Richards vs. Tendulkar -Tests

[Sir Alex]

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.

Actually no, when Richards was playing nobody suggested that he should retire in 1987-88 when apparently he had his final good season in test cricket. These things come into picture only in retrospective and rightfully is counted into while analysing a player on the whole. I could also say Tendulkar should never have played in 2003-2006 but that is mere excuse. As long as he padded up and went into bat, those figures count. If he didn't feel like, he shouldn't have.

Your suggestion of removing the last few years of Richards from his career is almost exactly like picking his peak. It does not require an Einstein to know that. And oh no, don't get hyperbole and start cursing at the clouds mate. The forum is not your inheritance sir.

 

[Ikki]

Actually no, when Richards was playing nobody suggested that he should retire in 1987-88 when apparently he had his final good season in test cricket. These things come into picture only in retrospective and rightfully is counted into while analysing a player on the whole. I could also say Tendulkar should never have played in 2003-2006 but that is mere excuse. As long as he padded up and went into bat, those figures count. If he didn't feel like, he shouldn't have.

Your suggestion of removing the last few years of Richards from his career is almost exactly like picking his peak. It does not require an Einstein to know that. And oh no, don't get hyperbole and start cursing at the clouds mate. The forum is not your inheritance sir.

That's ironic, because many do use it as an excuse. Even though in at least one form of the game he was still blitzing it. And in 05 when he wasn't in ODI, he averaged 44 in Tests which is hardly poor for someone who is supposedly incapable of playing. I don't want to sound harsh, injuries do take a toll on players and it will affect records...but Tendulkar in those years was out of it form-wise also. Imagine had Tendulkar retired after 2-3 years of struggling to play with his injury and the injury actually ending his career. Those 2-3 years will markedly drop his average, to let's say 50 and people go "only 50?" as if that somehow represents what he truly achieved throughout his career and the reason he made a name for himself.

However, hardly any of this matters...since I didn't remove the last few years did I Precamb? I said "even as his record is, it's still more than impressive, considering he didn't play minnows, unlike Tendulkar" or words to that effect. So beat another strawman.

 

[Sanz]

Because they're all biased.

And only unbiased member left on this forum is 'IKKI'.

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".

Ofcourse you don't that is why I posted it here to show members how off the mark you are in some of your beliefs.

 

[Ikki]

And only unbiased member left on this forum is 'IKKI'.

Nope. I always maintain I am biased like everyone else. I've never suggested otherwise.

Ofcourse you don't that is why I posted it here to show members how off the mark you are in some of your beliefs.

You're right...winning a handful of Tests in some 20 years is impressive and averaging in the 40s as a bowler is astounding. I was really off the mark. [/sarcasm]

 

[Sanz]

Do you happen to read what is written here or do you rant for your own sake.I don't care if you don't want to acknowledge that Richards played for too long. Everything I have argued here is with his current overall average...get it?

If Stats are all you are using then "Sir Alex" stands corrected, Tendulkar by miles.

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.

It doesn't matter when you say that, that is the basis of your Argument throughout.

 

[Ikki]

If Stats are all you are using then "Sir Alex" stands corrected, Tendulkar by miles.

See he made a stupid remark...and you just made one worse. I guess great minds and all that...

It doesn't matter when you say that, that is the basis of your Argument throughout.

Genius, I said "I had never even mentioned a date until SANZ asked". And then you link a post to where I start getting to specific period and guess what...it was when YOU asked. Not what I have been arguing all along. For the love of god, get a clue. I give up. Post after post full of crap. I've no idea why you're not on my ignore list.

 

[Sir Alex]

That's ironic, because many do use it as an excuse. Even though in at least one form of the game he was still blitzing it. And in 05 when he wasn't in ODI, he averaged 44 in Tests which is hardly poor for someone who is supposedly incapable of playing. I don't want to sound harsh, injuries do take a toll on players and it will affect records...but Tendulkar in those years was out of it form-wise also. Imagine had Tendulkar retired after 2-3 years of struggling to play with his injury and the injury actually ending his career. Those 2-3 years will markedly drop his average, to let's say 50 and people go "only 50?" as if that somehow represents what he truly achieved throughout his career and the reason he made a name for himself.

