Is Sachin a greater test batsmen or ODI batsmen?

[JaFanatic]

jaf,itni badi post:ohmy:

inspired by sachin's consecutive match winning sixes :D

[Crookbond]

inspired by sachin's consecutive match winning sixes :D

Does that mean there will be another consecutive 5 1/2 post? :ohmy:

[JaFanatic]

Does that mean there will be another consecutive 5 1/2 post? :ohmy:

:idea: thanx for the idea!

[The Outsider]

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.

That's my argument to separate Richards and Tendulkar. If I gave you two batsmen who were equal in all aspects, but one had a stellar century in a World Cup final and the other was a failure who would you pick?

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.

The Indian cricket team you are so disparaging about beat a team consisting of Marshall, Roberts, Garner, Holding, Richards, Dujon, Greenidge, Haynes, and Lloyd and then a couple of years later went through a world tournament unbeaten to win the trophy, in which they bowled out all teams except one against whom they took 9 wickets. Obviously I have nothing to say if you consider the above named players mediocre.

[The Outsider]

JAF, look at the amount of FC and domestic OD cricket Richards played compared to Tendulkar. How is it his fault if international cricket was not so frequent. It wasn't as if Richards was chilling on some beach in the Caribbean instead of playing cricket.

[JaFanatic]

JAF' date=' look at the amount of FC and domestic OD cricket Richards played compared to Tendulkar. How is it his fault if international cricket was not so frequent. It wasn't as if Richards was chilling on some beach in the Caribbean instead of playing cricket.[/quote'] the pressure and quality of cricket is different at this level :dontknow:

[The Outsider]

the pressure and quality of cricket is different at this level :dontknow:

It was a different world in the 80s and county cricket was taken very seriously by international players because that was a source of considerable income for them in the off season. Forget Richards, you can read accounts of Kapil, Gavaskar, Bedi regarding county cricket.

[The Dark Horse]

ODIs

[JaFanatic]

It was a different world in the 80s and county cricket was taken very seriously by international players because that was a source of considerable income for them in the off season. Forget Richards, you can read accounts of Kapil, Gavaskar, Bedi regarding county cricket.

agree, but that guy's posts were like sachin is just damn lucky to score that much runs which makes so mad

[The Outsider]

agree' date=' but that guy's posts were like sachin is just damn lucky to score that much runs which makes so mad[/quote'] Tendulkar is not "lucky" to score so many runs, but there is only a certain amount of weight you can attribute to longevity. If longevity was everything Afirdi would be considered an all time great bowler, a very good batsman, and one of the best all rounders in ODI history.

[JaFanatic]

Tendulkar is not "lucky" to score so many runs' date=' but there is only a certain amount of weight you can attribute to longevity. If longevity was everything Afirdi would be considered an all time great bowler, a very good batsman, and one of the best all rounders in ODI history.[/quote'] but to maintain the consistency throughout that period is quite an achievement na.

[Crookbond]

L'Etranger, He is rating Glichrist as a better ODI batsman than Tendulkar. :hysterical: Your Richards argument at least has some rationale but that "self-perceived impact" argument is quite baseless.

[The Outsider]

but to maintain the consistency throughout that period is quite an achievement na.

Of course it is, but that alone cannot make you the best specially when someone like Richards has a better average, strike rate, and WC final performances in an era where such numbers were unheard of. Sure it is a factor to be considered, but volume of runs are not the be all and end all. If those standards were applied universally Afridi would be considered a better bowler than Kumble.

[The Outsider]

L'Etranger' date=' He is rating Glichrist as a better ODI batsman than Tendulkar. :hysterical: Your Richards argument at least has some rationale but that "self-perceived impact" argument is quite baseless.[/quote'] I am not making my points on anyone's behalf.

[Crookbond]

I am not making my points on anyone's behalf.

I replied since you mentioned longevity and your comment on JAF's post.

[JaFanatic]

Of course it is' date=' but that alone cannot make you the best specially when someone like Richards has a better average, strike rate, and WC final performances in an era where such numbers were unheard of. Sure it is a factor to be considered, but volume of runs are not the be all and end all. If those standards were applied universally Afridi would be considered a better bowler than Kumble.[/quote'] not convinced yet but yes richards is as good as anyone in the top order if not better.

[Lord]

Of course it is' date=' but that alone cannot make you the best specially when someone like Richards has a better average, strike rate, and WC final performances in an era where such numbers were unheard of. Sure it is a factor to be considered, but volume of runs are not the be all and end all. If those standards were applied universally Afridi would be considered a better bowler than Kumble.[/quote'] about your WC final point.One thing which must be noted that India was chasing both times n both big scores.Its considerably tougher as shown by the fact that only one ton has been scored chasing in all WCs as opposed to 5 batting first which includes IVAR's 138.surely its much easier to 'choke' chasing a score. Richards scored 5 and 33 in other WC finals he played. about longevity,its an important factor for sure

[The Outsider]

not convinced yet but yes richards is as good as anyone in the top order if not better.

I am not trying to "convince" you. Richards and Tendulkar are so close in my view that picking one over the other is a matter of personal choice. I just found your post to be needlessly disparaging towards Richards and by extension cricketers of the 80s due to the general points you made and sought to address that.

[The Outsider]

about your WC final point.One thing which must be noted that India was chasing both times n both big scores.Its considerably tougher as shown by the fact that only one ton has been scored chasing in all WCs as opposed to 5 batting first which includes IVAR's 138.surely its much easier to 'choke' chasing a score. Richards scored 5 and 33 in other WC finals he played. about longevity,its an important factor for sure

Arre ton banane ko kaun keh raha hai? 50-60 run to bana lo ki that is also impossible while chasing? In the match where he scored 5, he effected 3 run outs of top order batsmen. His fielding in that match is considered legendary. In the match he scored 33, it was the second highest score of the match and the highest from his team.

[JaFanatic]

I am not trying to "convince" you. Richards and Tendulkar are so close in my view that picking one over the other is a matter of personal choice. I just found your post to be needlessly disparaging towards Richards and by extension cricketers of the 80s due to the general points you made and sought to address that.

no i was just upset with that guy's comments over sachin he was so undermining his achievements and to say gilchrist is better is a bit OTT. but i didn really mean what i posted there.