Vivian Richards vs Sachin Tendulkar

[Sanz]

Yeah Lara with 34 100s and 48 50s, Tendulkar with 39 100s and 49 50s dont have records as impressive as Ponting's.

 

[R_D]

A long way to go? What a joke.

He has hit 34 Test tons and is averaging 58.53 from 116 Tests. Lara and Tendulkar were considered greats with records nowhere near as impressive as these.

Just follow the results of both Sachin, Lara V Ponting poll to get an idea.
at Lara and Sachin not having as impressive records.

 

[Ikki]

No need to waste time filling out few pages... making tit for tat comments.
Well known fact that Lara and Tendulkar are considered the best batsman of their era... while good as Waugh was but he is not highly regarded as the other 2... only need to check the opinions of many cricket historians, writers, commentators etc.
Ponting may one day be considered as good as Lara and Tendulkar but he still has a long way to go before being considered good as them.

You see, I am looking for your criteria as to why you think they are better, and why so categorically. Because at the very least they are close, and if you actually go into objective reasoning it's hard to be that one-sided about it.

Anyway, the reason Waugh wasn't seen as highly was because he started off an average Test batsman. But in the 90s, he was just as good if not better than those two. IMO, he was better than them. Certainly a better record all-round and definitely carried the Aussie team in many matches. If Border epitomizes Australia's struggle and transition into a decent test side, Waugh epitomizes Australia's rise from being a great Test side into an all-time great one.

Just follow the results of both Sachin, Lara V Ponting poll to get an idea.
at Lara and Sachin not having as impressive records.

Well, argue it. Give your two cents why Lara or Sachin's records are better than Ponting's.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

Yeah Lara with 34 100s and 48 50s, Tendulkar with 39 100s and 49 50s dont have records as impressive as Ponting's.

Think the operative word in his post was 'were' in that Lara and Tendulkar had entered the pantheon of 'greats' in the late 90s when their records weren't quite as august, run or century-wise, back then. Contrast that with Ponting who's still in lower regard despite having a comparable record even now.

 

[Sanz]

Think the operative word in his post was 'were' in that Lara and Tendulkar had entered the pantheon of 'greats' in the late 90s when their records weren't quite as august, run or century-wise, back then. Contrast that with Ponting who's still in lower regard despite having a comparable record even now.

Records aren't everything. Fans don't look at the record and decide who is better, they decide it from watching the game and they know who is better and greater.

 

[DaRick]

Records aren't everything. Fans don't look at the record and decide who is better, they decide it from watching the game and they know who is better and greater.

This intuitive decision-making may be correct sometimes, but it can be mis-informed and it can lead to stereotypes about certain players. Take Dennis Lillee and Glenn McGrath, for instance. I tend to find that one (Lillee) is held in a higher regard (particularly in Australia) for no particular reason, which has always confounded me, despite McGrath's (for mine) superiority. On the other hand, I heard a story about an Australian man comparing McGrath, unflatteringly, to a Xerox machine or something.

Also, fans are obviously more likely to promote their own players than those from overseas, unless the players from overseas are so vastly superior that an argument cannot be made as to their superiority. This isn't always true (for one, I think that Tendulkar > Richards/Ponting), but I find that it tends to be. Perhaps it is a result of commonly held social values (like supporting those who represent you), or even 'pack mentality' instincts that humans tend to have (i.e: ganging together for or against a cause). Unfortunately, this can lead to 'mob mentality' if support for something gets too feverish.

I'm not saying that I'm above all of this nationalism. Indeed, my favourite player is Matthew Hayden, against all known logic. The strength of cricketing records is that they are objective. Their weakness is that they lack a sense of circumstance (as Victor Trumper's record will indicate). They can be skewed, as well.

 

[pasag]

Records aren't everything. Fans don't look at the record and decide who is better, they decide it from watching the game and they know who is better and greater.

