Vivian Richards vs Sachin Tendulkar

[archie mac]

Interested (but not saying it means who was best) in what people who actually had the chance to watch them both bat thought. With out checking I would think Viv well in front?

 

[silentstriker]

Interested (but not saying it means who was best) in what people who actually had the chance to watch them both bat thought. With out checking I would think Viv well in front?

How would you define 'chance to watch?' Circa 2000, a lot of guys who watch Tendulkar were saying he was 2nd since Bradman, including guys like Waugh, Warne, etc who I assume had watched both. I've watched both, though perhaps not in the way you mean, so I would be discounted.

I am not sure who would he ahead in that way. I think the proper way to judge would be five years after SRT retires, because people then tend to remember only the best of those players.

 

[archie mac]

How would you define 'chance to watch?' Circa 2000, a lot of guys who watch Tendulkar were saying he was 2nd since Bradman, including guys like Waugh, Warne, etc who I assume had watched both. I've watched both, though perhaps not in the way you mean, so I would be discounted.

I am not sure who would he ahead in that way. I think the proper way to judge would be five years after SRT retires, because people then tend to remember only the best of those players.

I was thinking people who were watching cricket during most of Vivs career tbh, watching TV replays after the event, often means they are edited, or you know the result or both

 

[silentstriker]

I was thinking people who were watching cricket during most of Vivs career tbh, watching TV replays after the event, often means they are edited, or you know the result or both

Fair enough, I can't claim to be ignorant of the results when watching the replays, even ones that are unedited. But many of the others, who did watch them live, were saying it. Not saying it was universal of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was in favor of Sachin.

 

[archie mac]

Fair enough, I can't claim to be ignorant of the results when watching the replays, even ones that are unedited. But many of the others, who did watch them live, were saying it. Not saying it was universal of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was in favor of Sachin.

Either would I, and I have no problem with people rating Sachin the best since Bradman, SRT is one of the best I have ever watched

Still I thought Viv just a little better

 

[Burgey]

I was thinking people who were watching cricket during most of Vivs career tbh, watching TV replays after the event, often means they are edited, or you know the result or both

I've been lucky enough to see both, and as I posted earlier, I really can't split them.

I think the biggest difference between them was in the manner at the crease. Viv had that swagger/ arrogance about him, whereas Tendulkar almost seems bereft of ego in the way he goes about things.

Interesting that two great players can achieve such similar standards, yet have such contrasting attitudes to the way they go about things.

 

[silentstriker]

Either would I, and I have no problem with people rating Sachin the best since Bradman, SRT is one of the best I have ever watched

Still I thought Viv just a little better

That's fair enough - I am usually captivated when watching Viv at his best. I just don't see enough myself to rate him above SRT. I don't think SRT was the best since Bradman though - I think Sobers was a better bat than both of them.

 

[Burgey]

That's fair enough - I am usually captivated when watching Viv at his best. I just don't see enough myself to rate him above SRT. I don't think SRT was the best since Bradman though - I think Sobers was a better bat than both of them.

AWTA

 

[Anil]

Interested (but not saying it means who was best) in what people who actually had the chance to watch them both bat thought. With out checking I would think Viv well in front?

don't agree...

Either would I, and I have no problem with people rating Sachin the best since Bradman, SRT is one of the best I have ever watched

Still I thought Viv just a little better

agree...

once you've made up your mind, what about you?

 

[Jono]

Anil, I think Archie meant 'well in front' in terms of number of people (who watched them both) choosing Viv over Sachin

 

[Ikki]

As usual you have tried to spin my argument. Show me where I said that Saqi, & Akhtar were not a formidable force. Sachin Absoultrly hammered them in Multan.

How have I spun your argument? You were exerting some sort of diatribe in trying to show that Ponting didn't do well against Pakistan, and when he did it was a poor attack? That 197 came from said attack.

Hammered who in Multan in the 90s? Sachin played 3 tests against Pakistan in the 90s and averages 33 to Ponting's 63 and he was at home .

Sachin never played Pakistan in Multan.

Yeah and Tendulkar was averaging 60+ against the easy beats Ponting struggled to cross 40.

Are we talking about New Zealand? So we went from comparing them against the best in the era to the not-so-best of the era? Makes sense.

Ponting played only 3 tests against the SAffies in the 90s that too at home, averaged <50, hardly the hammering that you talk about.

Ponting averages 49.6 (Haha, <50) I've seen them spun in my time but to say that because of 0.4 runs on average, just funny. One year after debut and he is averaging almost 50 against the best pace attack in the world. An attack that, when it was weaker in the earlier 90s, Sachin faced and could only manage 30 - from 10 tests.

Yeah when nothing else works.

I forgot, Sachin is also under extreme pressure too...

No he didn't.

Yeah he did.

Sachin Bat Avg.
Pakistan: 30
S.Africa: 33

Ponting Bat Avg.
Pakistan: 63
S.Africa: 49.6

 

[Sanz]

Are we talking about New Zealand? So we went from comparing them against the best in the era to the not-so-best of the era? Makes sense.

Obviously Ponting could handle the best but could not play the worse.

 

[Ikki]

a) He never faced Warne and McGrath, and even Gillespie.
b) http://stats.cricinfo.com/australia...t_runs_career.html?class=1;id=199;type=decade

Neither did Sachin, well at least all together.

But that's like saying Viv never faced Marshall, Holding, Ambrose...

Read Sachin's stats in the 90s.
Read everyone else's stats.
Then watch him bat.

Sachin is a ****ing master.

Great to watch, but was dire against the best two pace attacks of the time.

 

[Ikki]

Obviously Ponting could handle the best but could not play the worse.

Well, you put that to being inconsistent. Not untalented .

BTW Ponting averages better than Sachin against Zimbabwe, if we're going down that route

 

[Sanz]

How have I spun your argument? You were exerting some sort of diatribe in trying to show that Ponting didn't do well against Pakistan, and when he did it was a poor attack? That 197 came from said attack.

Did the 2 Ws play in that game ? Thank You for the information.

 

[Ikki]

If someone were to bat for my life, and the criteria was to bat as long as possible, I don't think I'd pick anyone else (bar Bradman) except Boycott. He'd be 7*(1244) at the end, but the crazy bastard would be there.

Haha, yeah, sadly true!

 

[Sanz]

Well, you put that to being inconsistent. Not untalented .

BTW Ponting averages better than Sachin against Zimbabwe, if we're going down that route

I never said Ponting was not talented, just that he isn't more talented than Sachin. And Ponting was poor against Zim as well < 40 I guess not sure what you are trying to prove.

 

[Jono]

Great to watch, but was dire against the best two pace attacks of the time.

Lol, that's proof enough that arguing with you on the merits of a cricketer is useless. Hard to argue with such bias.

You've made it clear on these boards you're on some campaign to ensure that Ponting is rated as some holy legend, and will denigrate one of the greatest batsman ever seen (and acknowledged by Bradman and many other experts) to try and push your theory.

No point even arguing with you when Ponting's name comes up, because he can do no wrong.

 

[Ikki]

Did the 2 Ws play in that game ? Thank You for the information.

Why would it matter? Didn't you just say Saqlain, Akhtar and Wasim were a great attack? Are you now taking that back, or am I twisting your words?

And at the time there wasn't much difference between Waqar Younis and Shoaib Akhtar.

 

[JBH001]

Lol, that's proof enough that arguing with you on the merits of a cricketer is useless. Hard to argue with such bias.

Agree with that, I am afraid. Also, I have to say, Kazo's posting style is progressively getting worse and worse. A shame really.