The stats do not do him justice!

[Smith]

For me, the reasons why he got injured are a completely separate reason to how highly I rate him. I said that he had valid reasons for much of the time he was below his peak, but all players have issues to deal with. Those things can be taken into account in a detailed specific examination of a player, but in terms of the merits or otherwise of a career batting average as an indication of their quality, it becomes self-defeating to start tinkering with what an average should be, and unfair if you only give that treatment to favourites.

Equally, some of the points that you cite as adversely affecting Tendulkar could also be argued to have benefitted him. Yes, he played a stack of cricket at times - some of those times were when he was in the very peak of his form, and that's probably helped his career record - in career terms he got to extract maximum benefit out of the times he was at his peak. It almost certainly did contribute to a degree of burn out later on, but he definitely got to make hay while the sun shined.

If he'd played for Australia, he would have been a very different player, so its a bit speculative to say he would have definitely been better. And guys like Lara, Steve Waugh and Allan Border all dealt with periods where their team mates let them down badly.

He averaged nearly 60 in Australia and more than 60 in England and those two countries make up about 70% of total cricket played by a consistent Aussie cricketer. So the argument that had he played for Australia, the averages could have been more than 60, is very much valid.

 

[Smith]

Or else was spared playing against the best pace attacks of that period - Australia, SA, and Pakistan.

I think Tendulkar's record is mighty impressive enough without having to draw long bows to try and embroider it further.

Agree with your inclusion of SA and Pakistan. But disagree with the choice of Aus. He virtually owned Australia throughout his career.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Larwood must be a good shout. 78 wickets at 28.35 very unflattering for a man of such pace and accuracy. I guess playing so often against Bradman (not to mention Woodfull, Jackson, etc) will do that to a chap's figures.

Gooch too. 42.5-ish doesn't really reflect how dominant he was for the middle portion of his career.

 

[Uppercut]

He averaged nearly 60 in Australia and more than 60 in England and those two countries make up about 70% of total cricket played by a consistent Aussie cricketer. So the argument that had he played for Australia, the averages could have been more than 60, is very much valid.

Involves an absolutely massive amount of speculation though, to the point where it becomes utterly ridiculous.

 

[Matt79]

He averaged nearly 60 in Australia and more than 60 in England and those two countries make up about 70% of total cricket played by a consistent Aussie cricketer. So the argument that had he played for Australia, the averages could have been more than 60, is very much valid.

That's got nothing to do with my point that if he was an Australian player, obviously his career would have been completely different, and while I agree that that amount of talent would have meant he would have been a fantastic player, its a bit of a stretch to say he would have been better by that margin simply because he had better players around him. The environment which was formative for him in international cricket would have been completely different, and it wouldn't have been the same Sachin.

You might be right - equally you might be wrong. Just think its a bit simplistic to state that as a fact. Or to ignore the negatives that would have occurred for Sachin in that move. Do you think he would have been the player he was in Indian conditions if he was Australian? You can no more say "the grass would have been greener" than you can cherry pick a player's record.

 

[Smith]

Involves an absolutely massive amount of speculation though, to the point where it becomes utterly ridiculous.

What is the speculation which is so ridiculous there?

 

[Smith]

That's got nothing to do with my point that if he was an Australian player, obviously his career would have been completely different, and while I agree that that amount of talent would have meant he would have been a fantastic player, its a bit of a stretch to say he would have been better by that margin simply because he had better players around him. The environment which was formative for him in international cricket would have been completely different, and it wouldn't have been the same Sachin.

You might be right - equally you might be wrong. Just think its a bit simplistic to state that as a fact. Or to ignore the negatives that would have occurred for Sachin in that move. Do you think he would have been the player he was in Indian conditions if he was Australian? You can no more say "the grass would have been greener" than you can cherry pick a player's record.

True, as I said, it is only a dream in the daylight. But heck, we are allowed to dream right?

 

[Matt79]

Agree with your inclusion of SA and Pakistan. But disagree with the choice of Aus. He virtually owned Australia throughout his career.

Meh, they were far and away the best bowling unit of that time. McGrath had his success against Sachin. If they had played more, it's equally possible that Sachin might have regressed to the mean against them. Either way, it's nonsensical to say he would have found batting against that Australian line up easier than batting against say the English, Zimbabwean or Sri Lankan attacks of the period.