With you here, as you know. Sure the way we see things can be misleading, but so can stats, particularly the way they are often used in the wrong hands. One player having more runs at a better average than one who has less runs at lesser average means pretty little to me. We watch the game, (or read about it) and together with mild use of selective stats we can come to paint a proper picture on a cricketer. But, for mine, saying one cricketer had the better figures than another cricketer and is therefore a superior batsman is rubbish - it's so much more than that, as has been discussed on here at length.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Records aren't everything. Fans don't look at the record and decide who is better, they decide it from watching the game and they know who is better and greater.

This is exactly the point. People with an affinity for Cricket (or any sport) recognise when they're watching players with the extra spark of genius that separates them from the merely great. This is why so many people from so many era's going right back to the 30's judge Viv Richards as the greatest batsman they've ever seen. People who didn't see him or are unable to make judgements without a spreadsheet or the StatsGuru dismiss him.
Richards had that extra touch of genius, as did Lara and Tendulkar. Great player though Ponting is he just doesn't have it.
There are far too many variables in terms of the strength of a players own team, strength of opposition, playing conditions and match situations to just blindly look at stats and decide this player was better than that player.

 

[Sanz]

This intuitive decision-making may be correct sometimes, but it can be mis-informed and it can lead to stereotypes about certain players. Take Dennis Lillee and Glenn McGrath, for instance. I tend to find that one (Lillee) is held in a higher regard (particularly in Australia) for no particular reason, which has always confounded me, despite McGrath's (for mine) superiority. On the other hand, I heard a story about an Australian man comparing McGrath, unflatteringly, to a Xerox machine or something.

Its the fans who decide who is great and who is greater and I disagree with you that their decision is intuitive. I believe Their decision more often than not is a fairly informed one. While I do think that Mcgrath is an alltime great, I personally dont believe he is a better/greater fast bowler than Lillee and it has nothing to with their records. Mcgrath may be a better bowler than Lillee but not a better FAST bowler.

Also, fans are obviously more likely to promote their own players than those from overseas, unless the players from overseas are so vastly superior that an argument cannot be made as to their superiority. This isn't always true (for one, I think that Tendulkar > Richards/Ponting), but I find that it tends to be. Perhaps it is a result of commonly held social values (like supporting those who represent you), or even 'pack mentality' instincts that humans tend to have (i.e: ganging together for or against a cause). Unfortunately, this can lead to 'mob mentality' if support for something gets too feverish.

I dont think that it is necessarily right, at least not on this forum. Apart from a few folks from some countries, The polls on this forum have indicated the fairness from the members and displayed their neutrality. Not saying that those who support players from their country are biased but just that they might have had more chance to watch player from their own country hence the opinion. IMO in most cases It has nothing to do with promoting a player from your country.

I personally feel Richards is > Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting. Lara=Tendulkar> Ponting.

 

[Googenheim]

Peter May was considered the best batsman in the world for a period, how many remember him?

Fred Tate anyone?

We're talking comparable batsmen. With all due respect to May, he wasn't in the same class as Tendulkar or Richards. Tate needs to step up his game and play more than the one solitary test.

 

[Sanz]

Tate needs to step up his game and play more than the one solitary test.

Is he still playing ?

 

[vic_orthdox]

We're talking comparable batsmen. With all due respect to May, he wasn't in the same class as Tendulkar or Richards. Tate needs to step up his game and play more than the one solitary test.

 

[DaRick]

Its the fans who decide who is great and who is greater and I disagree with you that their decision is intuitive. I believe Their decision more often than not is a fairly informed one.

Hmm...their decisions can be informed, certainly. More often than not, though, the cricket fans that I have spoken to seem to decide who is greater based on feelings and intuition...there's a forum called ********, where many (not all, obviously) of its members appear to do that (EDIT: I was not trying to promote that forum, just providing an example to support my argument - I disagree with some of the opinions held there, FTR).

Your experiences may be different from mine. Given that you live in America (unusually for a cricket fan), I'll assume that you are older and more travelled than I. As such, you may have met more 'informed cricket fans' than me. I can respect that.

While I do think that Mcgrath is an alltime great, I personally dont believe he is a better/greater fast bowler than Lillee and it has nothing to with their records. Mcgrath may be a better bowler than Lillee but not a better FAST bowler.

