Vivian Richards vs Sachin Tendulkar

[Ikki]

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??

It was meant to be in jest and has more to do with Richard than you, funny enough.

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.

LOL, hypocrisy eh? So you quoted my post, saying you can't believe that people could not possibly not think Tendulkar the best of his era...which implies what? That it's beyond belief?

Cry me a river, jesus...

Ok, show me you can think for yourself. Provide an argument instead of fishing for sympathy.

 

[Swervy]

I have to say this is a close run thing.

For the last 5 years I would say Tendulkar has been a merely very good batsman with some pretty poor spells, still with the ability to come up with the odd gem.

This description kind of applies to later on Viv as well.

I think most people will think of these two players at their peaks.

Some times Tendulkar used to really leave me spellbound with some of the shots he would play, but for me didnt quite match Lara at his best, who sometimes just left me truley astonished at how someone could bat like that. With Tendulkar I think even when he was at his best, an opposition captain could still have a plan

King Viv though just had the ability to wipe all plans off the table, because some of the things he did were superhuman (excuse the exageration!). If he was in the groove, he was , in my mind, (and Richard that means that is my opinion, not that it is a fact) better than anything we have seen in the last 35 years.

So I am giving it to King Viv, but its not by much

 

[Ikki]

I have to say this is a close run thing.

For the last 5 years I would say Tendulkar has been a merely very good batsman with some pretty poor spells, still with the ability to come up with the odd gem.

This description kind of applies to later on Viv as well.

I think most people will think of these two players at their peaks.

Some times Tendulkar used to really leave me spellbound with some of the shots he would play, but for me didnt quite match Lara at his best, who sometimes just left me truley astonished at how someone could bat like that. With Tendulkar I think even when he was at his best, an opposition captain could still have a plan

King Viv though just had the ability to wipe all plans off the table, because some of the things he did were superhuman (excuse the exageration!). If he was in the groove, he was , in my mind, (and Richard that means that is my opinion, not that it is a fact) better than anything we have seen in the last 35 years.

So I am giving it to King Viv, but its not by much

Well put Swervs.

 

[silentstriker]

I have to say this is a close run thing.

For the last 5 years I would say Tendulkar has been a merely very good batsman with some pretty poor spells, still with the ability to come up with the odd gem.

This description kind of applies to later on Viv as well.

I think most people will think of these two players at their peaks.

Some times Tendulkar used to really leave me spellbound with some of the shots he would play, but for me didnt quite match Lara at his best, who sometimes just left me truley astonished at how someone could bat like that. With Tendulkar I think even when he was at his best, an opposition captain could still have a plan

King Viv though just had the ability to wipe all plans off the table, because some of the things he did were superhuman (excuse the exageration!). If he was in the groove, he was , in my mind, (and Richard that means that is my opinion, not that it is a fact) better than anything we have seen in the last 35 years.

So I am giving it to King Viv, but its not by much

I remember Mark Taylor (in 1998) turning to Warne to get a breakthrough, and Warne got one to turn big and it got hit for a six. Then he pitched another one in the rough and it got hit against the spin for another six. At that point Mark Taylor asked 'So, what are we going to do now?' 'Warne: We're going to lose now, mate.'

I always loved that anecdote. With respect to Richards, certainly at his best, he was amazingly destructive - quite possibly the best of all time. His last three years were much worse than Tendulkar's have been though, and if you ignore such things in both cases, I would still stay Tendulkar comes out ahead - he was more consistent with his brilliance even if at his best he did not match the sheer destruction by Richards. Plus, he didn't face the attacks Tendulkar did in the nineties.

