Is Sachin a greater test batsmen or ODI batsmen?

[trundlerNO1]

What about Dhoni compared to Sachin? Can he be compared to Sachin in ODI?

[harmuk]

Both of your sentences show disconnect from each other and is rather a fallacy. I agree that volume of runs do not make someone greater than other. However' date=' looking at the "overall numbers" as you want to say his average is just too good. Longevity defines greatness, no player is named great without passing the test of times.[/quote']Yeah but the longevity does not have to be for 20 years, does it? That is my point. Besides Sachin in the last 2 years in Tests at best has been mediocre. He should have been dropped after the Aussie tour a year back, but continues on because of his penchant for records. No matter how long he plays from now on, it will not add to his legacy but would rather tarnish it if his downward slide continues. At least one thing good is he is dropped from ODI's.

[harmuk]

I think Sachin is a better ODI bat than test bat. For the simple reason that in ODIs, there is only one other batsman who merits comparison to Sachin in entire history of ODI cricket- Viv Richards.

Again that is not true either? If his records are only the reason for him to be considered incomparable, then it is another story. But based on the pure impact he made in almost 460-470 games he played, I do not think his impact excceds that of a Gilchirst or someone like a Richards made or to a lesser extent than players like Bevan or Dhoni made at the bottom of the order, for their teams. If not India would have ended with more accolades if they had such an incomparable batsman at the top of the order, who had access to all 50 overs. The best way to put it will be - Sachin has been the greatest accumulator the game has seen rather than the absolute incomparable one day bat, which is not true at all.

[Crookbond]

Yeah but the longevity does not have to be for 20 years, does it? That is my point. Besides Sachin in the last 2 years in Tests at best has been mediocre. He should have been dropped after the Aussie tour a year back, but continues on because of his penchant for records. No matter how long he plays from now on, it will not add to his legacy but would rather tarnish it if his downward slide continues. At least one thing good is he is dropped from ODI's.

Longevity is longevity and Tendulkar has now set the benchmark. He's been playing for 23 years and that's quite long in this era. You want to prove you're great? Come play for 20 years with that consistency.

[Jersey #10]

Is Sachin a greater test batsmen or ODI batsmen?

depends on how many men we're talking about.

[Crookbond]

Again that is not true either? If his records are only the reason for him to be considered incomparable' date=' then it is another story. [b']But based on the pure impact he made in almost 460-470 games he played, I do not think his impact excceds that of a Gilchirst or someone like a Richards made or to a lesser extent than players like Bevan or Dhoni made at the bottom of the order, for their teams. If not India would have ended with more accolades if they had such an incomparable batsman at the top of the order, who had access to all 50 overs. The best way to put it will be - Sachin has been the greatest accumulator the game has seen rather than the absolute incomparable one day bat, which is not true at all.

Strange logic! You can't merely measure impact with such casual outlook. There are other factors besides one match impact which you have to factor in to consider them as a great. Gilchrist blew hot & cold as opening batsman - he was amazing when he was hot but when he blew cold he was nothing. That's the amazing thing about Tendulkar - his consistency. You talk about records not being considered. Well why not? He has all bases covered! Comparing him to Dhoni and Bevan is quite ridiculous I must say. Consistency along with longevity is important for a great, any ex cricketer will tell you that. It's not easy to be consistent in any profession let alone cricket. This is getting quite non-sensical actually. You are measuring Tendulkar against your perceived sense of metrics and calling him less "impact", non GREAT. You can't possibly have a yardstick in which Tendulkar fails - at least in ODIs.

[CSK Fan]

Yeah but the longevity does not have to be for 20 years, does it? That is my point. Besides Sachin in the last 2 years in Tests at best has been mediocre. He should have been dropped after the Aussie tour a year back, but continues on because of his penchant for records. No matter how long he plays from now on, it will not add to his legacy but would rather tarnish it if his downward slide continues. At least one thing good is he is dropped from ODI's.

