Best Indian batsmen overseas

[vvvslaxman]

As an Indian fan anyone who does well in Pakistan or against Pakistan earns my immense respect :hatsoff:

[Cricketics]

Steyn-Mcgrath-Marshall - If these guys are bowling and I want someone to bat for someone's LIFE.. My choice would be RAHUL DRAVID. DRAVID DRAVID DRAVID.

[harmuk]

Steyn-Mcgrath-Marshall - If these guys are bowling and I want someone to bat for someone's LIFE.. My choice would be RAHUL DRAVID. DRAVID DRAVID DRAVID.

From the players I have seen, against that attack on their best days, Jimmy would have a better shot at coming out on tops, given he has played more hostile attack than that and came out on top. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63338.html And Roberts in that game had more wickets than Marshall, Garner, Holding all four bowling in tandem. :hatsoff:

[Cricketics]

From the players I have seen, against that attack on their best days, Jimmy would have a better shot at coming out on tops, given he has played more hostile attack than that and came out on top. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63338.html And Roberts in that game had more wickets than Marshall, Garner, Holding all four bowling in tandem. :hatsoff:

Yes. He was good. Infact West Indies dominated without losing any series for 16 yeas. That era of fast bowling from west Indies was incredible. Backed with great captaincy of Lloyd and sublim Richards.

[harmuk]

Yes. He was good. Infact West Indies dominated without losing any series for 16 yeas. That era of fast bowling from west Indies was incredible. Backed with great captaincy of Lloyd and sublim Richards.

Actually with that attack and that XI, which has Greenidge, Haynes, Lloyd, Viv and WK/batsman Dujon in its ranks, if they can just get Sobers for Logie, they can beat any XI selected from the rest of players, in the history of the game. That attack and team is that good, specially Haynes/Greenidge opening pair which was so good through out that dominating period.

[vvvslaxman]

From the players I have seen, against that attack on their best days, Jimmy would have a better shot at coming out on tops, given he has played more hostile attack than that and came out on top. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63338.html And Roberts in that game had more wickets than Marshall, Garner, Holding all four bowling in tandem. :hatsoff:

He had two outstanding series. But way too inconsidtent. Who can foget his 0,0,1,0,0,0 against Wst INdies in a row right after world cup. Winston davis had him all at sea in India. 6 innings Amarnath made a grand total of 1 run lol

[StatsRock]

He had two outstanding series. But way too inconsidtent. Who can foget his 0' date='0,1,0,0,0 against Wst INdies in a row right after world cup. Winston davis had him all at sea in India. 6 innings Amarnath made a grand total of 1 run lol[/quote'] As I mentioned in my earlier post, Jimmy was sick during the WI series and was forced to play in atleast the Delhi Test, if not Kanpur. I'm not sure if he was still sick at Calcutta, though I believe he played in an ODI and played a decent innings that series. How many batsman have scored a string of zeroes and yet had their captain fight for their inclusion for the next Test series? [As it is, Amarnath saved the Lahore Test with a Day 5 hundred]

[StatsRock]

Steyn-Mcgrath-Marshall - If these guys are bowling and I want someone to bat for someone's LIFE.. My choice would be RAHUL DRAVID. DRAVID DRAVID DRAVID.

How about McGrath, Fleming, Lee Warne? Or McGrath, Gillespie, Kaspra, Warne?

[harmuk]

He had two outstanding series. But way too inconsidtent. Who can foget his 0' date='0,1,0,0,0 against Wst INdies in a row right after world cup. Winston davis had him all at sea in India. 6 innings Amarnath made a grand total of 1 run lol[/quote']That was atrocious and being a Jimmy fan (almost everyone at the time is, for god's sake he got us the WC by being the MOM both in Semis and Finals) it made me sick to the stomach and could not watch the ordeal, to say the least.

