AB de Villiers v Sachin Tendulkar[ODI]

[rtmohanlal]

ABD has been averaging 66@108 over the past five years. And the last one year he has been playing as if he has come from another planet with 77@127!! That is really extraordinary. And he is breaking record after record by hitting hundreds in sub 50 balls. If he can play like this for another two or three years, he would definitely equal or better Sachin in ODIs. Just because the bowlers are not upto the mark does not mean Sachin would have averaged 70@150 in this era even at his peak.

66@108 vs bowlers with econ 5-5.5 on the avg: does not mean it is better than say 40@80 vs bowlers with econ 3.5-4 on the avg: .you are saying that just if ABD plays in the same vein FOR 3 more years he can be termed atleast equal or > to SRT. how can that be ? even then we need a deep analysis w.r.t the merits & demerits of both cases, I mean 66@108 vs bowlers with econ 5-5.5 on the avg: & 40@80 vs bowlers with econ 3.5-4 on the avg:. for eg: let us take Haynes. He played 238 matches with 41.37@63.09. if we take stats only he IS not at all a match for SRT. Infact way way behind SRT. but we all know that it is not the case based on Haynes role in the team, the str: rate norm back those days, econ: quality of bowlers, pitch conditions etc etc. It is only because SRT has played so much, I mean almost twice the matches along with much superior str: rate and slightly better avg: combined with a lot other factors such as much technical scrutiny, being part of relatively weaker team, pressure of expectations of crores of people etc that we have an over all feeling that SRT is the better one to Haynes. w.r.t SRT-ABDV, can we say the same even if ABDV plays in this mode for 3 more years? is it sure that ABDV'S stats would have become so much superior to SRT's to be judged better? i don't feel so any way let us wait and see.

[velu]

Its your move Marut :two_thumbs_up:

[jf1gp_1]

Who do you rate better?ABD is a freak who can keep wickets and bat like no one else. ABD's stats http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/44936.html?class=2;template=results;type=allround Sachin's stats http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/35320.html?class=2;template=results;type=allround

Sachin started in an era where 230 was a winning score, sr of 80 was considered phenomenal, their were no batting or bowling power play, only 6 fielders were required to be within the ring, boundaries were atleast 80-85m, no mandatory ball change after 35th over/ use of 2 new balls, bats still required to be knocked and no tv cameras which caught use of bottle cap or bitting ball.

[Marut]

66@108 vs bowlers with econ 5-5.5 on the avg: does not mean it is better than say 40@80 vs bowlers with econ 3.5-4 on the avg: .you are saying that just if ABD plays in the same vein FOR 3 more years he can be termed atleast equal or > to SRT. how can that be ? even then we need a deep analysis w.r.t the merits & demerits of both cases, I mean 66@108 vs bowlers with econ 5-5.5 on the avg: & 40@80 vs bowlers with econ 3.5-4 on the avg:. for eg: let us take Haynes. He played 238 matches with 41.37@63.09. if we take stats only he IS not at all a match for SRT. Infact way way behind SRT. but we all know that it is not the case based on Haynes role in the team, the str: rate norm back those days, econ: quality of bowlers, pitch conditions etc etc. It is only because SRT has played so much, I mean almost twice the matches along with much superior str: rate and slightly better avg: combined with a lot other factors such as much technical scrutiny, being part of relatively weaker team, pressure of expectations of crores of people etc that we have an over all feeling that SRT is the better one to Haynes. w.r.t SRT-ABDV, can we say the same even if ABDV plays in this mode for 3 more years? is it sure that ABDV'S stats would have become so much superior to SRT's to be judged better? i don't feel so any way let us wait and see.

