Is Sachin a greater test batsmen or ODI batsmen?

[Ram]

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.

Like I mentioned in the earlier post that I edited, in the interest of time, I'd rather we stick just to Sachin-Viv argument. On that, I am surprised that you'd pick the 'choking in the finals' thingy as your reason to go Viv over Sachin. I thought you were going to go with the fact that Viv was the first batsmen to blaze the trail in the limited overs format of the game, when other batsmen were still feeling their way around this new format. For the simple fact that he was a pioneer in what he did for ODI batting, you could rank him above Sachin because everyone else who came after him simply followed blue-print. Nevertheless, the 'choking' argument is pretty lame. If you want to talk about shouldering responsibility and pressure as an Individual batsmen, Sachin, at his peak, endured so much more pressure than Viv ever did. For starters, Viv had much better batsmen around him. And talking about responding to pressure in WC situations, I can argue that the pressure Sachin had to face in the WC match against Pakistan in 2003 was quantitatively different from the pressure Viv had to ever face in his ODI career.

[carnish]

Odi Sachin >>>>>>> Test Sachin ... Much Much Better.

[The Outsider]

Like I mentioned in the earlier post that I edited, in the interest of time, I'd rather we stick just to Sachin-Viv argument. On that, I am surprised that you'd pick the 'choking in the finals' thingy as your reason to go Viv over Sachin. I thought you were going to go with the fact that Viv was the first batsmen to blaze the trail in the limited overs format of the game, when other batsmen were still feeling their way around this new format. For the simple fact that he was a pioneer in what he did for ODI batting, you could rank him above Sachin because everyone else who came after him simply followed blue-print. Nevertheless, the 'choking' argument is pretty lame. If you want to talk about shouldering responsibility and pressure as an Individual batsmen, Sachin, at his peak, endured so much more pressure than Viv ever did. For starters, Viv had much better batsmen around him. And talking about responding to pressure in WC situations, I can argue that the pressure Sachin had to face in the WC match against Pakistan in 2003 was quantitatively different from the pressure Viv had to ever face in his ODI career.

Look, it's pretty simple. I used to consider Tendulkar above Richards till he failed in the second final he got a chance in. Pretty much everyone can fail in a one off attempt, but when you do it twice when your competition has succeeded does put black marks on you. Tendulkar and Murali are the only cricketers who have been no shows in WC finals given 2 tries. No one rates Murali in the top 5 ODI bowlers anyway, I don't even rate him in the top 10. There is no reason I should not deduct some points in my hypothetical analysis of Tendulkar and Richards in a dead heat based on Tendulkar's choking. Once was understandable, twice is not worthy of a defense in line for the best batsman.

[I6MTW]

I'd rank Dhoni equal to Sachin in Odi's if not better. Sachin almost always crumbled under pressure. He couldn't handle it. Whereas Dhoni almost always performed well under pressure. Viv Richards was considered great because in those days nobody besides him would score at a rapid rate and was as aggressive as him. Sehwag is a modern day counterpart of Viv Richards.

[Ram]

Look, it's pretty simple. I used to consider Tendulkar above Richards till he failed in the second final he got a chance in. Pretty much everyone can fail in a one off attempt, but when you do it twice when your competition has succeeded does put black marks on you. Tendulkar and Murali are the only cricketers who have been no shows in WC finals given 2 tries. No one rates Murali in the top 5 ODI bowlers anyway, I don't even rate him in the top 10. There is no reason I should not deduct some points in my hypothetical analysis of Tendulkar and Richards in a dead heat based on Tendulkar's choking. Once was understandable, twice is not worthy of a defense in line for the best batsman.