 

[Richard]

Some times Tendulkar used to really leave me spellbound with some of the shots he would play, but for me didnt quite match Lara at his best, who sometimes just left me truley astonished at how someone could bat like that. With Tendulkar I think even when he was at his best, an opposition captain could still have a plan

That simply isn't true. Recall (and this is merely the best of the not-particularly-extraordinarily-extensive list I've seen with my own eyes) Motera in 2001/02, when England's seamers bowled a long way outside off - Tendulkar easily picked balls through the leg-side, including hitting 3 fours in an over from Hoggard, from deliveries well outside off. He had this capability - he just knew that, by-and-large, he would be greater for keeping it in the locker.

Also recall how there were times when Tendulkar completely carried his batting-line-up. Lara occasionally (whenever Chanderpaul was unfit) did this later on too - and it's no coincidence that he rarely tried to be so unorthodox at these times. Richards had the benefit, almost through his entire career, of knowing that all did not come close to resting on him. Tendulkar, even when Dravid joined the side, was always the standout in his team to a level Richards only very briefly in his career was. So Richards always had far more licence than Tendulkar to play in a "they're not going to bowl at me" fashion.

 

[Ikki]

Here's a stat: since the turn of the century, and disregarding Bang/Zim, Tendulkar has averaged 46.

 

[Richard]

With respect to Richards, certainly at his best, he was amazingly destructive - quite possibly the best of all time. His last three years were much worse than Tendulkar's have been though, and if you ignore such things in both cases, I would still stay Tendulkar comes out ahead

He still comes out considerably ahead, in fact.

 

[Ikki]

That simply isn't true. Recall (and this is merely the best of the not-particularly-extraordinarily-extensive list I've seen with my own eyes) Motera in 2001/02, when England's seamers bowled a long way outside off - Tendulkar easily picked balls through the leg-side, including hitting 3 fours in an over from Hoggard, from deliveries well outside off. He had this capability - he just knew that, by-and-large, he would be greater for keeping it in the locker.

Also recall how there were times when Tendulkar completely carried his batting-line-up. Lara occasionally (whenever Chanderpaul was unfit) did this later on too - and it's no coincidence that he rarely tried to be so unorthodox at these times. Richards had the benefit, almost through his entire career, of knowing that all did not come close to resting on him. Tendulkar, even when Dravid joined the side, was always the standout in his team to a level Richards only very briefly in his career was. So Richards always had far more licence than Tendulkar to play in a "they're not going to bowl at me" fashion.

Yet when Tendulkar did have a batting line-up just as strong as Richards he's done pretty poorly for his standards.

 

[Richard]

Here's a stat: since the turn of the century, and disregarding Bang/Zim, Tendulkar has averaged 46.

Tendulkar has never faced a substandard Zimbabwe team. They became substandard in 2003, not 2000, and Tendulkar's last Test against Zimbabwe was in February 2002.

In any case, in 2000, 2001 and 2002 he was no worse than he had been in, say, 1996 or 1992.

 

[Richard]

Yet when Tendulkar did have a batting line-up just as strong as Richards he's done pretty poorly for his standards.

Indeed. This has had precisely 0 to do with trying to play in a they're-not-going-to-bowl-at-me manner, however.

 

[silentstriker]

Here's a stat: since the turn of the century, and disregarding Bang/Zim, Tendulkar has averaged 46.

No one has claimed that post 2000, he has been the batsman he was in the 90s. But neither was Richards later in his career - and did much worse than Tendulkar in fact.

 

[Swervy]

That simply isn't true. Recall (and this is merely the best of the not-particularly-extraordinarily-extensive list I've seen with my own eyes) Motera in 2001/02, when England's seamers bowled a long way outside off - Tendulkar easily picked balls through the leg-side, including hitting 3 fours in an over from Hoggard, from deliveries well outside off. He had this capability - he just knew that, by-and-large, he would be greater for keeping it in the locker.

Also recall how there were times when Tendulkar completely carried his batting-line-up. Lara occasionally (whenever Chanderpaul was unfit) did this later on too - and it's no coincidence that he rarely tried to be so unorthodox at these times. Richards had the benefit, almost through his entire career, of knowing that all did not come close to resting on him. Tendulkar, even when Dravid joined the side, was always the standout in his team to a level Richards only very briefly in his career was. So Richards always had far more licence than Tendulkar to play in a "they're not going to bowl at me" fashion.

all theory, no action

As I say, these are my impressions of the two players in question.

