Richards v Tendulkar - ODIs

[honestbharani]

I ahve done both 1990's as a whole and 1993 to 2000's to tendulkar because he was very young from 1990 too 1993,when in fact the whole 1990's suits my argument better.

What i have also done by using 1993 to 2000's is inluded almost the same no of ODI'S as Richards played in his WHOLE CAREER.

Sir alex above used a interesting window too 1998 to 2003

yes.. try stats for that period... will be interestng too.

 

[Sir Alex]

Cevno's misleading filtered stats aside, the fact is Richard was almost peerless in his era and brought to batting a sort of aura that was not seen before, at least in ODIs... Sachin is amazing in much the same manner although I would perhaps replace aura with rejection in the case of Sachin. Bowlers just seem to basically give up bowling to him in ODIs...

Here is where opinions kick in (or as Uppercut said qualitative stats).. I personally have followed Tendulkar's career ever since 1995 or whereabouts, and I have never seen any batsman exuding such aura, trepidation etc as him between 1998 and 1999.. not even Jayasurya, not even Sehwag, not Afridi...

Quantitiative stats show there isn't real purchase in the argument that Richards did something greater than his peers which Tendulkar did not emulate. In fact Tendulkar did. And did something more, scoring so many tons that it looks improbable for anyone to even get 10 within him.

 

[Sir Alex]

hmm... 6 batters with SR of 70+ and only one anywhere near Viv in terms of matches played and runs scored...


12 guys with SR of 70+ with more than 2 there and thereabouts to Sachin.. Two times is not significant?

15 ODI teamsduring Tendulkar's time vs 8 teams during Richard's time?

 

[Cevno]

hmm... 6 batters with SR of 70+ and only one anywhere near Viv in terms of matches played and runs scored...


12 guys with SR of 70+ with more than 2 there and thereabouts to Sachin.. Two times is not significant?

And why do you use above 70 as a filter and not above 75 and besides if you see the whole 1990 chart as you said in your previous post ,only klusener comes close to SRT.

What i do not see is the massive difference that some on here were talking about ,to offset the longevity argument.
Now it has come down to small bickering about filters such as above 1000 runs and strike rates above 70 ,75 or 60?

Where is the all the rest good batsmen having strike rates of 60 argument?
While in the others case everyone having a strike rate of 90?

And besides two more important points.

1)There was far more density of ODI's in one of the two periods you are comparing,thus i guess we should have a filter of less that 1000.

2)One period was of specialist ODI batsmen who in some cases did not play tests.While in the others case you had batsmen like Gavaskar ,Boycott etc... playing ODI's .

 

[honestbharani]

Here is where opinions kick in (or as Uppercut said qualitative stats).. I personally have followed Tendulkar's career ever since 1995 or whereabouts, and I have never seen any batsman exuding such aura, trepidation etc as him between 1998 and 1999.. not even Jayasurya, not even Sehwag, not Afridi...

Quantitiative stats show there isn't real purchase in the argument that Richards did something greater than his peers which Tendulkar did not emulate. In fact Tendulkar did. And did something more, scoring so many tons that it looks improbable for anyone to even get 10 within him.

I juz now showed using Cevno's stats that Sachin has double the number of guys with 70+ SR and near his aggregate runs than Richards did... Isn't that achieving something?


and BTW, precamb, you are talking about a time period you were not even watching cricket. I didn't either but that is where reading pieces and peer rating comes in... Not for nothing is he regarded as the best by so many. As a matter of fact, Srikkanth, who is a self confessed Sachin fanboy, has said Viv is the best he has seen so many times... I guess he is a big fan of Richards too but do you seriously think all these guys who rate Viv that high have no idea what they are talking about?


And all this stuff about SRs being lesser back then are coming from them, mainly... You juz need to listen to any interview about Viv to understand what this is all about.

 

[honestbharani]

15 ODI teamsduring Tendulkar's time vs 8 teams during Richard's time?

another genuine question here.. What teams can be regarded as minnows in ODIs during Richards' time? I m not talking about test nations.. so if I exclude SL and Zim, that should suffice?

 

[Cevno]

I juz now showed using Cevno's stats that Sachin has double the number of guys with 70+ SR and near his aggregate runs than Richards did... Isn't that achieving something?


