its not for very long while. i just glanced at stats but in 2-3 of his 'bad' years he played like 10-12 matches and still averaged around 30.. was he struggling badly while batting?

[The Outsider]

I dont think i have time or the patience to indulge in a discussion revolving around strawman arguments from you' date=' as i expect you to be a bit more intellectually honest and capable than the median on this board. This is twice i can recollect you engaging in pityful shenanigans trying to preserve a sense of dignity over a sense of authenticity, so perhaps i should review my esteem towards you if such behaviour continues.[/quote'] Yeah intellectual honesty is that Richards was an ordinary cricketer except for 3-4 years. Forget about the stats hordes of ex cricketers who rate him so highly have marbles in their heads. :hysterical:

[Muloghonto]

Only things I understand from your post are... 1. Almost everything is a "Strawman Argument".

You need to look up the definition. Your argument is strawman argument, because you are trying to 'debunk' a claim i never made, namely, that clutch performance doesnt matter. What i have said and you've refused to address, is the laughable notion of what you conisder to be clutch and not clutch.

2. There's no such thing as clutch performance or performing on the biggest stage. 3. Clutch performances, or performances at the biggest stage of all don't impact sports-persons.

Perfect example of strawma argument from you. I never said that clutch performances are non existant or irrelevant, just that your definition of clutch performance sucks. Therefore, instead of addressing my argument ( that you, Ultimate_Game, has no idea on what is and wht is not clutch performance), you are addressing an argument i did not make- whether clutch performance exists or not and how important they are. Just about the perfect definition of a strawman argument.

And I disagree with all the points. As for your contention performances in big matches shouldn't matter as they are so few. But that's precisely the point. If there was a WC final every other day, there wouldn't be anything termed "clutch". It's only a few select sportspersons who can rise up to the occasion for the big matches and that's the skill which is termed as "clutch". If anyone could do it, it wouldn't be highly regarded in the first place.

You can disagree as much as you want, just know that 99% of players and coaches also disagree with you. Clutch perfromance is not measured solely by world cup finals or stanley cup final series, its about performances in must-win situations, doing the seemingly impossible/improbable, being the last man standing etc. To boil clutch performance down to 1 or two matches, 1 or two series in their entire playing careers, ie, a sample space of less than 1%, is nothing more than statistical fluke. To you, the glamor of scoring a 100 in world cup finals, while setting a target and comming in at 1-105 after 13 overs, is clutch. To most players, comming into bat at 1-105 after 13 overs and crashing a century is the definition of 'driving the dagger deep, finishing the job but having no pressure on you whatsoever'. But hey, because it came in a world cup final, all of a sudden, the easiest of batting scenarios ( comming in at 1-105, against a mediocre attack, with much more batting to come) becomes hallmark for some sort of alltime-great performance. meanwhile, kapil, who kept us in the world cup by being a one-man army, chasing under immense pressure from 20-5 down, in a must-win match, is not clutch. Spare me the garbage or the nonsense of what you consider clutch or not clutch, it is clearly stinkier than my son's diapers.

[Muloghonto]

Yeah intellectual honesty is that Richards was an ordinary cricketer except for 3-4 years. Forget about the stats hordes of ex cricketers who rate him so highly have marbles in their heads. :hysterical:

Inzy was an extremely good (but not great cricketer) for his career, therefore saying for most of his career, Richards batted like Inzy, is not implying Richards is ordinary and yet another example of strawmanship from your part. The disappointment grows.

[The Outsider]

meanwhile, kapil, who kept us in the world cup by being a one-man army, chasing under immense pressure from 20-5 down, in a must-win match, is not clutch. Spare me the garbage or the nonsense of what you consider clutch or not clutch, it is clearly stinkier than my son's diapers.

:agree:

[Muloghonto]

one interesting thing is in many years they played maximum of 20 odd matches so even if he was bad in one year (actually average by today's standard and good in 70's and 80's) its not for very long while. i just glanced at stats but in 2-3 of his 'bad' years he played like 10-12 matches and still averaged around 30.. was he struggling badly while batting?

Richards was like Sehwag in this respect- very rarely did you see him labour to 50-100 runs or struggle to put bat on ball. At his best, like Sehwag, he annihilated everyone. At his worst, like Sehwag, he played one of those 'blink and you'll miss it , two dot balls, two fours and out' type of innings.