 

[Richard]

all theory, no action

It's not "all" theory at all. Tendulkar proved he was more than capable of doing something, but very obviously knew that to do it would make him a lesser, not better, player. So he mostly kept it in the locker.

As I say, these are my impressions of the two players in question.

I know it is - my point is that that impression is wrong. And I highlighted why.

 

[Ikki]

Tendulkar has never faced a substandard Zimbabwe team. They became substandard in 2003, not 2000, and Tendulkar's last Test against Zimbabwe was in February 2002.

In any case, in 2000, 2001 and 2002 he was no worse than he had been in, say, 1996 or 1992.

I'm sure you have your own standard which starts at a convenient date for you, but Zimbabwe has always been a poor Test side. Maybe not in the Bangladesh mold but certainly not much higher.

 

[Swervy]

I remember Mark Taylor (in 1998) turning to Warne to get a breakthrough, and Warne got one to turn big and it got hit for a six. Then he pitched another one in the rough and it got hit against the spin for another six. At that point Mark Taylor asked 'So, what are we going to do now?' 'Warne: We're going to lose now, mate.'

I always loved that anecdote. With respect to Richards, certainly at his best, he was amazingly destructive - quite possibly the best of all time. His last three years were much worse than Tendulkar's have been though, and if you ignore such things in both cases, I would still stay Tendulkar comes out ahead - he was more consistent with his brilliance even if at his best he did not match the sheer destruction by Richards. Plus, he didn't face the attacks Tendulkar did in the nineties.

I just dont buy this Tendulkar faced better bowlers than Richards arguement. You play in the era you play in. Richards played against some really great bowlers and murdered them.

But, thats your way of judging it, thats up to you, I just dont agree with how you seaparate the two players

 

[Swervy]

It's not "all" theory at all. Tendulkar proved he was more than capable of doing something, but very obviously knew that to do it would make him a lesser, not better, player. So he mostly kept it in the locker.

I know it is - my point is that that impression is wrong. And I highlighted why.

splendid

 

[Ikki]

No one has claimed that post 2000, he has been the batsman he was in the 90s. But neither was Richards later in his career - and did much worse than Tendulkar in fact.

I didn't say Richards' didn't have a worse decline. I just pointed that out. Consequently, as you are one of the members who seems to justify removing 10-15 runs on average from players in this era, how much do we remove from Tendulkar's 46 to somehow reflect Richards' in the 80s?

 

[Swervy]

of course, the people in the know, look beyond the figures

 

[silentstriker]

I didn't say Richards' didn't have a worse decline. I just pointed that out. Consequently, as you are one of the members who seems to justify removing 10-15 runs on average from players in this era, how much do we remove from Tendulkar's 46 to somehow reflect Richards' in the 80s?

A lot actually. He hasn't capitlized on flat wickets, which hurts him undoubtedly. But, he did do well against much better bowling on livelier tracks, so he that counteracts his flat-pitch era performance. If he only played in flat pitch and averaged that, or had his career flipped where he sucked in the 90s and did much better in post-2000, I'd rate him much lower than I do. I'd put him in the flat belters class in that case, as several others are in the post-2000 era.

And I don't think you need to subtract 10-15 in all cases, because I do think Ponting has come close to Lara and Tendulkar. If I thought it was a universal thing that you subtract, Ponting would be nowhere near those two. His golden run was/is so great that I do think he would come close to being Waugh-esque in the 90s, but I'd still put Waugh slightly higher in batting, primarily due to the era and attacks.

It's usually not black and white in terms of 'subtract x and you get y'.

 

[Richard]

of course, the people in the know, look beyond the figures

And of course, not a few look too far beyond them and end-up not in the know either.