 

[Matt79]

True, as I said, it is only a dream in the daylight. But heck, we are allowed to dream right?

Sure, dream. But those sort of dreams are not the basis upon which to say "Sachin's career record underrates how good he is".

 

[Uppercut]

What is the speculation which is so ridiculous there?

Basically what Matt said. Would he have had a different technique? Would he have been as dominant against spin? Would he have been happy in the Aussie cricketing culture? Hell, would he even have played cricket if he were Australian? We don't know any of this. Or the answers to any other questions that arise once you say "if Sachin was Australian..." So you've got no basis to say, "if Sachin was Australian he'd have had a higher average."

 

[Smith]

Sure, dream. But those sort of dreams are not the basis upon which to say "Sachin's career record underrates how good he is".

To an extent, yes. There is nothing more than speculation to suggest otherwise.

 

[Sanz]

Umar Gul. Was reading this and thought it was spot on and he gives another solid performance today. His stats don't do him justice and he is perhaps one of the most underrated cricketer of our times.

 

[Sanz]

He averaged nearly 60 in Australia and more than 60 in England and those two countries make up about 70% of total cricket played by a consistent Aussie cricketer. So the argument that had he played for Australia, the averages could have been more than 60, is very much valid.

Please do not make this another thread about Tendulkar.

 

[zaremba]

Please do not make this another thread about Tendulkar.

Absolutely agree 100% with this. It's so desperately dull seeing every bloody thread turned into an analysis of Sachin Bloody Tendulkar.

 

[Smith]

Absolutely agree 100% with this. It's so desperately dull seeing every bloody thread turned into an analysis of Sachin Bloody Tendulkar.

Yet another reason he is so underrated.

 

[Richard]

I think people pretty much get what they deserve. Even the most talented people have technical issues that would have to be ignored to project them higher.

A guy like Tendulkar plays with an angled bat off the back foot. That isnt an issue when he is 'in form' but it hurts him when he is a little out of form.

Botham had a batting technique well suited to the medium/quicks but he didnt get properly into line against the express bowlers and consequently he never knew where his off stump was.

Rhodes was a technical mess and a substandard Test cricketer until he was properly tutored.

etc

I think it is often too easy to overlook the deficiencies in certain players and then revise history as to what our expectations should have been.

For example Andy Caddick, on his day, was unplayable. Fast, bounce, swing, venom: he could have averaged low 20s in Test cricket. However, his failings meant that was not possible.

Completely agree with this. Stats aren't everything, but they're the bottom line. How many runs you score is a better judge of how good a player you were than how effortless you scored your boundaries or how classical your cover-drive looked. Everyone gets what they deserve.

Ind33d. (To an extent, anyway - obviously an occasional player will have an amount of luck far above-average, whether some people like that or not.)

The "stats do not do justice" idea is simply a don't-go-there. Stats show what happened. "Stats do not tell the full story" is a much fairer phrase - because there is always more to a player than purely what his contributions to wins and losses are. Even if Ian Bell is an infinitely lesser batsman than Kevin Pietersen, he'll always be an infinitely more attractive one. And some players' runs can merely win a game; some players' runs can win a game and win a thousand hearts to boot.

It's in this way that cricket is about more than just stats. But how good someone is is about precious little besides. Though clearly an overall career average is a pretty meaningless thing, and always needs closer examination before real truths can be discerned.

 

[Richard]

Gooch too. 42.5-ish doesn't really reflect how dominant he was for the middle portion of his career.

End portion, more like. However, the figures from said portion - 1990-1994 - do indeed do precisely such a thing. Ditto Tendulkar's 1990-2002.

Don't confuse the meaninglessness of a banal career average with the meaningfulness of stats, which are so much more than overall career averages.

 

[Smith]

Please do not make this another thread about Tendulkar.

End portion, more like. However, the figures from said portion - 1990-1994 - do indeed do precisely such a thing. Ditto Tendulkar's 1990-2002.

Don't confuse the meaninglessness of a banal career average with the meaningfulness of stats, which are so much more than overall career averages.

 

[Uppercut]

Even if Ian Bell is an infinitely lesser batsman than Kevin Pietersen, he'll always be an infinitely more attractive one.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat!

 

[zaremba]

I was going to pick up on that too. I didn't, because I accept that if it's a pretty technique you're after, Bell is hard to beat. But to my mind Penisen is one of the most watchable batsmen I've ever seen.