Two false points in your post I would like to point out 1) There is no evidence his legacy will tarnish, he just made a fluent 88 last match. BTW, the very same people who question his selflessness like you do not consider this as a fact that he has no more records to break, but that he is playing because he genuinely feels the team needs him even if his average drops. Such are the double standards of dishonest people like you that you wont acknowledge this and try to even paint this in a negative light. Would any batsmen prefer a record of playing say 400 matches over a record of 55 average? What does common sense tell you? 2) He was not dropped from ODIs. The very fact you made this false statement (and I am sure its not from ignorance) makes me question the motives of your post

[harmuk]

Strange logic! You can't merely measure impact with such casual outlook. There are other factors besides one match impact which you have to factor in to consider them as a great. Gilchrist blew hot & cold as opening batsman - he was amazing when he was hot but when he blew cold he was nothing. That's the amazing thing about Tendulkar - his consistency. You talk about records not being considered. Well why not? He has all bases covered! Comparing him to Dhoni and Bevan is quite ridiculous I must say. Consistency along with longevity is important for a great, any ex cricketer will tell you that. It's not easy to be consistent in any profession let alone cricket. This is getting quite non-sensical actually. You are measuring Tendulkar against your perceived sense of metrics and calling him less "impact", non GREAT. You can't possibly have a yardstick in which Tendulkar fails - at least in ODIs.

Gilchrist and one match impact? Hope you are not kidding. And besides why is comparing him to someone like a Bevan ridiculous, when one is talking about having an impact on a game which is only 50 overs max per inning. I do think it is far fetched to rate players higher with lesser number of runs statistically speaking, but are more effective down the order (at 5, 6 or 7) but do not have the bandwidth to accumulate runs as top 3 batsman in the line up over a career, given the lesser number of chances to score game in and game out. Also I am not denying longevity to be a criteria in defining great. But my point is one does not have to play 20 odd years and score 18k runs to be considered a greater batsman. I think for sure Richards is a better ODI batsman thanTendulkar without a doubt, despite him not having even 7000 runs in One dayers.

[harmuk]

Two false points in your post I would like to point out 1) There is no evidence his legacy will tarnish, he just made a fluent 88 last match. BTW, the very same people who question his selflessness like you do not consider this as a fact that he has no more records to break, but that he is playing because he genuinely feels the team needs him even if his average drops. Such are the double standards of dishonest people like you that you wont acknowledge this and try to even paint this in a negative light. Would any batsmen prefer a record of playing say 400 matches over a record of 55 average? What does common sense tell you?

Made a fluent 88 and at the same time averaged 32 over 2 years, and was part of a team that lost 0-8 in back to back overseas tours. If that is not tranishing the legacy, then I do not know what is? Look you can believe what you want to, but I have no doubt in my mind he is more conscious about records than any other player I have seen, much like his mentor Gavaskar.

2) He was not dropped from ODIs. The very fact you made this false statement (and I am sure its not from ignorance) makes me question the motives of your post

What motives? I think he was on the verge of getting dropped when there are much better options than a 40 year old, at which point he retired.

[Sarkar]

Made a fluent 88 and at the same time averaged 32 over 2 years, and was part of a team that lost 0-8 in back to back overseas tours. If that is not tranishing the legacy, then I do not know what is? Greatest batsmen of all time no one before him no one after him can match him

[CSK Fan]

Made a fluent 88 and at the same time averaged 32 over 2 years, and was part of a team that lost 0-8 in back to back overseas tours. If that is not tranishing the legacy, then I do not know what is? Look you can believe what you want to, but I have no doubt in my mind he is more conscious about records than any other player I have seen, much like his mentor Gavaskar.

Still doesnt make sense to me. As you yourself said, he is losing his legacy because of bad form. How does this tie in with being conscious of records? Surely a test player knows that test average is the biggest of all record P.S., he didnt get dropped because not many others did better and he was one of the players who did not look all at sea. I also believe this will be a better year for him

What motives? I think he was on the verge of getting dropped when there are much better options than a 40 year old' date=' at which point he retired.[/quote'] Which is very different from what you said in your previous post

[Ultimate_Game]

Odis easily. Tendulkar would be right at the top in odis but in Tests there are others like Bradman, Hobbs, Kallis etc. who can claim to be greater. In odis you would expect Tendulkar to be a unanimous choice if you were to ask folks to come up with an ATG odi XI but that wouldn't be the case in Tests.