However, hardly any of this matters...since I didn't remove the last few years did I Precamb? I said "even as his record is, it's still more than impressive, considering he didn't play minnows, unlike Tendulkar" or words to that effect. So beat another strawman.

Frankly I'd man up and accept that. Injuries are 100% part of every players' routine. It will lead to "what if" questions but those are mere speculations. Fact is regardless of reason, he was below standard.

Had Tendulkar retired after 2-3 yrs of bad cricket and hence his avg was 50, I'd accept it. I may argue that the reason for his average dropping to that was due to injuries stuff etc. But I won't ever say "But for those injury ridden period he would have averaged 60" etc etc. The fact that he could not cope up with his injuries means that he somehow was not good enough to make the final cut.

But of course time has proved his dip was not terminal and if unhindered by injuries he could be every bit the player he was at his peak. That is why Tendulkar is God.

And for the nth time, ODIs are not test matches. Tendulkar will perform in ODIs because his game is that good that the effect on it due to injuries are lesser than the effect they have on test matches. His approach and style are remarkable different in both forms.

 

[Ikki]

Frankly I'd man up and accept that. Injuries are 100% part of every players' routine. It will lead to "what if" questions but those are mere speculations. Fact is regardless of reason, he was below standard.

Had Tendulkar retired after 2-3 yrs of bad cricket and hence his avg was 50, I'd accept it. I may argue that the reason for his average dropping to that was due to injuries stuff etc. But I won't ever say "But for those injury ridden period he would have averaged 60" etc etc. The fact that he could not cope up with his injuries means that he somehow was not good enough to make the final cut.

For me, that's harsh. It doesn't really relate much to ability at all and could be something as trivial as luck or just bad genes. Maybe said player looked after his body perfectly. In the end, everyone has physical limitations. I tend to try to be fair here since overall average is not always a great indicator. Just as injuries can affect an average so can quality of bowling or pitches.

But some don't so that's why I didn't press on with the Richards argument re playing too much.

Richards average as it is is 50.23, Tendulkar without minnows for example is 52.27. Of course, we already know about their SRs; this puts them in striking distance as it is. And then if you want to be picky you can also say the pitches were more beneficial for Tendulkar for at least half his career; and even if that is worth 1 point in drop it essentially makes the difference between them 1 run on overall average - a.k.a. nothing.

But of course time has proved his dip was not terminal and if unhindered by injuries he could be every bit the player he was at his peak. That is why Tendulkar is just another player.

And for the nth time, ODIs are not test matches. Tendulkar will perform in ODIs because his game is that good that the effect on it due to injuries are lesser than the effect they have on test matches. His approach and style are remarkable different in both forms. Oh how could u notice that btw, you watch him on cricinfo statsguru only dontcha?

Scoring big runs in ODIs still takes a long amount of time. There is less rest for back injuries (running) and your tennis elbow is likely to play-up still (playing shots). Unlike bowling where you go from bowling 30 overs in a day to only 10...batting doesn't change a whole lot if you're out there scoring runs - in some ways it is more intensive as you have to do everything with greater speed. You're still going to be out there for hours if you're scoring the amount of runs Tendulkar is. And that's the whole point re his tennis elbow - it was always claimed that he had to play quicker because the longer he batted the more unbearable it was. Ironically during that injury period he was averaging about the same in ODIs as he was in Tests. So he could clearly last long enough to average so well - it's not like he had a run of scoring 44, 44, 44, 44, he was scoring 100s.

 

[Sir Alex]

Richards record as it is is like 50.23, Tendulkar without minnows for example is 52.27.

Unfortunalely we never seem to get beyond this initial stumbling block.

1. SA, SL, Ban, Zim, did not play against Richards. By including them in one person's statistics and excluding in other you are committing the most serious stat treachery, comparing apples to oranges, because you are essentially suggesting Sir Viv would have averaged 50 against SA, SL etc as well, which has absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

2. Your definition of minnows is opportunistic. Zimbabwe was as good as any lower tier test team (Pak, WI, NZ etc) till 2003, and Tendulkar faced that team only. You always deliberately ignore this, because you know it will push Tendulkar's average up only. Will you exclude Ponting's performances during the recent summer because he turned up against substandard WI and Pak sides?