[harmuk]

As I mentioned in my earlier post, Jimmy was sick during the WI series and was forced to play in atleast the Delhi Test, if not Kanpur. I'm not sure if he was still sick at Calcutta, though I believe he played in an ODI and played a decent innings that series. How many batsman have scored a string of zeroes and yet had their captain fight for their inclusion for the next Test series? [As it is, Amarnath saved the Lahore Test with a Day 5 hundred]

Skipper Gavaskar paid this compliment before the start of 5th day, as the Pakis were playing along with the two umpires as well, and every which decision was going against us. 'As long as we have Mohinder Amarnath at the crease we will have a chance, to save the Test'. So confident was SMG in Jimmy's calibre, he almost knew there will be hardly anything hitting the pad. It was batsmanship of the highest order. And true to the prognosis we saved the Test, and Jimmy remained unbeaten the entire day completing a masterful century.

[Muloghonto]

From the players I have seen, against that attack on their best days, Jimmy would have a better shot at coming out on tops, given he has played more hostile attack than that and came out on top. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63338.html And Roberts in that game had more wickets than Marshall, Garner, Holding all four bowling in tandem. :hatsoff:

Yes, Jimmy was more successful in the 'fearsome foursome's' backyard. Tendulkar has been a quantum leap above everyone almost every single overseas series on the basis of consistency. Tendy hasn't failed anywhere, he hasn't failed against overseas attack very often- infact, Tendy is by far and away the greatest batsman in Tests for 'batting away'. He's done well facing Hadlee in New Zealand, he's done well in the caribbean facing Ambrose-Walsh, he's done well in South Africa facing Donald-Pollock and Steyn-Morkel, he's done well against McWarne in OZ. Jimmy had a brilliantly successful series in the caribbean but this alone is not enough to make him a better overseas batsman than by far the most consistent batsman 'batting away from home' in history of the game, barring Sir Don ofcourse.

[StatsRock]

Do you think the ascend of SRT has coincided with writing history in a very different way than perhaps what it should/could have been? Let me explain with an example. Lets take the case of 1990 India-Pakistan series in Pakistan. It was a 0-0 draw but it was a very well fought series. This was the last time Kapil & Imran fought in a test series. Kapil took 7 wickets in first test, Imran scored a century (I distinctly renenber reading in Indian Nation, the English daily fron Patna, where Imran connented how this was perhaps how he had batted best ever and he needed all of that to counter Kapil), Kapil scored a brisk half century and bailed out India. Azhar was cleaned up by Wasim Akram on his first delivery and came back swinging with a century in 2nd innings. Akram gave Srikkanth nightmares. Sanjay manjrekar scored a glorious double century. manoj Prabhakar started to cone into his own with wide off the crease inswinging deliveries. So did Waqar. And yet sonehow that series has been rendered today to Sachin Tendulkar bleeding in Sialkot and hitting Qadir for sixes. This is not a slight on Sachin but more perhaps of how consciously/unconsciously history has been re-written to suit one player. Having watched cricket for as long as you have, what do you think?

Lurker Saab, From what I remember of 1989, Tendulkar did not get a lot of attention. Even after that exhibition game assault on Qadir. It's not those sixes confirmed his mastery over Qadir for the latter knocked out his stumps comprehensively with a magic delivery at Lahore(the ball knocked over the off and leg stumps). Besides, Tendulkar fell for a duck in his first ODI. There was some promise during his 59 in the Karachi Test and the 2nd inn 50 in the Sialkot Test. Still, it wasnt like he was the only star for India that series. Manjrekar had scored a fine 100 at Barbados in May 1989. Also in the treacherous Jamaica Test, he had scored some 47 and 41. It was the kind of wicket where the unplayable ball would come any time so he had to look for runs from the word go. And now in Pakistan, he had a run of 113, 72, 83, 218, 72 for a series total of 569. Sportsworld was agog with how Manjrekar was leaving a dressing room presence similar to Gavaskar in the 70s. With centuries against the likes of Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Akram, Imran, Qadir who could disregard him? Also, Prabhakar's swing bowling came in for a lot of praise. He had picked up 3 scalps for next to nothing in that abandoned ODI(Pak 28/3 in 14 ovs, all 3 to Manoj when the crowd rioted). Then in the Sialkot test he restricted Pak to 250 leaving Miandad and Malik all at sea. Kapil came out in an interview after the series saying that Manoj had taught him to swing and had added x years to his career(x = 2 or 3, dont remember). Tendulkar had a so-so series in New Zealand after that. But from then on, India had Azhar or Sidhu and then Kambli as the mainstay of their batting so it wasn't really like Tendulkar was perceived as bearing the Indian batting burden. Besides we played a lot on the sub continent(Eng series, Zim series, 6 Tests vs SL, WI series, NZ series) where basically any Tom, Dick or Harry could score. It was only during the 1996 WC semi-final that I noticed Tendulkar scoring where the rest of the batsmen were completely at sea. That's when I personalised realised he was far ahead technically from the other bats. This was confirmed in the 1st Test in England, where he hit that glorious 122 at Edgbaston in the 2nd knock, and Manjrekar 2nd highest with 18. The 1996 SA tour confirmed the arrival of Dravid and the quality of his batsmanship. That is when I realised it was a waste to persist with the Kamblis and Manjrekars and let Tendulkar/Dravid take over for overseas battles. Starting with the England tour(Tendulkar 2483 runs at around 51.00), I started keeping score of his Test aggregate and average. So in summary, he was just another bat till 1996, in fact Kambli, Sidhu, Azhar were much more dominant than him on the Test scene. He was a novelty as a very young Test cricketer but atleast to me, not much beyond that.