But we are not comparing Apples to Apples here. For starters, the competition Viv had to face from an ODIs perspective back in the 70s and 80s was a joke. The Windies were the pre-eminent team of that time and after them, there was daylight and then the other teams. Maybe that has something to do with his dominating performance in the three worlds cup in b/w 75 and 83? Contrast that to the era when Sachin had to play the sport. In the last 20 years of ODI cricket, save for two isolated patches from 2003-2004 and 2010 to 2011, we have never been the best ODI team in the world. Sachin's played all of us cricket in that period. Look, I agree that Sachin's record in big finals is not that great. But in terms of sheer numbers, he probably has more performance under pressure than the next 3 on the list put together. You should also put in perspective the competition these batsmen had to face when they reached the finals. Viv was fortunate to encounter some pretty average opposition. That is not the case with Sachin.

[The Outsider]

But we are not comparing Apples to Apples here. For starters, the competition Viv had to face from an ODIs perspective back in the 70s and 80s was a joke. The Windies were the pre-eminent team of that time and after them, there was daylight and then the other teams. Maybe that has something to do with his dominating performance in the three worlds cup in b/w 75 and 83? Contrast that to the era when Sachin had to play the sport. In the last 20 years of ODI cricket, save for two isolated patches from 2003-2004 and 2010 to 2011, we have never been the best ODI team in the world. Sachin's played all of us cricket in that period. Look, I agree that Sachin's record in big finals is not that great. But in terms of sheer numbers, he probably has more performance under pressure than the next 3 on the list put together. You should also put in perspective the competition these batsmen had to face when they reached the finals. Viv was fortunate to encounter some pretty average opposition. That is not the case with Sachin.

Have you looked at Richards' stats - average of 47 and a strike rate of 90(87?). You think people were kidding around while playing ODIs in Richards's time? What has Tendulkar done against the best bowling attacks in their homegrounds? Jack Sh!t! I can unequivocally say that Tendulkar is the second best batsman in ODIs, but what parameters you want to consider: 1. Average - Richards beats Tendulkar 2. Strike Rate - Richards beats Tendulkar when the average strike rate was much lower 3. WC Finals - Richards beats Tendulkar 4. Longevity - Tendulkar beats Richards, how much weight are you willing to give to one criteria when everything is against you?

[Ram]

Have you looked at Richards' stats - average of 47 and a strike rate of 90(87?). You think people were kidding around while playing ODIs in Richards's time? What has Tendulkar done against the best bowling attacks in their homegrounds? Jack Sh!t! I can unequivocally say that Tendulkar is the second best batsman in ODIs, but what parameters you want to consider: 1. Average - Richards beats Tendulkar 2. Strike Rate - Richards beats Tendulkar when the average strike rate was much lower 3. WC Finals - Richards beats Tendulkar 4. Longevity - Tendulkar beats Richards, how much weight are you willing to give to one criteria when everything is against you?

Of course people were not 'kidding around' when Viv was around. But the best Viv had to face was nowhere close to the best Sachin had to face, from an ODI perspective. Most teams were just getting started with ODIs back then. I mean, the fact that England, notorious for being one of the world's worst limited overs international teams made two successive finals in 75 and 83 should tell you a lot of the state of the ODI competition back then. Having said that, I dont think I ever disputed your basic premise that Viv was no.1 and SRT no.2. I think I agree with it. Clearly, Viv's numbers boggle one's mind. He would have been devastating in any era. It was some of your supporting arguments that did not make sense to me.

[The Outsider]

Of course people were not 'kidding around' when Viv was around. But the best Viv had to face was nowhere close to the best Sachin had to face, from an ODI perspective. Most teams were just getting started with ODIs back then. I mean, the fact that England, notorious for being one of the world's worst limited overs international teams made two successive finals in 75 and 83 should tell you a lot of the state of the ODI competition back then. Having said that, I dont think I ever disputed your basic premise that Viv was no.1 and SRT no.2. I think I agree with it. Clearly, Viv's numbers boggle one's mind. He would have been devastating in any era. It was some of your supporting arguments that did not make sense to me.

Which supporting arguments did not make sense? As I said Tendulkar and Richards for me are too close to call and the tie breaker I decide to go to is how they performed at the World Cup Finals - Tendulkar sucked, Richards shone. Those are undeniable facts on the basis of which I choose to hand it to Richards. As for your disparaging of ODI cricket from the 80s all I can say is that it is patently unfair and given Rob's archive I can demonstrate it was much better than the cricket we see today.

