Richards vs. Tendulkar -Tests

[Maximus0723]

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.

we should ignore Sachin's 04, 05 stats then...

he had injury/form issues...

 

[Maximus0723]

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.

jeevan, u r Indian, so u r screwed.

p.s. heck, even if u r not Indian, u r screwed.

 

[SJS]

jeevan, u r Indian, so u r screwed.
.

tch..tch..tch

 

[Zinzan]

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.

Not rendered meaningless, just given perspective, there's a difference

 

[Ikki]

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.

That is true, and you've got to Sir Alex depths of deception by ignoring the period right before this and right after just so you can look like you a have point. The series against WIndies, NZ and England where he does worse than he does against India are a testament to his troubles, as hey...those were when he got injured. He needed surgery during the India tour and he had bad series all over this period, and even after the cut off you have put here.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...pan;template=results;type=bowling;view=series

Clearly shows he had bad patches of form against pretty much everyone he faced in his injury period, and not just simply against the best. You did this in the other thread, and you've done it again here. I expect better from you.

 

[Sir Alex]

That is true, and you've got to Sir Alex depths of deception by ignoring the period right before this and right after just so you can look like you a have point. The series against WIndies, NZ and England where he does worse than he does against India are a testament to his troubles, as hey...those were when he got injured. He needed surgery during the India tour and he had bad series all over this period, and even after the cut off you have put here.

Bowling records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Clearly shows he had bad patches of form against pretty much everyone he faced in his injury period, and not just simply against the best. You did this in the other thread, and you've done it again here. I expect better from you.

What ahs Warne got to do in a Tendulkar vs Richards thread

 

[Ikki]

What ahs Warne got to do in a Tendulkar vs Richards thread

Because Manan thought he'd be clever replying to one of my posts and then had the cheek to post fudged stats. I said that it was ironic that Tendulkar played well against the worst Aussie bowlers and suffered injuries against the best. Manan thinks Warne's injury period was alike (that he only was poor against India who were gonna take him apart anyway) yet as I showed clearly, in that period, NZ, WI and ENG all take him apart even worse than India did. So he was crap across the board, not when it would have been "convenient" for him.

 

[Sir Alex]

Because Manan thought he'd be clever replying to one of my posts and then had the cheek to post fudged stats. I said that it was ironic that Tendulkar played well against the worst Aussie bowlers and suffered injuries against the best. Manan thinks Warne's injury period was alike (that he only was poor against India who were gonna take him apart anyway) yet as I showed clearly, in that period, NZ, WI and ENG all take him apart even worse than India did. So he was crap across the board, not when it would have been "convenient" for him.

I think you could've settled that in MSN. I am no guy to advise you on this but you could have simply said "I don't agree but that is for another thread" and moved on.

 

[Ikki]

I didn't bring it up, so Manan has to answer that.

 

[shankar]

I said that it was ironic that Tendulkar played well against the worst Aussie bowlers and suffered injuries against the best.

The tennis elbow injury occurred after the 2003 series in Aus and before the 2004 series just prior to the Champions trophy which he missed. So averages in 2003 and in 2004 prior to the injury are irrelevant.

 

[Ikki]

The tennis elbow injury occurred after the 2003 series in Aus and before the 2004 series just prior to the Champions trophy which he missed. So averages in 2003 and in 2004 prior to the injury are irrelevant.

No one knows when the injury exactly occurred. People just know when it got to it's worst and when he missed out matches. A couple months after the 2003 Australia series he played Pakistan and did more than well there scoring a massive 194*. He also played the Asia cup in July that year and did very well. He didn't play any cricket until the Australia series...where did he get injured?

 

[Sir Alex]

No one knows when the injury exactly occurred. People just know when it got to it's worst and when he missed out matches. A couple months after the 2003 Australia series he played Pakistan and did more than well there scoring a massive 194*. He also played the Asia cup in July that year and did very well. He didn't play any cricket until the Australia series...where did he get injured?

He sported an injury through the World Cup of 2003 and played with special padding on his feet and yet made the most runs and became Man of the Match. Having an injury automatically doesn't mean he cannot score runs at all.

 

[Ikki]

He sported an injury through the World Cup of 2003 and played with special padding on his feet and yet made the most runs and became Man of the Match. Having an injury automatically doesn't mean he cannot score runs at all.

I agree. Only Sachin will know just how much or how often and when and where it hindered him to the point that he could not play anywhere near his ability.

 

[honestbharani]

He sported an injury through the World Cup of 2003 and played with special padding on his feet and yet made the most runs and became Man of the Match. Having an injury automatically doesn't mean he cannot score runs at all.

Any links for that? I seem to recall Sachin specifically saying he was 100% physically and mentally then...

 

[Cruxdude]

Sachin and the pain barrier | India Cricket News | Cricinfo.com

 

[Sir Alex]

Thanks cruxdude. I remembered reading it but could not locate the link.

 

[honestbharani]

yeah.. Amazing indeed... Thanks for the link.. Honestly, didn't know of this till now..

 

[Sir Alex]

edited

 

[shankar]

No one knows when the injury exactly occurred. People just know when it got to it's worst and when he missed out matches. A couple months after the 2003 Australia series he played Pakistan and did more than well there scoring a massive 194*. He also played the Asia cup in July that year and did very well. He didn't play any cricket until the Australia series...where did he get injured?

The tennis elbow problem is quite clear - It came up after the Asia cup. It came up just before the ODI triseries in Netherlands. He then missed the Champions trophy. He hadn't played any cricket since the Asia cup prior to the Australia series. If the series wasn't so important he wouldn't have played in it at all. From an article during the series:

"While there is no doubt that he is on the mend, the process is slow. Initially he was almost incapable of any backlift, and while he can now bat in the nets, he is only able to face three or fours overs before packing in. With the Chennai Test starting on Thursday (October 14) it is almost inconceivable that the improvement in the intervening four days would be enough to enable him to bat for several hours.

Tendulkar himself admitted in an interview with The Sun-Herald that he is struggling and that he also needs to rebuild the muscle in his arm which has wasted because of his inactivity. "If I try to rush into playing early there could be a repeat injury because the muscle is not strong enough to take the pressure of batting," he said. "When there is strength, I can start practising.""

He started proper full-length net-practice 3-4 days prior to the test and that was the extent of his preparation for the two matches he ended up playing.

 

[Ikki]

The Netherland tri-series was said to be the moment it reached a point and he could no longer play with it anymore. It was said to have been brought about by a technical flaw that occurred before. I am no doctor but tennis elbow is a degenerative condition - one that gets worse with time - it doesn't just happen out of the blue.

The whole argument re his injury period is that he wasn't at his best therefore in the period of his injury it isn't representative of his ability. While that is true to an extent it will also take into account the whole time this injury affected him - for which he was playing a lot of the time. Since he was playing with it both prior and after his tear you can't simply judge him on when he made the most runs or stop judging him when he didn't, as it becomes unclear, convenient/inconvenient and tedious. In the end, only Sachin knows when he was struggling to even stay on the pitch and when he wasn't.