[CSK Fan]

Odis easily. Tendulkar would be right at the top in odis but in Tests there are others like Bradman' date=' Hobbs, Kallis etc. who can claim to be greater. In odis you would expect Tendulkar to be a unanimous choice if you were to ask folks to come up with an ATG odi XI but that wouldn't be the case in Tests.[/quote']

[Ultimate_Game]

... BTW Kallis, Hobbs, etc are claimed to be greater by who? Most experts easily put Sachin above them

As I mentioned in my post Tendulkar over Hobbs, Kallis etc. is arguable. Hell lots of folks still put Lara & Richards over Tendulkar in Tests. Plus there's grand daddy of them all in Tests going by the name of Bradman. But in odis Tendulkar is sort of Bradman of odis. I don't think there will be too many folks who won't have Tendulkar in odi team but he may not make it in an unanimous Test team. To make my point here's a Test batting lineup I can put up... Gavaskar Hobbs Bradman Richards Lara Sobers Gilchrist Imran The team looks good enough and you can argue for Tendulkar at nos. 4 or 5 but his selection won't be unanimous. But in odis Tendulkar is heads & shoulders ahead of others just like Bradman is in Tests.

[yoda]

Nothing to argue. ODIs obviously. Only player who could be named greater than him in ODIs (by a few) is Richards. Tests OTH is a can of worms. There are Indian test players whom I would rate above him, let alone at the all time level. Ofc opinions vary, but there is no question that his ODI accomplishments are in a league of their own, whereas his test accomplishments are at or below the level of several others.

[The Outsider]

2nd to Richards in ODIs 2nd to Bradman in Tests.

[Crookbond]

Gilchrist and one match impact? Hope you are not kidding. And besides why is comparing him to someone like a Bevan ridiculous, when one is talking about having an impact on a game which is only 50 overs max per inning. I do think it is far fetched to rate players higher with lesser number of runs statistically speaking, but are more effective down the order (at 5, 6 or 7) but do not have the bandwidth to accumulate runs as top 3 batsman in the line up over a career, given the lesser number of chances to score game in and game out. Also I am not denying longevity to be a criteria in defining great. But my point is one does not have to play 20 odd years and score 18k runs to be considered a greater batsman. I think for sure Richards is a better ODI batsman thanTendulkar without a doubt, despite him not having even 7000 runs in One dayers.

Hang on? I said you are biased by the one-match impacts Gilchrists created throughout his career. Tendulkar's consistency is taken for granted and you are completely ignoring it. Gilchrist didn't have that sort of consistency. Any cricket player can blow hot & cold - you will find dozens of them but to have consistency over a period of 20 years is amazing. This is again quite flawed and offhand statement. It is not about the total number of runs at all! It is just that in Tendulkar's case he has all bases covered. In case of number of years to be played, you want a great to last as long as possible. So if you come and tell me that someone like Richards can't play 20 years and there's someone who can while both are averaging the same; I will take the one with the longer duration. This is quite simple logic which works for everything you go for in life. Your personal take is Richards over Tendulkar; my personal take is Tendulkar over anyone. He's quite simply the Bradman of ODIs.

[Ram]

2nd to Richards in ODIs 2nd to Bradman in Tests.

How did you come to this assessment? What were your parameters of comparison? FWIW, I am more interested to hear the Sachin-Viv argument. The Don-Sachin discussion is pretty pointless, IMO.

[The Outsider]

How did you come to this assessment? What were your parameters of comparison?

I've expanded on the reasons in at least a hazaar other posts but to summarize: 1. In tests, 99.94 simply does not have a competition. 2. In ODIs it's much closer but Tendulkar's choking in WC finals versus Richards' match winning feats clinched the deal.

[I6MTW]

People Forget one other man who when at the peak of his form equals or in a way is better then both Sachin and Viv in Odi's. Ms Dhoni.