[I6MTW]

When Viv Richards played ODI's were 60 overs. So that makes a huge difference.

[Ram]

Which supporting arguments did not make sense?

The 'choking' argument, for example. For every instance of choking Sachin has endured in World-cups, he probably has 2 instances when he responded fantastically to pressure in the same tournament.

As for your disparaging of ODI cricket from the 80s all I can say is that it is patently unfair and given Rob's archive I can demonstrate it was much better than the cricket we see today.

I do not know man. I cant speak for any of the team of the 80s coz I have not seen any cricket from back then. I cannot speak for most teams up until the 96 WC, which was when I seriously started following the sport. I do have sporadic memories of our team from around 94 and I recall that our ODI team back then was pretty pathetic to say that least. I mean, if the 2011 Indian ODI team played the 1994 Indian ODI team in a 10 game series in India, the 2011 team will annihilate the 1994 10-0 team without any compunctions. I can only imagine the state of Indian ODI cricket, preceding that. And if I extend that to most other ODI teams of that time, I think it is a reasonably fair statement to say that the ODI competition of today is way more competitive than it was, during the 80s and early 90s.

[Kriterion]

but sachin has better avg than ponting lara.

But Lara scored more runs per innings and made more mammoth scores at a good clip. He started his career a couple years later than SRT and was the first to beat Border's (or was it Gavaskar's) scoring record. SRT has the edge in longevity, but a few other batsman have the edge in terms of scoring ability, match winning knocks, clutch 4th innings performances.

[I6MTW]

Sachin has not scored 1 triple century in Tests but he has scored double century in Odi's

[CoverDrive]

In my opinion he is the greatest ODI Batsman ever. In tests he is one of the greats.

[Raghav_12]

He is great in both. However, in ODI's his relative dominance over rest of the field is more than tests.

[harmuk]

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.

First off Richards played in an era when ODI's were not at all a norm. Second as I said playing 20 years cannot be the determining factor as to who the best is or the total number of runs. If that is the case anyone who debuted on or after 1990 would have greater ODI numbers (Jaya, Gangu why only Tendulkar) over yesteryear greats like Richards or Sobers who surely would be one two had they had the chance to have their prime of the career's coincide, when craze for one day game was at its peak and meaningless 7 game ODI bilateral series played every other week. Besides as Outsider mentioned above none of the important metrics in the ODI's can elevate Tendulkar to Bradman like status be it Average or S/R (there are many who have comparable average and better S/R's than Tendulkar). As I said in the very beginning his amazing consistency and number of runs in ODI's makes him the greatest accumulator in the history of the game but not necessarily the best ODI batsman. There were other batsman who were more feared at their peak and have taken the game away many a time than Tendulkar did, be it Richards or Gilchirst and had decent enough careers to be rated very high like Tendulkar, as have players like Bevan and Dhoni (not saying yet, he is a better ODI batsman overall then Tendulkar) at the bottom of the order (with 50 plus averages to boot) who have seen their teams through when the top order failed in difficult situations many a time. So given all that, it is not a slam dunk that Tendulkar is the best ever ODI bat out there.

[panesarv]

ODIs

[Crookbond]

There were other batsman who were more feared at their peak and have taken the game away many a time than Tendulkar did, be it Richards or Gilchirst and had decent enough careers to be rated very high like Tendulkar, as have players like Bevan and Dhoni (not saying yet, he is a better ODI batsman overall then Tendulkar) at the bottom of the order (with 50 plus averages to boot) who have seen their teams through when the top order failed in difficult situations many a time. So given all that, it is not a slam dunk that Tendulkar is the best ever ODI bat out there.

Every dog has his day, on your day you even Afridi is the best. Consistency is very difficult to achieve over a period of time and that's where Tendulkar beats the rest.

