Considering the flatbeds and generally improved quality of batsmanship, Steyn indeed has a case for being on par with Donald and Pollock.Tendulkar scored against some great bowlers there.... Somehow Steyn has suddenly become as good as Donald and Pollock on his own. Amazing.
Silentstriker gave the reply for this.
That might be acceptable for the average batsman. But not for Tendulkar. It was a full 10 points below what he has scored as an opener.
Yuvraj Singh, Micheal Bevan etc. etc.
Ok, Precam...you didn't.
That's because we hadn't won there in ages. Not because beating India is the be-all and end-all. In one argument you try to make it out as if Tendulkar was a lone ranger batting for India for much of his career and in another you try to make it out as if India were some great team. I guess whatever suits you at the time.
Yes, possibly one of them...not both of them. Which is why Tendulkar was largely a failure versus them. Which is why him scoring runs in 08 is no more representative of his succeeding against quality bowling as the runs he scored against Pakistan after Waqar and Wasim left.
Yeh, he made a half-assed point like you and got a reply.Silentstriker gave the reply for this.
Guess what, he has many years below his average as an opener. Like in 04, 05, 06, 07 and 08. Yet from 03 to 08 he averaged 44 and struck at 83. Terrible, right? Those years, bar 03, weren't acceptable? The only poor y ear Tendulkar has from 03-08 is 05. The rest are more than fine.
They had injuries that only popped up in one format? Really?
His slump started in 2003 with his injury starting to take it's toll. But it is to his credit he still managed two superb innings (unspectacular as they were workmanlike) of 241 vs Australia and 194 vs Pakisan. He shouldn't have featured in the Aus home series of lae 2004 half fit. Among all these Greg Chappell took charge and tried to dictate terms to him. The form slump culminated in early 2007 with the World Cup disaster and Greg's ouster. At this point in time, came the advise from Ian Chappell to look at his mirror and retire.
).
Ikki school of deception. Why are you bringing in 2007 and 2008?
Please don't act like a fool. I know you aren't. The fact is that ODIs and tests are completely different formats.
Not in your Kangaroo court son.
Oh so, even this poll is biased now ?
Ok, Precam...you didn't.
That's because we hadn't won there in ages. Not because beating India is the be-all and end-all. In one argument you try to make it out as if Tendulkar was a lone ranger batting for India for much of his career and in another you try to make it out as if India were some great team. I guess whatever suits you at the time.
Precisely, the fact that Australia couldn't beat India in India made it the team to beat.
Because of you genius. Do you even follow your logic? You said 04 was not acceptable because it was below Tendulkar's average as an opener - which was a goalpost shift, but I went with it.Ikki school of deception. Why are you bringing in 2007 and 2008?
He was also injured in 03 remember? Did you just forget your own arguments? He averaged 57 then.
Please stop trolling, thanks.
India have only been the team to beat since they got #1. Before that you guys were inconsistent and not our real competition.
Well, yeh, as much as the last one is really.
This is ridiculously stupid. So when did IVA's decline start ?
No point arguing with you further.
IVA is believed to have played too long when his eye-sight was giving way and he could no longer rely on hand-eye coordination. What does it matter? All the points I've argued here are with his overall career average. Or is this just another one of your comments without reading other posts?
Ikki is comparing Richards at his peak to Tendulkar's overall average. OMG shocker!
Bias of what and Why ?
Yes I did and no I think it is not as ridiculous as saying "Sobers is overrated on this forum" or "India were Minnow during Sobers era" in order to prove your Boy Miller better than him.
Like where? Link it or just leave the forum. Thanks. I never even put a cut-off mark until Sanz asked and I still didn't put a date down. I just said what is generally known and that is that Viv played on too long to the detriment of his record.
Because they're all biased.
Well, as was proved by the fact that India won comparatively squat and Sobers' ridiculous bowling average bar some 6 years being poor...I don't think they're even in the same hemisphere as "Tendulkar is by a huge margin better than Richards". It's almost as bad as "Tendulkar is better than Bradman" but you gotta take that one up with Sunil and Nasser.
Clearly, someone should read before they reply.
Who decides if a Player has played too long. If Hand-eye coordination was the only thing to Richards' batting then yes he should not even be in this discussion. I personally think that making such statements and claims itself is an insult to the Great man. Anyone who watched him play could see how great he was. IMO unlike Tendulkar Richards failed to accept that age was catching up on him. Richards didn't make changes to his game with time and hence suffered in last few years.
Do you happen to read what is written here or do you rant for your own sake.
That's when you asked me genius. Not what I was arguing earlier as Sir Alex is trying to suggest. Geezus...look who I am up arguing with here.