Unless you're talking about their speeds, I don't really comprehend what you mean. Assuming that they both fall into the quick category, McGrath > Lillee, for mine. I don't even need cold, hard statistics records to feel that way. If you disagree, though, that's fine.

I dont think that it is necessarily right, at least not on this forum. Apart from a few folks from some countries, The polls on this forum have indicated the fairness from the members and displayed their neutrality.

I wasn't talking about this forum, which appears to be an exception to what I perceive as a general rule.

Not saying that those who support players from their country are biased but just that they might have had more chance to watch player from their own country hence the opinion. IMO in most cases It has nothing to do with promoting a player from your country.

You're probably right about the non-bolded part, but you'd be surprised at how parochial some Australians are (for one thing, Queenslanders, particularly when the Rugby League State of Origin comes around, tend to barrack almost unilateraly against NSW, from experience, although that's slightly irrelevant).

Perhaps this doesn't apply (at least, not to the same extent) in your country of origin or descent...

I personally feel Richards is > Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting. Lara=Tendulkar> Ponting.

I obviously disagree, but hey, variety is the spice of life, right?

 

[Googenheim]

Is he still playing ?

No, he isn't. Thats the joke. Not a good one, but one nevertheless.

 

[pasag]

Given that you live in America (unusually for a cricket fan)

Nah, heaps and heaps of sub-continental fans there. Even on this board we have quite a few. They've even got a 24 hour cricket channel there

 

[honestbharani]

what do yo want me to counter, that if Giily late cuts seamer and Sehwag doesn't that makes it unique and while Sachin can not only do that but also hit a 6 over the 3rd man for a 6 like Sehwag, he is not unique

and in India, every other guy on the street acts like an encyclopedia on cricket, does that make them one? How many of them would you bother countering? May be you will do better with your old school's kids

no, but it doesn't make their batting styles similar........ which I gather you are failing to understand.

 

[honestbharani]

Cos Lara's a girl's name

lol... but Brian Charles isn't...

 

[honestbharani]

A long way to go? What a joke.

He has hit 34 Test tons and is averaging 58.53 from 116 Tests. Lara and Tendulkar were considered greats with records nowhere near as impressive as these.

yeah but unfortunate, records aren't the be all and end all of cricket......

 

[DaRick]

Nah, heaps and heaps of sub-continental fans there. Even on this board we have quite a few. They've even got a 24 hour cricket channel there

Oh, I know that there are...which is why I made references to his country of origin or descent.

Let's face it, though, it is unusual for a cricket fan to be living in the US of A. It's just not a cricketing centre. That's why they're such a relative minority over there and when compared to actual cricketing centres (save for maybe the West Indies and New Zealand, who would proportionally have a more significant amount of cricket fans - we hope - anyway).

 

[honestbharani]

haha, did i say that he is wrong in picking Lara [or whoever] over Tendulkar. I don't even care if he doesn't pick Tendulkar but what I wrote against was his unnecessarily biased criteria that he set to say Tendulkar's batting style is not unique

while you may think of this as an idiocy of highest order, I would see thinking that as such as idiocy of the highest order but thats expected

unnecessarily biased criteria????????



First of all, saying his batting style isn't unique is a compliment to the greatness of the man. Because it shows adaptability which is always the key to batting and in fact, the key to cricket.... And if you care to read carefully through my original post removing your tinted glasses, you will see that I did mention the fact that he COULD have played an attacking game if he wanted to, he just didn't... mostly in the interests of the team. He also assumed a defensive batsman's role whenever he found that someone else was doing the attacking job and doing it well at the other end. Again, it shows that he could put team before self, another admirable trait....


Dude, I can reel off reasons off the top of my head in a matter of seconds why I consider Sachin to be a great. The discussion was about the styles of batting of Sachin and Richards and I mentioned that while Richards stuck with one style throughout his career, Sachin hasn't and that MIGHT, MIGHT be one of the reasons why some people rate Richards higher (not here, juz generally)..


Not that there aren't other reasons to put Richards higher than Sachin....