Vivian Richards vs Sachin Tendulkar

[Richard]

A few days ago I'd have felt sure enough of what the outcome of a poll on this would be to not bother to undertake it. However, results in the Richards-vs-Chappell poll have convinced me to have a look. Still got some inkling on what the outcome would be likely to be, and am fairly sure it'd have been pretty different 5 years ago.

So vote away, CWers.

 

[silentstriker]

Almost voted for Boycott. I think I know which way this'll go, and yes, it would likely have been different in 2002. But that's cricket . In 2002, everyone including Steve Waugh, Ponting, Sobers, and most of the other greats were calling him best since Bradman. His last 3-4 years haven't been as good as his first 12, so his star has waned in people's eyes.

 

[andruid]

I feel Tendulkar's association with the money minting exploitation of cricket fandom by certain varying commercial interests tarnishes his greatness a tad. Still an Icon though but because of that my vote goes with Sir Viv.

 

[silentstriker]

I feel Tendulkar's association with the money minting exploitation of cricket fandom by certain varying commercial interests tarnishes his greatness a tad.

Haha, what?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Tendulkar by a fair distance.

 

[Ikki]

Richards walks in. Not sure Tendulkar is even the best in his era.

 

[James_W]

Richards for me. I agree with the above post, I'm not even sure Sachin is the best of his era.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Richards walks in. Not sure Tendulkar is even the best in his era.

Truly can't believe how anybody can't deny that Tendulkar was the best in his era tbh, just boggles my mind.

 

[Engle]

Viv had an demoralizing affect on his opponents and an uplifting one on his teammates.
He could'nt care less about most number of centuries, runs. These were merely numbers for statiticians to digest.

 

[Ikki]

Truly can't believe how anybody can't deny that Tendulkar was the best in his era tbh, just boggles my mind.

You've been reading too many of Richard's posts probably.

 

[PhoenixFire]

You've been reading too many of Richard's posts probably.

Oh dear, you poor person.

Actually I find that quite insulting, the fact that you think I'm not capable to make up my own decision about things like that. I pity you, I really do.

 

[Manee]

Tendulkar by a country mile (whatever that is). Far better average, playing the lion share of his career in the 1990s, in which talent of an equal or greater talent to that of the 1970s and 1980s (considering Richards did not play against West Indies) bowled. Pollock, Mcgrath, Waqar, Wasim, Ambrose, Walsh, Srinath - I could go on, but I won't.

The talk of Tendulkar's sharp Test decline is nothing more than rubbish, sprowted by a shocking 2003 and 2006. Furthermore, he came back with a strong 2007 and a very strong start to 2008, groin injury pending. It is nothing but hypocracy to discount Tendulkar's career based on two poor years and yet say that Richards' was better, even though his last three years bore just 978 runs at 36.22.

Don't worry all, I'm prepared to get torn to shreds by an angry Sir Viv fan...

 

[Ikki]

Oh dear, you poor person.

Actually I find that quite insulting, the fact that you think I'm not capable to make up my own decision about things like that. I pity you, I really do.

You don't need to pity me son, pity yourself. For you to question someone's logic without having even heard it is rich. For you to call a reply to that insult an insult is even more rich.

 

[Sudeep]

Viv had an demoralizing affect on his opponents and an uplifting one on his teammates.
He could'nt care less about most number of centuries, runs. These were merely numbers for statiticians to digest.

Wasn't there a time when Sachin had a demoralizing effect on his opponent bowlers? Ask Shane Warne.

"I'll be going to bed having nightmares of Sachin just running down the wicket and belting me back over the head for six."

 

[Manee]

He could'nt care less about most number of centuries, runs. These were merely numbers for statiticians to digest.

It doesn't matter (to quote the Rock) how many runs he could have scored, the fact is that he did not fulfil his potential due to impatience or boredom - the often underestimated mental aspects of Test batting.

 

[silentstriker]

IMO, Sobers and Lara were both better batsmen than Richards. But that's just me. At least Sobers was, you could make a case for Lara vs. Richards. In any case, I think we should wait five years after SRT's retirement before making such comparisons.

 

[PhoenixFire]

For you to question someone's logic without having even heard it is rich[/B]

Haha, the hypocrisy is killing me, seriously. How can you say that when you have just claimed the reason behind me preferring Tendulkar over Richards, is that I copied Richard or something??

For you to call a reply to that insult an insult is even more rich.

I don't remember insulting you, unless you are an overly sensitive person. All I claimed was that you inadvertantly insulted me by claiming I couldn't think for myself.

 

[ret]

SRT .... both of them are so great and such loved that such a comparison appears criminal, especially since both of them played in different eras

Let's not forgot that Viv is Sachin's idol so I m sure that Sachin would vote for Viv too

I voted for SRT is because I remember looking at Viv's record some time back and found that he didn't do that well [according to his standards] in his last 30-40 ODIs and that may be the case in tests too .... It's more like Viv Richards is remembered for what he did early on and in the middle phase of his career, but I could be wrong
statically too with so any 100s in both forms of cricket, SRT slightly edges out Viv but just slightly .... if both of them were in their prime forms, i guess, any team will be happy to have either of them

And yeah also SRT because of having watched him a lot with passion and seen him make the Indians proud with his astronomical performances and match-winning abilities. Many times winning matches on his own and that too playing with some of the duds, especially in the bowling department

 

[Ikki]

Tendulkar by a country mile (whatever that is). Far better average, playing the lion share of his career in the 1990s, in which talent of an equal or greater talent to that of the 1970s and 1980s (considering Richards did not play against West Indies) bowled. Pollock, Mcgrath, Waqar, Wasim, Ambrose, Walsh, Srinath - I could go on, but I won't.

The talk of Tendulkar's sharp Test decline is nothing more than rubbish, sprowted by a shocking 2003 and 2006. Furthermore, he came back with a strong 2007 and a very strong start to 2008, groin injury pending. It is nothing but hypocracy to discount Tendulkar's career based on two poor years and yet say that Richards' was better, even though his last three years bore just 978 runs at 36.22.

Don't worry all, I'm prepared to get torn to shreds by an angry Sir Viv fan...

It's kind of overstated though. Out of the 4 major attacks of his day he failed badly against 2 of them. Against Australia he only faced a full-blooded attack where both Warne and McGrath were present in 2 tests at the end of the 90s. It's not that clear-cut.

I'd say Tendulkar's run in the 90s is pretty outstanding, but in the 2000s he's been very disappointing too.

Even in his own era Richards had statistically superior contemporaries, but that doesn't count for zilch as the majority of people, both pro and just plain, rate Richards ahead of the Gavaskars or the Chappells.

Also, Bang/Zim push Tendulkar's overall average up about 3 points.

 

[Richard]

Viv had an demoralizing affect on his opponents and an uplifting one on his teammates.
He could'nt care less about most number of centuries, runs. These were merely numbers for statiticians to digest.

Wasn't there a time when Sachin had a demoralizing effect on his opponent bowlers? Ask Shane Warne.

"I'll be going to bed having nightmares of Sachin just running down the wicket and belting me back over the head for six."

Absolutely. Crazy to suggest Tendulkar didn't intimidate or inspire - which, by mentioning that Richards did while not talking at all of Tendulkar, one is doing.