Is Sachin a greater test batsmen or ODI batsmen?

[The Outsider]

Inzy was an extremely good (but not great cricketer) for his career' date=' 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.[/quote'] Your nephew wrote this? :hmmm:

[Muloghonto]

Your nephew wrote this? :hmmm:

ordinary by ATG standards ( which is what Inzy-esque numbers imply) and i already clarified on the number, since i was speaking from memory. I thought it was rather well understood by my opening posts that the whole idea of ordinary years, extraoridnary years etc. in this discussion are from ATG benchmark standards, not absolute median standards for the whole sport. Perhaps you are not as old as me or family man like me, so you might have time trying to preserve your dignity by semantical obfuscations, but i have little time or desire to go around in circles with an all-encompassing paragon of ignorant pomposity like you.

[Ultimate_Game]

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. 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. 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.

Maybe if you provide some proof about "99% coaches/players will disagree with your definition of clutch", you would seem more credible. Plus I find ironic that you keep on harping "Strawman Argument" while making a statement like " 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". Maybe if you can quote me when I said so? Maybe it's you who need to look up "Strawman Argument". If you think Tendulkar has been the definition of clutch as per "99% of coaches/players" and was more clutch than Viv, sure go ahead. But for me Viv was hands down a much better clutch player along with having a higher average and a better SR.

[The Outsider]

ordinary by ATG standards ( which is what Inzy-esque numbers imply) and i already clarified on the number, since i was speaking from memory. I thought it was rather well understood by my opening posts that the whole idea of ordinary years, extraoridnary years etc. in this discussion are from ATG benchmark standards, not absolute median standards for the whole sport. Perhaps you are not as old as me or family man like me, so you might have time trying to preserve your dignity by semantical obfuscations, but i have little time or desire to go around in circles with an all-encompassing paragon of ignorant pomposity like you.

Your garbage has already been addressed and debunked on an earlier occasion, so I will just quote that post instead of typing it out again since I am a family man trying to preserve time. http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=2240035&postcount=128

[Old guy]

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' date=' 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.[/quote'] but sorry if its annoying as i never saw him bat.. but most of his stats even in his bad years (which had very less matches ) he was decent and very good if u consider era in which he was batting.. now another thing is he had bad year and after that had a good year.. example year 86 average of 33,next year almost 50 yes last few years were bad but bad by his standards... other then that he never really had continuous slump.. and in years he had it was for very few matches like 6 matches in year 81.. over all honestly even sachin would have phases in his career where he averaged around 30 over course of 20 matches..its not big deal tbh u actually made it sound like he was only good during one phase which is not true yes im jsut looking at stats but others never said anything abt him being mediocre for such a long part in his career this is a first for me..yeah in test i heard that but in odis he has been pretty consistently good and when u consider how ahead he was from rest speciallyi n strike rate .itsn o wonder he is rated so highly! its like today to average 50 or more with strike rate of 110:cantstop:

[The Outsider]

yes im jsut looking at stats but others never said anything abt him being mediocre for such a long part in his career this is a first for me.

But you see Inzy like cricketers could consistently rank in the top 5 when Richards was playing and then struggle to even make it to the top 10 when Inzy was playing. Family man says so. :hysterical:

[Old guy]

But you see Inzy like cricketers could consistently rank in the top 5 when Richards was playing and then struggle to even make it to the top 10 when Inzy was playing. Family man says so. :hysterical:

:cantstop: even during his bad phase he was doing better then most other batsmen! honestly today i only respect him more after seeing these stats:giggle:

[The Outsider]

:cantstop: even during his bad phase he was doing better then most other batsmen! honestly today i only respect him more after seeing these stats:giggle:

This is the ICC ranking graph of Richards: http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/playerdisplay/odi/batting/?id=1682&graph=ranking And here is Inzy bhai: http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/playerdisplay/odi/batting/?id=1984&graph=ranking Family guy will tell you how similar they are.

[Old guy]

its interesting shows exactly what i felt from stats he was not at his best at end but other then that was brilliant through out and not 3-4 years..

[Muloghonto]

Maybe if you provide some proof about "99% coaches/players will disagree with your definition of clutch", you would seem more credible. Plus I find ironic that you keep on harping "Strawman Argument" while making a statement like " 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". Maybe if you can quote me when I said so? Maybe it's you who need to look up "Strawman Argument". If you think Tendulkar has been the definition of clutch as per "99% of coaches/players" and was more clutch than Viv, sure go ahead. But for me Viv was hands down a much better clutch player along with having a higher average and a better SR.

1. No, my argument isnt strawman. The point i am making with Kapil's example, is that like Kapil, Tendy has plenty of clutch performances in the world cups, where due to his performance we were not eliminated and went to the next round. Sure, he didn't perform in the finals, but thats two matches out of 400+! He has plenty of clutch performances and i find it funny that you think Viv is 'hands down a much better clutch player' on the basis of...one clutch innings in a situation you think trumps all, a world cup finals. Sorry, but that is ridiculous. 2. You need evidence, i suggest you try attending a simple coatching seminar, shouldn't be very hard to find in North America and become an assitant coach- you will find out that clutch is not just about one or two 'special matches', its about conisistently doing well when the team is in a must-win situation or nearly so, with hardly anything else between your team and defeat, except, you. That is clutch. Your assinine idea on how a world cup final makes it innately more clutch, is nothing more than rubbish and only such rubbish thinking can conclude that a batsman commig in at 105/1, after 13 overs, while batting first, is providing a clutch performance by scoring a ton, because its a special match. That is what my beef is with your argument.