.

And why did you not use 75 + or 60 +,

Besides there were a lot more teams and lot more better players playing ODi's at this time than who were playing in the other period.

Almost the double ,so where is the MASSIVE difference as we were told?

 

[Cevno]

another genuine question here.. What teams can be regarded as minnows in ODIs during Richards' time? I m not talking about test nations.. so if I exclude SL and Zim, that should suffice?

East africa?
Canada?

 

[honestbharani]

And why do you use above 70 as a filter and not above 75 and besides if you see the whole 1990 chart as you said in your previous post ,only klusener comes close to SRT.

What i do not see is the massive difference that some on here were talking about ,to offset the longevity argument.
Now it has come down to small bickering about filters such as above 1000 runs and strike rates above 70 ,75 or 60?

Where is the all the rest good batsmen having strike rates of 60 argument?
While in the others case everyone having a strike rate of 90?

And besides two more important points.

1)There was far more density of ODI's in one of the two periods you are comparing,thus i guess we should have a filter of less that 1000.

2)One period was of specialist ODI batsmen who in some cases did not play tests.While in the others case you had batsmen like Gavaskar ,Boycott etc... playing ODI's .

your two points shows why ODIs then were completely different to ODIs now. There is no saying how well Sachin would have gone in that period, where generally we had better quality of bowlers around just as there is no saying how Richards would have gone in this period, when there is so much more "international" cricket being played.... And as to taking 70, by taking 75, I think there are still many guys coming in near Sachin as per your stats... (93-2000)... Taking 90s alone would mean for Viv we have to consider the 80s alone.. Try that?

 

[Sir Alex]

I juz now showed using Cevno's stats that Sachin has double the number of guys with 70+ SR and near his aggregate runs than Richards did... Isn't that achieving something?

Why the arbitrary 70? Why not 60? not 65?

Also Tendulkar's time there are 15 ODI teams against who he played, In Richard's time it was 8 ODI teams.

IRichards also played in an era that had extremely less ODI specialists as compared to Tendulkar era.

and BTW, precamb, you are talking about a time period you were not even watching cricket. I didn't either but that is where reading pieces and peer rating comes in... Not for nothing is he regarded as the best by so many. As a matter of fact, Srikkanth, who is a self confessed Sachin fanboy, has said Viv is the best he has seen so many times... I guess he is a big fan of Richards too but do you seriously think all these guys who rate Viv that high have no idea what they are talking about?

If you are going to quote me as precamb, which I am not, am going to report your post. And I am not goign to reply to you again. Individual preferences are a thing here, and carries there value but are never a conclusive indicator of a player being better thn another unless the opinion is unanimous. Here you will find equal number of people claiming Tendulkar being the better player as well.

And all this stuff about SRs being lesser back then are coming from them, mainly... You juz need to listen to any interview about Viv to understand what this is all about.

Please quit the patronising tone, I am not cricket idiot.. I too have watched enough TV interviews and shows about Richards, and have managed to watch his recordings. But as I said, once people retire only, such accoldaes start kicking in, And a certain element of bias creep in also a propensity to blow up stuff, as such things are rarely corroborated through video evidence.

I believe Richards was an awesome awesome awesome player. And he was numero uno of his time no doubt. But he is not above Tendulkar if you figure in all factors.

 

[Sir Alex]

another genuine question here.. What teams can be regarded as minnows in ODIs during Richards' time? I m not talking about test nations.. so if I exclude SL and Zim, that should suffice?

Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, and too some extent India (till they won 83 WC)..New Zealand too was average.

 

[Sir Alex]

your two points shows why ODIs then were completely different to ODIs now. There is no saying how well Sachin would have gone in that period, where generally we had better quality of bowlers around just as there is no saying how Richards would have gone in this period, when there is so much more "international" cricket being played.... And as to taking 70, by taking 75, I think there are still many guys coming in near Sachin as per your stats... (93-2000)... Taking 90s alone would mean for Viv we have to consider the 80s alone.. Try that?

Your supposition that Richards had to face "generally higher level" of ODI (not test, ODI) bowling is a myth as debunked by the stats I showed. There's isn't much of a difference ni the averages, and the slight rise in Strike rates attributatble to the "specialisation" that occured in ODI cricket during Tendulkar's time.

