Vivian Richards vs Sachin Tendulkar

[Dasa]

LOL, what? Are you saying sub-continent pitches are more conducive to low scoring and bowler friendly?

There you go again, trying to define someone elses argument. Why don't you wait until someone makes their points before you provide your condescending LOL.

I'm saying a few things here, because you seem to be wrong in many areas. Firstly, I'm saying that you're generalising way too much just to suit your argument, and it's a crap argument anyway. In case you didn't realise, the subcontinent is a huge area with the pitch varying greatly from ground to ground and country to country. Secondly, if you actually watched cricket I think you'd realise that Australian pitches have been very flat for a while and the only reason you don't see the same number of bore-draws in Australia is because the Australian team has had the bowling to be able to get batsmen out on these tracks. Thirdly, there have been pitches in South Africa that have been extremely flat and you can't just make the statement that those pitches are seaming or lively. Fourthly, there have been pitches in India that are bowling-friendly, just not as seam-friendly as you might like - this doesn't make them flat or dead.

What you seem to do make your opinion, then try to make whatever facts you can find support it and ignore everything else. So, you see a boring draw in India or Pakistan and hold it up as the norm and when the same thing occurs elsewhere, you treat it as an abberation when it's nothing of the sort. It's a dishonest way of looking at things.

 

[aussie]

i dont know where u got you fig from
Ponting has lost 16 test matches in his career....

8 against india and 8 aganist other 8 team put together does that tell you anything ?????

Yea India have given Australia the most consistent challenge but to me thats a mixture of India's batting, home advantage & coincidental circumstances.

In 98 when India won, although in the intial stages of world dominance Australia where still novices againts quality spin plus the had a weakened pace attack which affected Warne a great deal & the Indian batting real cashed in on that.

In 2001 thanks to individual brilliance they won that series thats well documented, but it wasn't as if they were world beaters then since i believe after that series they stuttered in Zimbabwe of all places.

In 2003/04 on some placid batting wickets they met a second out of form, injury hit, second string attack & again the dynamic batting line-up cashed in well.

But in 99 in AUS, 04 in IND & recently when Australia had all area's firing (especially the bowling) India really couldn't match up. It goes to show how powerfull that Indian batting-lineup has been over the years.

 

[Ikki]

There you go again, trying to define someone elses argument. Why don't you wait until someone makes their points before you provide your condescending LOL.

Because that's the whole point, I know what I was talking about, and your reply in that fashion leads me to assume it is regarding the point I made.

I'm saying a few things here, because you seem to be wrong in many areas. Firstly, I'm saying that you're generalising way too much just to suit your argument, and it's a crap argument anyway. In case you didn't realise, the subcontinent is a huge area with the pitch varying greatly from ground to ground and country to country. Secondly, if you actually watched cricket I think you'd realise that Australian pitches have been very flat for a while and the only reason you don't see the same number of bore-draws in Australia is because the Australian team has had the bowling to be able to get batsmen out on these tracks. Thirdly, there have been pitches in South Africa that have been extremely flat and you can't just make the statement that those pitches are seaming or lively. Fourthly, there have been pitches in India that are bowling-friendly, just not as seam-friendly as you might like - this doesn't make them flat or dead.

Yes, all countries have flat pitches here and there - and it's become more common - but I am clearly (at least I hope it is clear) talking about the overall picture. Mohammad Yousuf came out last year complaining about how flat pitches are now and how he wishes pitches were more like Australia's Gabba.

I think that's the story
http://content-www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/267566.html

What you seem to do make your opinion, then try to make whatever facts you can find support it and ignore everything else. So, you see a boring draw in India or Pakistan and hold it up as the norm and when the same thing occurs elsewhere, you treat it as an abberation when it's nothing of the sort. It's a dishonest way of looking at things.

Not at all. In fact, I've been going around here saying there have been flat pitches everywhere and even existed in the 90s. But to ignore the essential point I am making is the dishonest way of looking at it. Were there not less flat tracks in places like Australia the 90s? I just stipulated that things like this will effect a batsman's record, even if it is one average point.

Furthermore, with regards to the way I am posting, if I make a comment and someone disagrees, I'd really love to hear a reason, some analysis rather than a comment like "you're being really harsh, you're being biased". If you have a point, say it. I may be very confronting, but I promise you I'm open minded enough to change my opinion if I can see a better way.

 

[biased indian]

And finally Boycott open his account..like his batting style

 

[archie mac]

And finally Boycott open his account..like his batting style

I like that

 

[weldone]

Some will, some won't. The best will, the lesser mortals won't.

No dude...if some1 plays Akram, Mcgrath and Murali better than Olonga and Rafique i won't call him the best....rather i'll say he doesn't possess the patience and temperament to dominate the lesser bowlers which is such an integral part of batsmanship....

This has nothing 2 do with best and lesser mortals.

 

[Precambrian]

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.

Vivian Richards was a much aggressive player than Tendulkar in Test matches. But is aggressive the only definition of Test match batsmanship? Look at the adaptibility of Sachin Tendulkar, his longetivity and his success against pace, spin and swing alike. Richards Vs Sehwag would have been more apt, considering the fact that on their days, they'd be absolutely brutal. Both are extremely reliant on their wtesights and hand eye coordination, and other technical matters are just a backpoint.

Sachin Tendulkar is completely different kind of batsman. He's been compared to none other than Sir Donald Bradman. He has stood competion from greats like Brian Lara, Ricky Ponting, and yet come out on top. And Tendulkar could switch from aggression to defence and back at will. His only fault was that he was bloody damn too consistent that the criketing world took him for granted, and assumed he'd go on and on. (Remember Wisden's assessment a few years back that he'd go break 20k mark in Test cricket). And also the fact that for a long time in his career, je singlehandedly shouldered the Indian batting.