[StatsRock]

I actually wrote to script to pull out the Test bowling ratings from 1965 to 2012 month by month. I also pulled up 42 instances of Indian batsmen scoring over 350 runs in an overseas series. It will be interesting to run through the opposition bowler ratings for these 42 batting perfomances.(Weekend project).

[Raghav_12]

Lurker Saab, From what I remember of 1989, Tendulkar did not get a lot of attention. Even after that exhibition game assault on Qadir. It's not those sixes confirmed his mastery over Qadir for the latter knocked out his stumps comprehensively with a magic delivery at Lahore(the ball knocked over the off and leg stumps). Besides, Tendulkar fell for a duck in his first ODI. There was some promise during his 59 in the Karachi Test and the 2nd inn 50 in the Sialkot Test. Still, it wasnt like he was the only star for India that series. Manjrekar had scored a fine 100 at Barbados in May 1989. Also in the treacherous Jamaica Test, he had scored some 47 and 41. It was the kind of wicket where the unplayable ball would come any time so he had to look for runs from the word go. And now in Pakistan, he had a run of 113, 72, 83, 218, 72 for a series total of 569. Sportsworld was agog with how Manjrekar was leaving a dressing room presence similar to Gavaskar in the 70s. With centuries against the likes of Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Akram, Imran, Qadir who could disregard him? Also, Prabhakar's swing bowling came in for a lot of praise. He had picked up 3 scalps for next to nothing in that abandoned ODI(Pak 28/3 in 14 ovs, all 3 to Manoj when the crowd rioted). Then in the Sialkot test he restricted Pak to 250 leaving Miandad and Malik all at sea. Kapil came out in an interview after the series saying that Manoj had taught him to swing and had added x years to his career(x = 2 or 3, dont remember). Tendulkar had a so-so series in New Zealand after that. But from then on, India had Azhar or Sidhu and then Kambli as the mainstay of their batting so it wasn't really like Tendulkar was perceived as bearing the Indian batting burden. Besides we played a lot on the sub continent(Eng series, Zim series, 6 Tests vs SL, WI series, NZ series) where basically any Tom, Dick or Harry could score. It was only during the 1996 WC semi-final that I noticed Tendulkar scoring where the rest of the batsmen were completely at sea. That's when I personalised realised he was far ahead technically from the other bats. This was confirmed in the 1st Test in England, where he hit that glorious 122 at Edgbaston in the 2nd knock, and Manjrekar 2nd highest with 18. The 1996 SA tour confirmed the arrival of Dravid and the quality of his batsmanship. That is when I realised it was a waste to persist with the Kamblis and Manjrekars and let Tendulkar/Dravid take over for overseas battles. Starting with the England tour(Tendulkar 2483 runs at around 51.00), I started keeping score of his Test aggregate and average. So in summary, he was just another bat till 1996, in fact Kambli, Sidhu, Azhar were much more dominant than him on the Test scene. He was a novelty as a very young Test cricketer but atleast to me, not much beyond that.