 

[honestbharani]

East africa?
Canada?

yeah.. some teams played WCs alone, I meant outside that...

 

[Cevno]

your two points shows why ODIs then were completely different to ODIs now. There is no saying how well Sachin would have gone in that period, where generally we had better quality of bowlers around just as there is no saying how Richards would have gone in this period, when there is so much more "international" cricket being played.... And as to taking 70, by taking 75, I think there are still many guys coming in near Sachin as per your stats... (93-2000)... Taking 90s alone would mean for Viv we have to consider the 80s alone.. Try that?

\Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Done this too and still do not see the MASSIVE difference .

And besides Richards whole career was used corresponding to the number of matches played and not the decade.

Now i have used as per your request 1000 runs filter(when in fact should be 500,if any),
periods from 1980 for Richards.Period from 1990 to 2000 for sachin,1993 to 2000 for sachin.When i could have used even more favourable periods for sachin(as he has played more than double matches)
You have now even classified strike rates above 70 ,above 75 and can do above 60 or 80 too in all the periods.
And still where is the MASSIVE difference in strike rates that was talked about to offset the longevity argument?

Still you have not managed to prove to me where does the argument that when Richards played strike rate of 60 was considered very good and when Sachin played strike rate of 90 was normal come from?
And where does the argument regarding better averages during Sachin's period come from?Which after factoring in the number of more matches ,teams and players and ODI specialists makes you feel surpirsed on the contrary.

 

[Migara]

I think Bevan deserves to be with them. For me; Bevan > Richards > Tendulkar.

Simply for the fact that I grew up watching Bevan. The amount of big knocks he played in ODIs for us is unbelievable. Statistically, Richards is a behemoth and that's why I think if anyone is better than Bevan it is Richards. I think Tendulkar is just below these two for mine.

Bevan would have scored far less number of runs if short ball was legal during his playing days.

 

[Cevno]

honestbharani, having voted for Sachin in the above poll ,what are u arguing about?

 

[Sir Alex]

honestbharani, having voted for Sachin in the above poll ,what are u arguing about?

 

[punter2002]

your two points shows why ODIs then were completely different to ODIs now. There is no saying how well Sachin would have gone in that period, where generally we had better quality of bowlers around just as there is no saying how Richards would have gone in this period, when there is so much more "international" cricket being played.... And as to taking 70, by taking 75, I think there are still many guys coming in near Sachin as per your stats... (93-2000)... Taking 90s alone would mean for Viv we have to consider the 80s alone.. Try that?

Better quality of bowlers? I must apologize. How exactly? Over their careers Sachin has faced twice the number of great bowlers than Sir Viv has.

In another post you said scoring a run a ball has somehow become more easier with field restrictions. No it has not, it remains as hard...but players have been encouraged to try that, to make the game more entertaining. The risk of scoring runs at a fast pace remains the same.

Actually there can be a biased argument that it has increased. Fielders in general have become a lot more athletic. For example Quick easy and low-risk singles to rotate the strike is not that easy to come by any more. What do you have to say for that.

Their achievements are pretty much similar, with Sachin slightly shading. I'm not belittling Vivian's strike rate, actually you are belittling Sachin's strike rate today, if you were willing to open your eyes, you'd see the facts

 

[Cevno]

I'll probably go Richards given he averaged 47 in an era when ODI batting scores ranged between 200-230 for entire teams and an average of 30 was considered decent.

Myth-
Players averaging above 40-

Richards

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Sachin

1990'S
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...0;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

TILL 2001 from 1989
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

till 2002 from 1989

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...9;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

Now,factor in more density of matches ,more teams=more players=more matches,specialist odi batsmen.etc...

 

[Sir Alex]

Myth-
Players averaging above 40-

Richards

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Sachin

1990'S
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

TILL 2001 from 1989
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

till 2002 from 1989

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Now,factor in more density of matches ,more teams=more players=more matches,specialist odi batsmen.etc...

Average team score during Richard's time - 217
Avg team score during Tendulkar's lifetime (despite the quantum jump in the last 5 years) - 237