Sachin too played in the 2000s as a much experienced player. What did he do then? He could not even repeat his feats in the 90s against lesser bowlers and easier conditions? Why so? During Haynes era, openers were accumulators, this is well known. It was only after field restrictions were introduced in the first 15 overs (sometime before WC 92) that openers became dashers (Greatbatch in 92 WC was perhaps the first modern dasher). Jayasuriya was more dashing at his peak than Sachin and Jayasuriya played the same kind of bowlers Sachin did. But we don't equate Jaya with Sachin because he was not very consistent and had lower averages. Opening the batting in ODIs had become one of the easier jobs during Sachin's days, especially on the subcontinent. Which is why Sachin could score more as an opener after getting 32@75 during his first 70 odd matches in the middle order. ABD leads this era more than how Sachin led his era. During the 90s Jayasuriya, Klusener and Gilchrist had better S/R than Sachin. Still Sachin was considered the best because he had high strike rates as well as averages. For the past five years ABD has 66@108 and his nearest competitor is at 52@91 (Kohli). AB leads the table of averages and strike rates in this era, among top batsmen. AB leads the nearest rival in S/R by 17 runs per hundred balls at the same time leading the average table with nearly 15 runs!! Sachin never had this kind of dominance over his peers - players like Anwar, Lara, Gilly gave Sachin a much closer run compared to AB who is just way ahead of his peers in every bench mark.

[rtmohanlal]

Sachin too played in the 2000s as a much experienced player. What did he do then? He could not even repeat his feats in the 90s against lesser bowlers and easier conditions? Why so? During Haynes era, openers were accumulators, this is well known. It was only after field restrictions were introduced in the first 15 overs (sometime before WC 92) that openers became dashers (Greatbatch in 92 WC was perhaps the first modern dasher). Jayasuriya was more dashing at his peak than Sachin and Jayasuriya played the same kind of bowlers Sachin did. But we don't equate Jaya with Sachin because he was not very consistent and had lower averages. Opening the batting in ODIs had become one of the easier jobs during Sachin's days, especially on the subcontinent. Which is why Sachin could score more as an opener after getting 32@75 during his first 70 odd matches in the middle order. ABD leads this era more than how Sachin led his era. During the 90s Jayasuriya, Klusener and Gilchrist had better S/R than Sachin. Still Sachin was considered the best because he had high strike rates as well as averages. For the past five years ABD has 66@108 and his nearest competitor is at 52@91 (Kohli). AB leads the table of averages and strike rates in this era, among top batsmen. AB leads the nearest rival in S/R by 17 runs per hundred balls at the same time leading the average table with nearly 15 runs!! Sachin never had this kind of dominance over his peers - players like Anwar, Lara, Gilly gave Sachin a much closer run compared to AB who is just way ahead of his peers in every bench mark.

I do accept the fact that in avg:-str: rate combo, ABD's dominance over his peers in this era is convincingly better than SRT's during his time period.but as i said there are other factors to take into account too.For eg: take Virat & Dhoni, they are much better finishers and pressure players than ABD. In Sanga's & Dilshan case they are during the end of their careers, yet in 2010' s there avg:-str_rate combo has increased considerably. on the contrary there are some players who could not raise their numbers in 2010s from 2000's as ABD did.but in general due to conditions much favouring batsmen str: rate has increased considerably. more importantly bowling econ: has risen vastly too. now in ABD-SRT case we have to consider SRT' s longevity in both formats of the game and its effect on numbers too.you asked as to why SRT's no:s didn't have a rapid increase in 2000 when compared to 1990s. longevity indeed had an effect. now other factors like pressure of expectations, Indian team being over reliant on Sachin especially during 1990s ,AB being part of a much stronger team especially bowling wise etc too need to ne considered.i am not saying they had huge impacts, but yet they all adds up in one-one comparisons. especially no one can deny the fact that the amount of pressure SRT had to withstand thru out his career when compared to ABD was really a lot more in general. now the most important thing is the fall in bowling quality due to various factors.as I earlier said econ: of 4-4.5 was the norm in 90s.now a days it is 4.5- 5.5. in this case it can be claimed that ABD's numbers rose in proportion while the other's didn't. on the other hand it can also be claimed that all the batsmen of today rose their numbers in proportion but ABD just moved one step ahead. Hope you got my point. Any way this is very difficult to say as to which one has happened more severely. so all in all I am saying just this...even after 3 years of sustaining performance moving forward, we can't really conclude as to whether ABD would have overtaken SRT in one dayers.any way each to their own w.r.t tests , to me it is a no contest.SRT hands down.ABD'S avg: of today would be only of much less worth in 90s.So all in all too SRT because tests has a little more weightage

[cricketjoshila]

ABDV wins by a mile.Higher SR and AVG plus the ability to improvise.