:hysterical::hysterical: No comments needed.

[Lurker]

:hysterical::hysterical: No comments needed.

Eggjactly...Thanks for proving my point :two_thumbs_up:

[Lurker]

Lurker Saab, From what I remember of 1989, Tendulkar did not get a lot of attention. Even after that exhibition game assault on Qadir. It's not those sixes confirmed his mastery over Qadir for the latter knocked out his stumps comprehensively with a magic delivery at Lahore(the ball knocked over the off and leg stumps). Besides, Tendulkar fell for a duck in his first ODI. There was some promise during his 59 in the Karachi Test and the 2nd inn 50 in the Sialkot Test. Still, it wasnt like he was the only star for India that series. Manjrekar had scored a fine 100 at Barbados in May 1989. Also in the treacherous Jamaica Test, he had scored some 47 and 41. It was the kind of wicket where the unplayable ball would come any time so he had to look for runs from the word go. And now in Pakistan, he had a run of 113, 72, 83, 218, 72 for a series total of 569. Sportsworld was agog with how Manjrekar was leaving a dressing room presence similar to Gavaskar in the 70s. With centuries against the likes of Marshall, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Akram, Imran, Qadir who could disregard him? Also, Prabhakar's swing bowling came in for a lot of praise. He had picked up 3 scalps for next to nothing in that abandoned ODI(Pak 28/3 in 14 ovs, all 3 to Manoj when the crowd rioted). Then in the Sialkot test he restricted Pak to 250 leaving Miandad and Malik all at sea. Kapil came out in an interview after the series saying that Manoj had taught him to swing and had added x years to his career(x = 2 or 3, dont remember). Tendulkar had a so-so series in New Zealand after that. But from then on, India had Azhar or Sidhu and then Kambli as the mainstay of their batting so it wasn't really like Tendulkar was perceived as bearing the Indian batting burden. Besides we played a lot on the sub continent(Eng series, Zim series, 6 Tests vs SL, WI series, NZ series) where basically any Tom, Dick or Harry could score. It was only during the 1996 WC semi-final that I noticed Tendulkar scoring where the rest of the batsmen were completely at sea. That's when I personalised realised he was far ahead technically from the other bats. This was confirmed in the 1st Test in England, where he hit that glorious 122 at Edgbaston in the 2nd knock, and Manjrekar 2nd highest with 18. The 1996 SA tour confirmed the arrival of Dravid and the quality of his batsmanship. That is when I realised it was a waste to persist with the Kamblis and Manjrekars and let Tendulkar/Dravid take over for overseas battles. Starting with the England tour(Tendulkar 2483 runs at around 51.00), I started keeping score of his Test aggregate and average. So in summary, he was just another bat till 1996, in fact Kambli, Sidhu, Azhar were much more dominant than him on the Test scene. He was a novelty as a very young Test cricketer but atleast to me, not much beyond that.

Thank you Stats saab. That made for a good read (I should probably ask more questions like that lol). The Kapil comment about Prabhakar was totally forgotten actually. Glad you refreshed memory on that. I concur with what you said, which is perhaps very much in line with my question. Yes Sachin was always the prodigy but he was hardly the mainstay till about mid 90s. That is how I remember him too. His centuries in Australia, England not withstanding he was considered a great talent but not the lead bat. Some of that was probably down to his age (he was around early 20s afterall) but it was also due to batsman like Azhar. After Gavaskar it was Azhar, in my memory, who donned the hat of best Indian batsman. He sure had his problems (specially rising deliveries) but he was a bigger celebrity and the bigger wicket. Somewhere in mid 90s Sachin made himself as the definite Indian bat. Somewhere around this time, or later, he was made out as the man who was essentially the lead bat since his first trip. He was not. I suspect a bit of this was down to the fall of Azhar but also due to a belligerent Sachin fan base who simply chose to create a noise of/around him. Ah and I was never much of a Manjrekar fan. He did have a couple of good series but sucked gloriously on LOIs (those days if you were a Test player, you had a pretty good chance to play LOI too). Good technique though.

[Raghav_12]

Lurker Saab, So in summary, he was just another bat till 1996, in fact Kambli, Sidhu, Azhar were much more dominant than him on the Test scene.