And what about the quality of opposition bowlers Sachin and Viv faced? That would simply answer it.

Sachin Tendulkar remains the best since Don. Oh, and people would do well to read some comments in my signature about him by some of the greats who'd play the game.

 

[Precambrian]

Well, Sir Viv himseldf said Sachin is 99.5 % perfect.

Add to that Brian Lara's 99% and tag of "best".

And while i respect the poster's individual choice here, i value these former greats' words more than anyones.

Add to that Warne's nightmare remark.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And to the guy who said He's not even the best in his era, that's really funny, coz, his era is simply unfinished business. Let's start talking about era and stuff when a player call it quits. And if the choice is Brian Lara, then the great man himself would blush, for most of his memorable performances came in dead rubbers, and on home soil. And if the other choice is Ricky Ponting, ask Bhajji and look up his record in India, against spin. And that leaves the perennially underrated Jaques Kallis, and he's found wanting against Australia and in England.

 

[bagapath]

Richards Vs Sehwag would have been more apt, considering the fact that on their days, they'd be absolutely brutal. Both are extremely reliant on their wtesights and hand eye coordination, and other technical matters are just a backpoint.

not true. sehwag has scored 2 match winning centuries. richards scored 12. richards vs tendulkar or lara or chappell is the right equation.

 

[Precambrian]

Sir Viv scored that many "matchwinning" centuries thanks to Messrs. Marshall, Holding, Garner etc. Those quickies ensured Sir Viv a higher win/century ratio. Sehwag never had the luxury of such bowlers. So that stat is just not appropriate.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Sehwag is not remotely in the same league as Viv Richards. The only worthy comparison threads to VIv would be Lara, Tendulkar, Sobers or Pollock.

 

[biased indian]

Richards Vs Sehwag would have been more apt, considering the fact that on their days, they'd be absolutely brutal. Both are extremely reliant on their wtesights and hand eye coordination, and other technical matters are just a backpoint.

i think hayden vs sehwag or jayasurya vs sehwag is apt.....and in no way Viv

 

[Indipper]

Sehwag is not remotely in the same league as Viv Richards. The only worthy comparison threads to VIv would be Lara, Tendulkar, Sobers or Pollock.

I was actually gonna say that Sobers might make a better comparison to Tendulkar, and Richards vs Ponting maybe.

 

[Jono]

You're telling me that Tendulkar's failures against the 2 best attacks of his time is nothing to mention? The fact that he only played something resembling a full Aussie line-up for like 2 tests? Come on, bias is coming from you my friend.

Yeah I'm so biased towards Tendulkar that I voted Viv Richards ahead of him.

I bet you'd vote Ponting ahead of Sobers as a batsman too wouldn't you?

 

[DaRick]

Sehwag is not remotely in the same league as Viv Richards. The only worthy comparison threads to VIv would be Lara, Tendulkar, Sobers or Pollock.

I wonder whether Graeme Pollock would be the best example, given the amount of Tests that he played?

 

[DaRick]

I was actually gonna say that Sobers might make a better comparison to Tendulkar, and Richards vs Ponting maybe.

Richards vs Border/maybe Waugh and Ponting would be an intriguing discussion, at first glance (as Test match batsmen, not ODI batsmen).

 

[Burgey]

i said career not one series.....

What, they've rolled out the same side since he debuted, have they?

Sobers >>> Tendulkar = Richards > Ponting, imo anyhow.

Edit: why am I doing this? Parra just got rolled by the Gold Coast and I have the ****s. All I'm gonna do is end up being more angry and less logical than normal

 

[silentstriker]

What, they've rolled out the same side since he debuted, have they?

Sobers >>> Tendulkar = Richards > Ponting, imo anyhow.

Edit: why am I doing this? Parra just got rolled by the Gold Coast and I have the ****s. All I'm gonna do is end up being more angry and less logical than normal

Agreed.

Sobers >>> Tendulkar for mine too.

I'd say Bradman > Hobbs > Sobers > A bunch of guys including Tendulkar vying for #4-#8.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah I'm so biased towards Tendulkar that I voted Viv Richards ahead of him.

I bet you'd vote Ponting ahead of Sobers as a batsman too wouldn't you?

Maybe, maybe not. But I'd vote Viv ahead of him.

Agreed.

Sobers >>> Tendulkar for mine too.

I'd say Bradman > Hobbs > Sobers > A bunch of guys including Tendulkar vying for #4-#8.

That I wouldn't agree on. IMO, Tendulkar simply faced better bowlers in his time and higher quantity of them.

There is something about Sobers that you seem to have had to been there to understand. He is dominant in accolades, praise and legacy but his figures just do not add up so strongly, in my mind. For example, his almost reincarnate in Kallis is not rated as highly and, in terms of batting and bowling, he is just as good of an all-rounder as Sobers.

 

[Engle]

Vivian Richards was a much aggressive player than Tendulkar in Test matches. But is aggressive the only definition of Test match batsmanship ?

Aggression does count. It demoralizes the opposition. As well, it shores up the confidence of your batting partners. Both of these are significant credits to be considered in assessing batsmanship.

Unorthodoxy does count. Those who play within the confines of the text-book are not IMO as valuable as those who play beyond-the-book. There are few athletes who redefine the sport beyond what the experts say. Examples of this would be Ali exposing himself, yet taking apart his opponents. Or Gretzky playing a game even his coach could not understand.

Sachin may be closer to the Don, but Richards would serve as the better batting partner to the Don. Anything SRT can do, DGB could do better. But the same could not be said if Viv partnered DGB. Viv would complement him in a way such that their total would be greater than the sum of it’s parts.

SRT may have the better numbers.
But Viv has the greater legacy.