Then comes your ridiculous logic that 50 and 52.7 are within striking distance. Tell you what it is like saying Iqbal Qasim is within touching distance of Shane Warne because the former averaged 28.1 and the latter 25.41. {(Difference of roughly 2.7). And please, I AM NOT saying Qasim is "within striking distance" of Warne. So don't now start a war on tha.

Scoring big runs in ODIs still takes a long amount of time. There is less rest for back injuries and your tennis elbow is likely to play-up still. Unlike bowling where you go from bowling 30 overs in a day to only 10...batting doesn't change a whole lot if you're out there scoring runs. You're still going to be out there for hours if you're scoring the amount of runs Tendulkar is. And that's the whole point re his tennis elbow - it was always claimed that he had to play quicker because the longer he batted the more unbearable it was. Ironically during that injury period he was averaging about the same in ODIs as he was in Tests. So he could clearly last long enough to average so well.

In ODIs Tendulkar roughly faces 50 balls an innings, in tests he faces 4 times that. Go figure the math.

 

[Sanz]

I did not vote here and voted in the other poll between the two (odi's) only because when I opened it there was a dead lock and I am so full of SRT at the current time that I felt it my patriotic duty to vote for him.

It is impossible to use just stats to compare most great players. It is even more dificult when they play for different teams and still harder when they play in different eras.

Then there is one additional factor. Players like Richards and (to take an example from a completely different era) Trumper refuse to be constrained within the confines of statistics. What Richards did on the wicket was not just compile runs, he destroyed attacks. He demolished bowlers and their reputations. He demoralised bowlers, captains and fielding sides.

He was a much much classier version of Virender Sehwag at the crease and he played strokes which if seen in slow motion could be put in cricket manuals.

I am a great fan of Tendulkar. That goes without saying. But after Sobers, Vv Richards is the most impressive batsman I have seen in half a century of watching the game.

If one has to pin prick, we can say that Viv did not have to face the West Indian battery which contained more than half of the best fast bowlers of the world of his time.

If one has to find an area where Sachin looks more impressive over all, it is his handling of world class spinners.

But on the whole comparison is meaningless.

Sachin has attributes of longevity which Richards doesn't but then players who bat with the attitude of a Richards rarely go on for as long as those who revel in staying at the crease and keeping on scoring runs (not referring here to the Boycotts but the Tendulkar's and Bradmans and Laras)

Sehwag is already talking of not playing beyond a hundred Test matches.

For those who did not see Richards bat I can only say, I wish you had. Get hold of the many DVD's available and do so and you will be rewarded beyond your wildest imaginations.

On the other hand, count yourself lucky that you were able to watch another master like Tendulkar, live and for two decades. Thats as great a blessing as well.

Stop bickering in any case. We do great injustice to two of the greatest players of all time when in order to win an argument we reduce their greatness to points, strike rates, averages and decimal places.

Haha, Well Said and I think I will just stop right here.

 

[Ikki]

Unfortunalely we never seem to get beyond this initial stumbling block.

1. SA, SL, Ban, Zim, did not play against Richards. By including them in one person's statistics and excluding in other you are committing the most serious stat treachery, comparing apples to oranges, because you are essentially suggesting Sir Viv would have averaged 50 against SA, SL etc as well, which has absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

It doesn't do anything to Viv's record, because they didn't play! It doesn't mean Viv would average 50 anymore than it would mean Sachin would average 55 against Pakistan in the 80s. It's rather simple, the only reason we are removing minnows is because of their quality...not just because they're from a certain country.

The Australia that Viv played was largely different to the one that Sachin made a career playing against. The only thing similar about them is that it's "Australia" but they're effectively two different teams. By that logic we can't compare anyone ever.

S.A, SL, shouldn't be removed for your reason. It doesn't make an iota of sense.

2. Your definition of minnows is opportunistic. Zimbabwe was as good as any lower tier test team (Pak, WI, NZ etc) till 2003, and Tendulkar faced that team only. You always deliberately ignore this, because you know it will push Tendulkar's average up only. Will you exclude Ponting's performances during the recent summer because he turned up against substandard WI and Pak sides?

NO, Zimbabwe wasn't near any of the lower test sides till the end of the 90s and the initial part of 00s. They were clearly minnows; don't even mix that up. And as we discussed before, if you try to argue that they were better than WI in that period, it hurts Sachin's record more because he scored less against Zimbabwe and more against WI in that time. In the 90s in the beginning even Sri Lanka could be considered minnows.

Then comes your ridiculous logic that 50 and 52.7 are within striking distance. Tell you what it is like saying Iqbal Qasim is within touching distance of Shane Warne because the former averaged 28.1 and the latter 25.41. {(Difference of roughly 2.7). And please, I AM NOT saying Qasim is "within striking distance" of Warne. So don't now start a war on tha.

Ok, so are you saying that for example, Ponting who averages 54.89 without minnows is clearly better than Tendulkar? Because that logic either is consistent or arbitrary as it seems to be with you.

2 points on average for batsmen is also entirely different for bowlers. For a bowler 2 runs on average can be anywhere between 8-10% (2/21) difference for a batsmen it's more like 3-4% (2/52).

You're also forgetting that the difference between their SRs is some 14-15 points in favour of Viv...a much bigger difference than their averages.

So they are in striking distance, and we haven't even considered pitches yet.

In ODIs Tendulkar roughly faces 50 balls an innings, in tests he faces 4 times that. Go figure the math.

In between his worst period 03-07 Tendulkar scored 7 100s in about 74 innings in ODIs...how many balls do you think he faced then? In that period, he scored 3 of his biggest scores ever in Tests with 2 double hundreds and one just short. The guy could clearly bat for a while.

 

[Sir Alex]

It doesn't do anything to Viv's record, because they didn't play! It doesn't mean Viv would average 50 anymore than it would mean Sachin would average 55 against Pakistan in the 80s. It's rather simple, the only reason we are removing minnows is because of their quality...not just because they're from a certain country.

The Australia that Viv played was largely different to the one that Sachin made a career playing against. The only thing similar about them is that it's "Australia" but they're effectively two different teams. By that logic we can't compare anyone ever.

S.A, SL, shouldn't be removed for your reason. It doesn't make an iota of sense.



NO, Zimbabwe wasn't near any of the lower test sides till the end of the 90s and the initial part of 00s. They were clearly minnows; don't even mix that up. And as we discussed before, if you try to argue that they were better than WI in that period, it hurts Sachin's record more because he scored less against Zimbabwe and more against WI in that time. In the 90s in the beginning even Sri Lanka could be considered minnows.



Ok, so are you saying that for example, Ponting who averages 54.89 without minnows is clearly better than Tendulkar? Because that logic either is consistent or arbitrary as it seems to be with you.

2 points on average for batsmen is also entirely different for bowlers. For a bowler 2 runs on average can be anywhere between 8-10% (2/21) difference for a batsmen it's more like 3-4% (2/52).

You're also forgetting that the difference between their SRs is some 14-15 points in favour of Viv...a much bigger difference than their averages.

So they are in striking distance, and we haven't even considered pitches yet.



In between his worst period 03-07 Tendulkar scored 7 100s in about 74 innings in ODIs...how many balls do you think he faced then? In that period, he scored 3 of his biggest scores ever in Tests with 2 double hundreds and one just short. The guy could clearly bat for a while.

You are pretending you cannot grasp the logic of not including SA while comparing Tendulkar to Richards. Okay, if we include, then we should include Zimbabwe and Bangladesh as well. Otherwise it is in your words "intellectually dishonest". As it is not fault of Richards not to have played SA, so is it not fault of Tendulkar that he played against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and cashed in heavily.

Now coming to Bangladesh, let's take this two scorecards.

3rd Test: Australia v Pakistan at Hobart, Jan 14-18, 2010 | Cricket Career averages | Cricinfo.com

1st Test: India v Zimbabwe at Nagpur, Feb 21-25, 2002 | Cricket Career averages | Cricinfo.com

Now, if you notice, Zimbabwe of 2002, in that match, the breakup of batsmen's averages were as follows:

Above 50 - 1
40 - 50 - 0
20-40 - 7
<30 - 3

Corresponding for Pakistan

Above 50 -1
40-50 - 0
20-40 - 5
<20 - 5

Bowling averages

Zimbabwe

20-30 - 1
30-40 - 1

Pakistan

20-30 - 1
30-40 - 2

If you notice, there isn't much of a difference between the two sides that turned up. Yet you are jumping to embrace Ponting's 209 and 83 but willing to wash down Tendulkar's 173 down the drains.

 

[Sir Alex]

1st Test: Australia v West Indies at Brisbane, Nov 26-28, 2009 | Cricket Career averages | Cricinfo.com

Pray tell me how this bowling attack was "eons" above Zimbabwe attack of late 90s and early 2000s.

 

[Ikki]

You are pretending you cannot grasp the logic of not including SA while comparing Tendulkar to Richards. Okay, if we include, then we should include Zimbabwe and Bangladesh as well. Otherwise it is in your words "intellectually dishonest". As it is not fault of Richards not to have played SA, so is it not fault of Tendulkar that he played against Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and cashed in heavily.

Are you like...sane? We are not arguing what Richards would have done in the 90s...so it's not even relevant that he had played S.Africa. We are comparing their records separately.

Sachin also didn't play the Pakistan of the 80s, do we remove Pakistan to help his record even more?

You don't make sense.

Now coming to Bangladesh, let's take this two scorecards.

3rd Test: Australia v Pakistan at Hobart, Jan 14-18, 2010 | Cricket Career averages | Cricinfo.com

1st Test: India v Zimbabwe at Nagpur, Feb 21-25, 2002 | Cricket Career averages | Cricinfo.com

Now, if you notice, Zimbabwe of 2002, in that match, the breakup of batsmen's averages were as follows:

Above 50 - 1
40 - 50 - 0
20-40 - 7
<30 - 3

Corresponding for Pakistan

Above 50 -1
40-50 - 0
20-40 - 5

Bowling averages

Zimbabwe

20-30 - 1
30-40 - 1

Pakistan

20-30 - 1
30-40 - 2

If you notice, there isn't much of a difference between the two sides that turned up. Yet you are jumping to embrace Ponting's 209 and 83 but willing to wash down Tendulkar's 173 down the drains.

, you're comparing Zimbabwe at it's peak...with Pakistan at it's lowest, newbs and all. Dude, Zimbabwe only won 8 Tests in it's history.

In the 90s, it won 3, 1 in 95, 3 in 98. It won 4 more in 00s, all against Bangladesh. It drew and lost the rest. They were a minnow for all but a few years on each side of the millennium. This is not even an argument. Seriously, if I didn't know better I'd consider this trolling.

 

[Ikki]

1st Test: Australia v West Indies at Brisbane, Nov 26-28, 2009 | Cricket Career averages | Cricinfo.com

Pray tell me how this bowling attack was "eons" above Zimbabwe attack of late 90s and early 2000s.

Sigh, I said Zimbabwe from the late 90s and early 2000s was not bad. You said

Zimbabwe was as good as any lower tier test team (Pak, WI, NZ etc) till 2003

Which means they were good for all of the 90s. No, they weren't.

 

[Sir Alex]

Are you like...sane? We are not arguing what Richards would have done in the 90s...so it's not even relevant that he had played S.Africa. We are comparing their records separately.

Sachin also didn't play the Pakistan of the 80s, do we remove Pakistan to help his record even more?

You don't make sense.



, you're comparing Zimbabwe at it's peak...with Pakistan at it's lowest, newbs and all. Dude, Zimbabwe only won 8 Tests in it's history.

In the 90s, it won 3, 1 in 95, 3 in 98. It won 4 more in 00s, all against Bangladesh. It drew and lost the rest. They were a minnow for all but a few years on each side of the millennium. This is not even an argument. Seriously, if I didn't know better I'd consider this trolling.

Yeah label everything as "trolling" which you have no answer to.

You agree with the fact that both teams are comparable right? So either both of them are test standard or both are not. I subscribe to the former. Zimbabwe, had it been given a fair run (FFS within 10 years of cricket, it won 4 test matches, which I believe is better than what India, NZ, Pakistan (doubt), WI, etc managed in their first 10 years of cricket?They were definitely improving.

As for the last time I am clarifying on the SA exclusion issue.

Your inclusion of SA statistics is fine, but then inclusion of Ban, Zim, and SL stats are also equally warranted. Whatever apply to SA's inclusion applies in case of the other three as well. Okay, I am giving you a slight leeway, dropping Bangladesh, Sachin still averages 53.50, which across his vast mountain of runs, and tonnage is much ahead of Richards.

Well, actually it is stupid because Richards chanced to play very less in NZ, which appeared to his bogey team but Tendulkar managed a fair share against SA, his bogey team somewhat. So if you are looking at a more apt comparison, it will be fair to compare their averages one on one against each country.

vs Eng - Tendulkar and Richards roughly are equal, both of them dominaed
vs Aus - Tendulkar clearly ahead
vs WI/Ind - Tendulkar ahead
vs NZ - Tendulkar ahead
vs Pak - Both struggled
vs SL - no data
vs SA - no data
vs Ban - no data
vs Zim - no data

So looking at the above, it is clear as daylight who statistically was the better bat. It was not Sir Viv.

 

[Sir Alex]

Sigh, I said Zimbabwe from the late 90s and early 2000s was not bad. You saidWhich means they were good for all of the 90s. No, they weren't.

The pertinent question is will you disregard Ponting's 200 he made agains Pakistan last summer.
I will definitely include it. And apply same logic to inclusion of Zimbabwe as well. By lower tier teams I meant lower tier teams of today. Clearly Pakistan/WI weren't lower tier in the 90s

 

[Ikki]

They played different teams...what are you talking about. You're off your nut mate.

And Zimbabwe won 4 of those 8 tests against a team even worse than they were. Give it a break; who did they have? Heath Streak and that's it. They were lucky Flower just massacred India and had a few notable wins in the 90s but it's like nothing. Yeh, they were poor in their first 10 years and were minnows...India and Pakistan have been minnows too...so what is your point?

Then you go and make this ******** argument that Richards v NZ in NZ was his bogey team when he only played 4 innings there...you're just trying to twist your non-sense every which way in favour of Sachin.

Ponting scoring 200 against one of the best pace attacks in the world now equates to minnow bashing.

I thought when you said Sachin was God you were kinda kidding...but you're not are you? Whew. I'm done.

 

[Sir Alex]

Ponting scoring 200 against one of the best pace attacks in the world now equates to minnow bashing.

A pace attack that consists of a rookie 17 yr old who averages 42, a genuinely good bowler who bowls at 130 kmph and a pretender who averages in mid 30s after 5 years in test cricket is one of world's best??

Seriously get a grip mate. NZ (of the Obrein days), India, SA, Aus all have even better attacks than this one-man show like Pakistan.

Well, looks like the one who is calling me on Tendulkar worshipping is dripping in his pants just because I "dared" to "discount" one of his idol's "fantastic knocks". As Sanz said, irony meter in the overdrive.

 

[L Trumper]

vs Eng - Tendulkar and Richards roughly are equal, both of them dominaed
vs Aus - Tendulkar clearly ahead
vs WI/Ind - Tendulkar ahead
vs NZ - Tendulkar ahead
vs Pak - Both struggled
vs SL - no data
vs SA - no data
vs Ban - no data
vs Zim - no data

So looking at the above, it is clear as daylight who statistically was the better bat. It was not Sir Viv.

This argument is completely out of the point. How on earth one can conclude aus of 80s ,90s or eng of 80s, 90s as the same? If you prefer sachin, so be it. But showing this statistical rubbish won't help a iota when comparing two of the all time greats of two different eras.