[Muloghonto]

This is the ICC ranking graph of Richards: http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/playerdisplay/odi/batting/?id=1682&graph=ranking And here is Inzy bhai: http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/playerdisplay/odi/batting/?id=1984&graph=ranking Family guy will tell you how similar they are.

a 35-36 average with 85 strike rate isnt much different from a 38-39 average with 74 strike rate, so yes, for much of his career, Richards had 'inzy-esque' numbers.

[Muloghonto]

its interesting shows exactly what i felt from stats he was not at his best at end but other then that was brilliant through out and not 3-4 years..

he was the best ODI bat for a 7 year period. On either side of the 7 year period, he is a 'top 10 ODI bat', nothing more. This won't be evident from the rankings, which are cumulative, thus inflates his ranking in the latter years due to the God-mode 7 years. You should check out how many batsmen had better numbers than Richards prior to 79 or after 86 on a year by year basis. Yes, he was bloody good for most of his career, but he wasn't exactly as good as Tendulkar was for 15+ years. You may find other examples, I personally feel Richards had a slow start, went into 'better than Dhoni' mode, then kind of played like Inzy/Moyo did- reliable, excellent but not exactly top notch, but good enough to be in top 10 of any given time. Incidentally, Richards also didn't do too well against the better bowling lineups in the 'not God mode' period either. The other thing to remember, is Richards played agains weaker attacks than Sachin played. the 80s ODI bowling of Australia. Sri Lanka, Pakistan (prior to Akram) were crappier than the same nations' attacks in the 90s, while Richards never had to face the Windies team or the Saffers. The Kiwi team of the 90s, on bowling, was not much worse than their 80s team (and in some cases, i think better, despite Hadlee in the 80s team) and the English team's bowling wasnt much better in the 80s than in the 90s. All things taken, i think its fairly safe to say that Richards and Tendulkar are quite easily the two best ODI bats ever, with clear difference between them and the rest. With regards to Richards and Tendy, i do think that Richards's peak was jaw-dropping, but he was *NOT* a consistently top alltime great-esque performer for 15+ years like Tendy has been in ODIs. The sheer longetivity of Tendulkar, along with the fact that he faced better bowling attacks with significantly better fielding, makes him edge out Richards, who had a significantly better peak and batted in an era where the pitches were like in the 90s.

[I6MTW]

I think people have forgotten Saed Anwar. An all time odi great.

[Old guy]

he was the best ODI bat for a 7 year period. On either side of the 7 year period, he is a 'top 10 ODI bat', nothing more. This won't be evident from the rankings, which are cumulative, thus inflates his ranking in the latter years due to the God-mode 7 years. You should check out how many batsmen had better numbers than Richards prior to 79 or after 86 on a year by year basis. Yes, he was bloody good for most of his career, but he wasn't exactly as good as Tendulkar was for 15+ years. You may find other examples, I personally feel Richards had a slow start, went into 'better than Dhoni' mode, then kind of played like Inzy/Moyo did- reliable, excellent but not exactly top notch, but good enough to be in top 10 of any given time. Incidentally, Richards also didn't do too well against the better bowling lineups in the 'not God mode' period either. The other thing to remember, is Richards played agains weaker attacks than Sachin played. the 80s ODI bowling of Australia. Sri Lanka, Pakistan (prior to Akram) were crappier than the same nations' attacks in the 90s, while Richards never had to face the Windies team or the Saffers. The Kiwi team of the 90s, on bowling, was not much worse than their 80s team (and in some cases, i think better, despite Hadlee in the 80s team) and the English team's bowling wasnt much better in the 80s than in the 90s. All things taken, i think its fairly safe to say that Richards and Tendulkar are quite easily the two best ODI bats ever, with clear difference between them and the rest. With regards to Richards and Tendy, i do think that Richards's peak was jaw-dropping, but he was *NOT* a consistently top alltime great-esque performer for 15+ years like Tendy has been in ODIs. The sheer longetivity of Tendulkar, along with the fact that he faced better bowling attacks with significantly better fielding, makes him edge out Richards, who had a significantly better peak and batted in an era where the pitches were like in the 90s.

first of all this better bowling does not makes sense.. cos statistically batting was much much harder in that era compared to era in which tendulkar played.. no other batsman was scoring anywhere close to run a ball ,average to increased in tendulkar;s era..maybe it were pitches ,some rules i dont know but over all,runs were harder to score and its actually surprising how good richard's stats are and how ahead he is from everyone else! now second thing i felt wrong with ur post u said richards was not top batsman through out (literally number 1 ) a simple question for u then,has sachin been best in odis through out his career? http://www.relianceiccrankings.com/playerdisplay/odi/batting/?id=1905&graph=ranking if u compare this graph to richard's u will see actually richards stayed on top for much much longer part of his career as compared to tendulkar.. one mistake ur doing in comparison is not considering how far ahead viv was from his competitors .instead you are comparing them head on and even then statistically over all viv ha s better strike rate and average after playing in era whee actual average and strike rate was much less! now 36 being low imo by today standard's is over 40 and strike rate should be near 100! i dont buy bowling was easier as even it was runs were harder to score for everyone for some reason ..maybe other guys who have seen cricket then should debate on this..

[The Outsider]

a 35-36 average with 85 strike rate isnt much different from a 38-39 average with 74 strike rate' date=' so yes, for much of his career, Richards had 'inzy-esque' numbers.[/quote'] That's a huge difference in strike rate compounded even further by the average strike rate of their times. The marginal difference in average would be made up by the mean average in Richards' times being lower.

[adi B]

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

in the most important match of 2007wc vs lanka,he got a duck

[adi B]

a 35-36 average with 85 strike rate isnt much different from a 38-39 average with 74 strike rate' date=' so yes, for much of his career, Richards had 'inzy-esque' numbers.[/quote'] there is a big difference + richards did not have a cool beard like inzy had in the later stage of their career which shows another difference