[JaFanatic]

First off Richards played in an era when ODI's were not at all a norm. Second as I said playing 20 years cannot be the determining factor as to who the best is or the total number of runs. If that is the case anyone who debuted on or after 1990 would have greater ODI numbers (Jaya, Gangu why only Tendulkar) over yesteryear greats like Richards or Sobers who surely would be one two had they had the chance to have their prime of the career's coinclde, when craze for one day game was at its peak and meaningless 7 game ODI bilateral series played every other week. Besides as Outsider mentioned above none of the important metrics in the ODI's can elevate Tendulkar to Bradman like status be it Average or S/R (there are many who have comparable average and better S/R's than Tendulkar). As I said in the very beginning his amazing consistency and number of runs in ODI's makes him the greatest accumulator in the history of the game but not necessarily the best ODI batsman. There were other batsman who were more feared at their peak and have taken the game away many a time than Tendulkar did, be it Richards or Gilchirst and had decent enough careers to be rated very high like Tendulkar, as have players like Bevan and Dhoni (not saying yet, he is a better ODI batsman overall then Tendulkar) at the bottom of the order (with 50 plus averages to boot) who have seen their teams through when the top order failed in difficult situations many a time. So given all that, it is not a slam dunk that Tendulkar is the best ever ODI bat out there.

First of all richards played in an era where he got enough time off the field to relax and prepare for every odi/test he played whereas sachin didn have that luxury throughout his career. Playing 24 years is no mere joke had richards played for this long he would have avrgd in the late 20s. yes playing for a long period cannot be a criteria to be called a great but to play for decades with the consistency of someone who has played only 167 innings in his whole career that too with a lotta time to play each innings is a stunning record isn it ? another fact is richards never had to face the bowling of the big four. whereas sachin played in an era where 7 match odi series are played every week without a proper break that too without having the luxury of facing the indian bowling. Why do we need to compare bradman a batsman who had only slashed the mediocre english bowling to a legend like sachin :dontknow: sachin is the first man in the history of odi to score a double ton not your gilchrist or richards(who had the luxury of extra ten overs). sachin was almost a one man army in the 90s. Teams that played against us always had a special plan to tackle this man to beat team india which shows the impact that he has on the oppositions. whereas most of the times the teams that played against australia never considered gilchrist as a threat for their win do you regret it ? Yes there were more batsmen who were more feared at their peak but to say they had taken the game away more times than tendulkar without a proof is a silly statement. Really i dunno what makes you think that cowlasher is a better bat than sachin :cantstop: Your so called impact and great batsman's avrgs 30 against wi 28 against sa 32 against pakistan and nz 32 against eng and in mid 30s against india :hysterical: Anyone with a right frame of mind would always prefer a batsman who maintains his peak for decades rather than someone for 3 or 4 years i dunno whats your preference but many ppl would go for the former. Mick Bevan and MSD avrgs more than sachin's but you cannot compare the avrg of a top order batsman to a middle order batsman in order to detemrine who is the best, instead of such childish statement hope you bring up a better comparison next time. Being a top order batsman sachin had played throughout the innings many times and thats why he is believed to be a pillar in our batting lineup. He is someone who can accelerate his innings at any point of his innings unlike bevan who needs a big hitter at the other end to chase at 8 or more runs per over. Yes MSD comes close to sachin and is surely a better bat than Bevan or Gilchrist. And how can you say he is conscious about records ? he could have easily played for another couple of odi series to reach his 50th ton and 100th 50 in his ODI career but he didn. if scoring runs = being selfish than i dont mind batsmen being selfish i dont know what makes you think richards and gilchrist werent selfish they scored runs at a quicker rate than sachin so according to your logic they should be one of the worst selfish cricketers to have played this gentlemen's game na ? or are you caliing him selfish because he has achieved something that you can never ever dream of ? :idunno: So yes you can say whatever you want and whine wherever you want but the fact is sachin is miles better than all your favourites and cow lashers :agree:

[Lord]

jaf,itni badi post:ohmy:

[SLICKR392]

jaf,itni badi post:ohmy:

5 n a half para. :nervous: