Richards vs. Tendulkar -Tests

[L Trumper]

Now this turned into ponting vs sachin ?
Wow!!! just wonderful.

 

[Sir Alex]

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.

Then it is not possible to compare any player against any other player unless they have played against exactly the same opposition right? It is only a statistical comparison and unfortunately that is the only thing that can be put down without element of subjectivity. Of course the derivations out of it are indeed prone to bias I agree.

 

[Sir Alex]

Now this turned into ponting vs sachin ?
Wow!!! just wonderful.

No it has not.

 

[Cruxdude]

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.

But that is what this whole thread has been about.

 

[Burgey]

Another thread which is moving along really well atm.

 

[L Trumper]

Then it is not possible to compare any player against any other player unless they have played against exactly the same opposition right? It is only a statistical comparison and unfortunately that is the only thing that can be put down without element of subjectivity. Of course the derivations out of it are indeed prone to bias I agree.

Well to a certain extent statistics help, like comparing allan lamb and daryll cullinan with sachin and richards then you can show how much better latter names are. But when you are comparing two of the games greats and showing statistics to prove your favorite player is better than other player is pointless, especially to another fanboy.

 

[Sir Alex]

Well to a certain extent statistics help, like comparing allan lamb and daryll cullinan with sachin and richards then you can show how much better latter names are. But when you are comparing two of the games greats and showing statistics to prove your favorite player is better than other player is pointless, especially to another fanboy.

I completely understand your point of view.

Now please, shall I show you the door out so that we fanboys can continue our stat wars please

 

[L Trumper]

I will. But it seems you and ikki go on forever. And even started to undermine careers of great players which bugs me. you say sachin is better he says no, then you says ponitng is not better then he will throw some temper tantrum. You can do these kind of things in social communities such as facebook or orkut etc. why bother in CW , considering most of the discussions here are not about favourites.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

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.

This is probably the only decent post on this thread (of what I could be bothered reading anyway). I'm not old enough to have watched Viv in his prime, but the message I have got that his style and power broke barriers and was respected even by those who knew nothing about cricket.

 

[slowfinger]

Sachin has about 6/7 threads on this page comparing him to everyone from Ponting,lara,Richards IN ODI'S,Richards in tests.There is also somewhat of discussions in threads about comparison from Everyone from the DON to Kevin Pietersen and Virendra Sehwag.

The fact that Sachin has now become a benchmark for all such debates ,is a telling fact in itself.

Point made. Quite easily tbh.

 

[JBH001]

Just been having a look over their respective test records. Phenomenal both, but I had forgotten how stellar Sachin's test record is - 47 hundreds and 54 fifties ffs! Not to mention 50+ averages against everyone bar SA/Pak and 45+ averages in every country bar Pak/SA. With that in mind it becomes easier to understand why the voting is so strongly marked in Sachin's favour as opposed to the ODI thread.

I should state, again, as I have before, that Sachin is the best bat I have seen since I started watching cricket as a boy in the early 90s. IMO both Ponting and Lara come off second best to him. Nevertheless, after some thought, Viv's SR (and a couple of other factors) swings it to him in my mind - so I am casting my vote for Richards (IMO one of the top 5 best bats of all time - Sachin is not there, yet).

 

[shankar]

The back injury was in 1999 and he was getting treatment for years, and was still doing well.

Ironically, during 03 and 04 his ODI he averaged 57 and 40 respectively.

I didnt mean that the back injury was affecting hm in 2004. I meant it was the back injury which affected long innings while the tennis elbow consistently affected his batting.

His scores in '03 are irrelevant. The tennis elbow came up around mid 2004. He missed the Champions trophy because of it. From that point onwards till the end of 2005 he averaged 27 in odis and 36 in tests.

 

[Maximus0723]

Just been having a look over their respective test records. Phenomenal both, but I had forgotten how stellar Sachin's test record is - 47 hundreds and 54 fifties ffs! Not to mention 50+ averages against everyone bar SA/Pak and 45+ averages in every country bar Pak/SA. With that in mind it becomes easier to understand why the voting is so strongly marked in Sachin's favour as opposed to the ODI thread.

I should state, again, as I have before, that Sachin is the best bat I have seen since I started watching cricket as a boy in the early 90s. IMO both Ponting and Lara come off second best to him. Nevertheless, after some thought, Viv's SR (and a couple of other factors) swings it to him in my mind - so I am casting my vote for Richards (IMO one of the top 5 best bats of all time - Sachin is not there, yet).

Good points sir.

I think Sachin is superior in tests(I by mistake voted for Richards)
...due to high average during wins and draws. He has played through injuries, played for 20 years, still going strong and might go for few more...at least in tests. That is unbelievable.
So many fans, so many kids' role model, a lot of responsibility, every game, every stroke scrutinized(CW is clear example). Not an easy task. Sir Bradman, never missed his game after 96 till 01(his death). Tells you something about this 5 footer.
Sachin also has played and dominated far better spinners and probably fast bowlers then Richards.
Richards, on the other hand was destructive and quick. Can swing the game but his average during wins was only 52 compared to Sachin's 67. He doesn't have many things going for him during this battle.
Sachin also converted many of fifties into hundreds compared to Richards. He put more weight on his wicket. This, IMO, is more important then having higher SR.

 

[silentstriker]

Yeh, I know what you're getting at...but once again I have to point out that Warne failed against mediocre batsmen too. So how ironic that he failed against everybody during his period...not just the good opposition.

That's not true. That's a two year period. Now if you want to say that he did badly in early 1999 and in late 2002, and that proves he was bad from 1999-2002, that's the type of argument from a person who is just looking for things to prove his point.

I'm certainly not going to get into that again, whatever helps your argument, you're free to believe.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

Richards easily.Thats because I rate Viv Richards as the 2nd greatest batsman ever.

 

[duffer]

I would just prefer if those that want to spend an unusual amount of time reorganising their protector over SRT to do it in private instead of standing in front of everyone.

 

[Jono]

Viv again for me.

Love Sachin, but Viv is Viv. And that's all that matters.

You need a cool 3 letter first name like Don or Viv to be good.

 

[Himannv]

So many Sachin vs <insert random good player> threads suddenly in the wake of his 200* (great innings by the way).

I'm voting for Richards out of spite tbh.

 

[L Trumper]

That's not true. That's a two year period. Now if you want to say that he did badly in early 1999 and in late 2002, and that proves he was bad from 1999-2002, that's the type of argument from a person who is just looking for things to prove his point.

I'm certainly not going to get into that again, whatever helps your argument, you're free to believe.

Early 99, before WC is probably the warne's worst performance. He even got dropped from the team in final test against WI. Apart from series against SL he had a very poor year and yeah horribly out of form too.
But I do agree that he struggled against india poor form or not.

 

[jeevan]

Unlike ODIs, this one's much easier.

I would've voted Viv in ODIs but the stuff about Indian voters started and rendered that poll meaningless. Didn't read through this thread, hope it doesn't also have the same crap over it.