I concur with what you said, which is perhaps very much in line with my question. Yes Sachin was always the prodigy but he was hardly the mainstay till about mid 90s. That is how I remember him too. His centuries in Australia, England not withstanding he was considered a great talent but not the lead bat. Some of that was probably down to his age (he was around early 20s afterall) but it was also due to batsman like Azhar. After Gavaskar it was Azhar, in my memory, who donned the hat of best Indian batsman. He sure had his problems (specially rising deliveries) but he was a bigger celebrity and the bigger wicket. Somewhere in mid 90s Sachin made himself as the definite Indian bat. Somewhere around this time, or later, he was made out as the man who was essentially the lead bat since his first trip. He was not. I suspect a bit of this was down to the fall of Azhar but also due to a belligerent Sachin fan base who simply chose to create a noise of/around him. Ah and I was never much of a Manjrekar fan. He did have a couple of good series but sucked gloriously on LOIs (those days if you were a Test player, you had a pretty good chance to play LOI too). Good technique though.

I have seen many bad attempts at rewriting histories but none have been so abominably low and vitiated as above ones. When Geroge Orwell had written that who controls the present controls the past, he wouldn't have thought people would literally try to do that at individual level that too so blatantly, crudely and amateurishly. Following are the numbers from the time Sachin came on to the scene (Nov 1989) since start of England series, (May 96)where some experts feel he announced himself first time. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;spanmax1=01+Jan+1996;spanmin1=15+Aug+1989;spanval1=span;team=6;template=results;type=batting Sachin 2483 @52 Azhar 2408 @47 Manju 1684 @40 Sidhu 1671 @43 Prabhakar 1514@32 Kambli 1084 @ 54 and what do we conclude ? 1. Azhar, Kambli and Sidhu were much more dominant than Sachin on test scene 2. Sachin wasn't mainstay of indian test batting. I am enlightened and liberated today to know such profound evidences of rationality. Guys, we know agendas, but atleast try to put some veneer to make them sound like arguments. And yes, before someone tries to make a come back saying that numbers don't tell complete story. I would say, yes, they don't. Sachin domination in Indian test line up was way more than what these numbers suggest. Period.

[The Outsider]

^ I don't agree with the Kambli and Sidhu part, but Azhar was as good as Tendulkar during that phase despite the 4-5 point difference in average - if you notice they have around the same number of runs. He played some truly exceptional innings during that time like at Faisalabad, Adelaide, Lords, Manchester, Auckland, and Calcutta.

[Raghav_12]

^ I don't agree with the Kambli and Sidhu part' date=' but Azhar was as good as Tendulkar during that phase despite the 4-5 point difference in average - if you notice they have around the same number of runs. He played some truly exceptional innings during that time like at Faisalabad, Adelaide, Lords, Manchester, Auckland, and Calcutta.[/quote'] My objection was to the point that trio of Sidhu, Kambli, azhar was much dominant than Sachin or Sachin wasn't even mainstay of Indian batting. I agree with Azhar played very well in period we are discussing. But his complete failure in SA 92 and no other good innings outside Adelaide test on lengthy Australian series (91-92) had put him behind. He was hugely successful on Pakistan, NZ and Eng tours, but during these tours Sachin wasn't compared with Azhar and Azhar was undoubtedly no 1 Indian bat at the start of Australia series. So if you do numbers from late 91 to end of 95 Sachin would be far ahead than Azhar. I liked Azhar once upon a time, but I have no doubt that by end of 95, Sachin had assumed role of India's no. 1 test bat beyond any recognized competition. Not to say he was always without any support, but he was no 1 by margin, both in perception and in numbers.

[Raghav_12]

^ I don't agree with the Kambli and Sidhu part' date=' but[b'] Azhar was as good as Tendulkar during that phase despite the 4-5 point difference in average - if you notice they have around the same number of runs. He played some truly exceptional innings during that time like at Faisalabad, Adelaide, Lords, Manchester, Auckland, and Calcutta.

They had almost same number of runs in exactly same number of tests, but they were not even all the time. Azhar was ahead in initial years but later on Sachin had firmly taken over.