[rkt.india]

[QUOTbatsmen ohanlal;3258928]not definitely.there econ would have fallen(numerically increased) in proportion to the increase in aggr: now a days.But they definitely wouldn't have fallen to 4.85 too based on the econ: a lot of these bowlers maintained.More over they were much better to Johnson in test bowling too which supports my belief when I say these , we must not forget that test batting standards have fallen a lot from those 90s standards. in fact it is easier too for batsmen to score more now a days. this is quite evident from the lack of test quality bowlers from the 90s by a huge margin. Yet, how many +50 avg: test batsmen do we have now a days? in other words, despite the fall in quality of test batting standards now a days, Jhonson definitely is not able to rise his test bowling numbers quality wise.even a bowl avg: of 28+ now a days means he is multi dimensionally inferior to those 90s bowlers in tests.because those 90s bowlers had much better avg:s despite them having to bowl to more quality batsmen on the avg: than those of these days

[rkt.india]

Sachin started in an era where 230 was a winning score' date=' sr of 80 was considered phenomenal, their were no batting or bowling power play, only 6 fielders were required to be within the ring, boundaries were atleast 80-85m, no mandatory ball change after 35th over/ use of 2 new balls, bats still required to be knocked and no tv cameras which caught use of bottle cap or bitting ball.[/quote'] Where did you see 85 meter boundaries? Were NZ grounds bigger than now? Were Indian grounds bigger? am watching cricket from 90s too. Only country where grounds were bigger and are still big is Australia.

[Roshanrocks]

ABDV didnt debut for Saffers at 16... :((

[BeautifulGame]

Let's De Villiers do something and them compare with greats .

[Marut]

I do accept the fact that in avg:-str: rate combo, ABD's dominance over his peers in this era is convincingly better than SRT's during his time period.but as i said there are other factors to take into account too.For eg: take Virat & Dhoni, they are much better finishers and pressure players than ABD. In Sanga's & Dilshan case they are during the end of their careers, yet in 2010' s there avg:-str_rate combo has increased considerably. on the contrary there are some players who could not raise their numbers in 2010s from 2000's as ABD did.but in general due to conditions much favouring batsmen str: rate has increased considerably. more importantly bowling econ: has risen vastly too. now in ABD-SRT case we have to consider SRT' s longevity in both formats of the game and its effect on numbers too.you asked as to why SRT's no:s didn't have a rapid increase in 2000 when compared to 1990s. longevity indeed had an effect. now other factors like pressure of expectations, Indian team being over reliant on Sachin especially during 1990s ,AB being part of a much stronger team especially bowling wise etc too need to ne considered.i am not saying they had huge impacts, but yet they all adds up in one-one comparisons. especially no one can deny the fact that the amount of pressure SRT had to withstand thru out his career when compared to ABD was really a lot more in general. now the most important thing is the fall in bowling quality due to various factors.as I earlier said econ: of 4-4.5 was the norm in 90s.now a days it is 4.5- 5.5. in this case it can be claimed that ABD's numbers rose in proportion while the other's didn't. on the other hand it can also be claimed that all the batsmen of today rose their numbers in proportion but ABD just moved one step ahead. Hope you got my point. Any way this is very difficult to say as to which one has happened more severely. so all in all I am saying just this...even after 3 years of sustaining performance moving forward, we can't really conclude as to whether ABD would have overtaken SRT in one dayers.any way each to their own w.r.t tests , to me it is a no contest.SRT hands down.ABD'S avg: of today would be only of much less worth in 90s.So all in all too SRT because tests has a little more weightage

Sachin was only 27 years old in 2000, at the peak of his powers. The arrival of Sehwag may have slowed him down, but this is not compensated by increased averages in Sachin's case. ABD himself is not a bottler like his team. His friend Amla is a big choker though. If AB continues to maintain this 60+ avg at this insane S/R for another two years I think we have to concede that he is at least as good as Sachin of the 90s. Mind you, de Villiers is playing on more difficult surfaces compared to Sachin, who played so many matches on the roads of the SC. Sachin found it hard to score against Aus/SA away so he did not really dominate good bowlers under unfavourable conditions.