Richards v Tendulkar - ODIs

[NYLove78]

There simply is no such thing when you are comparing cricketers of that quality, unless you are arguing Bradman's case. That's just my opinion, though.

I am no moderator but 'taunting' a fan-base does not seem to be an acceptable way to put forward your argument.

I looked over some of your posts - and I have said it about many of the stat wars that go on here - but sample sizes of 3 or 4 matches tell us close to nothing in comparison to the body of work a player has achieved over his entire career. For me, filtering out records to look at such small samples is intellectually dishonest, without considering overall records.

The rest of your post is interesting - there is no doubt batsmen had it tougher physically in previous generations with uncovered wickets, lack of protection and so on - but it's not as if Sachin had any control over the conditions he batted in. All we can say is his era was 'different' (perhaps better spinners and more spin-friendly wickets, more depth in Test-playing nations, variability in conditions?) and there is no doubt he is up there with the best of his era.

My point is pertaining strictly to ODIs.

The only difference between that select group I was mentioning is that they do it more out of bias while I was doing the same to needle them.

What you say about the sample sizes being small is correct (I don't think they were small for Richards only so for SRT) BUT at the same time does it not tell you something else? Is it not surprising that Richards faced the best of his era in more extenuating conditions a much much larger percentage of the time than SRT did due to that Richards played more such innings than SRT when it is SRT who has played more innings overall This is exactly what I have mentioned in my post made just after. Who exactly was SRT facing and in what conditions?

As you say it was physically much tougher in the Richards' era. If I were a player I would rather worry about keeping my physical geography and anatomy intact and then think about keeping my wicket and scoring runs. The fear for one's own physical well-being was completely removed in every format of cricket around '90 onwards. This is one of the main reasons why I rate Bradman, Richards, Sobers, Hobbs, Gavaskar and Chappell for sure above even Lara and SRT. From '90 till now SRT I maintain is a close second behind Lara as Lara at his best was better than SRT at his best.

 

[Sanz]

As bowlers Hadlee = Imran > Botham > Kapil (I think Lillee, Marshall, Hadlee and Imran are the four greatest fast bowlers ever in no particular order); as batsmen Kapil > Botham > Imran > Hadlee. Imran scores 1.5 + 3 = 4.5; Kapil 1 + 4 = 5; Botham 3 + 2 = 5 and Hadlee 1.5 + 4 = 5.5.

Out of Interest, That is for ODIs or Test or just overall ?

 

[Sanz]

Although I find it little odd that Botham is considered less than Kapil as a Batsman.

 

[Migara]

1) the significant attacks of their eras and that in 2) places where pitches are considered less batsman-friendly. I therefore excluded pitches in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the rest of Asia (like Sharjah) and the African pitches other than SA (I might cop some flak for that but I have been consistent). These places have long been considered very batsman-friendly and that is the ONLY reason that I have excluded them. I have included all the stats for both players for matches they played in WI, Aus, Eng, SA and NZ.

Your assumption is totally wrong. SL is one of the most difficult places to score runs.

SL - 25.71
AUS - 25.92
IND - 30.09
SAF - 27.76
PAK - 29.79
NZ - 26.96
WI - 27.81

Your assumptions are totally wrong here. SL is the most diiifcult place to bat followed by AUS, NZ, SAF and WI. You selectively dismiss runs in SL, because Tendulkar averages a ****load in SL. Viv never faced a ODI spinner of the quality of Murali on difficult tracks like in SL.

 

[Migara]

Now these are Richards' stats against Aus/Eng/Ind/Pak/NZ in WI/Aus/Eng/NZ :-

Richards vs Aus/Eng/Ind/Pak/NZ in WI/Aus/Eng/NZ

Now where is Viv's stats against Pakistan who had the second best bowling atatck to WI?

Against Pakistan in difficult to bat Australia - 14.5
Against Pakustan in difficult to bat West Indies - 17.5
Against Pakistan in easy to bat Pakistan - 40.5

If you want I also can do some srious stats pickings and back up my claims with a load of explanations like yours. You are extremely selctive in your stats. And your assumptions on picking stats are totally flawed.

 

[NYLove78]

Out of Interest, That is for ODIs or Test or just overall ?

Overall as allrounders. With batsmen or bowlers all we have are two formats. But with allrounders its 2 * 2 ie 4. I was a bit too tired looking for stats.

This is my opinion on the basis of the footages I have watched, their performances at peak, and what I have heard former players say about them.

 

[NYLove78]

Although I find it little odd that Botham is considered less than Kapil as a Batsman.

Kapil I think was a freak as a talent with the bat. He though spent 90% of his effort in the nets with the ball. India did not have a genuine pacer since Amar Singh and Mohd Nissar and he had to be the one.

OTOH we had our greatest batsman ever in Gavaskar, our most talented bat ever in Vishwanath, and a host of other remarkable talents in Amarnath, Vengsarkar, Srikkanth, Patil etc as batsmen.

Those knocks being in the 80s in much tougher conditions against much better attacks shows us what an irony it is that we go overboard about FTBs like Afridi, Jayasuriya etc in recent years.

Out of curiosity how do you rate them? Overall my ranking for allrounders across eras and teams :
1) Sobers (by a great distance)
2) Imran
3) Miller
4) Kapil
5) Botham
6) Hadlee.
I guess guys like Procter and Evans would have come in somewhere had they got to play Test cricket.

 

[Migara]

You forgot Kallis?

 

[NYLove78]

Your assumption is totally wrong. SL is one of the most difficult places to score runs.

SL - 25.71
AUS - 25.92
IND - 30.09
SAF - 27.76
PAK - 29.79
NZ - 26.96
WI - 27.81

Your assumptions are totally wrong here. SL is the most diiifcult place to bat followed by AUS, NZ, SAF and WI. You selectively dismiss runs in SL, because Tendulkar averages a ****load in SL. Viv never faced a ODI spinner of the quality of Murali on difficult tracks like in SL.

I don't find your general comment that SL pitches are more difficult to bat on even worth replying to. HOWEVER since you have resorted to stats I shall reply to you with the same.

You are coming up with bizarre stats like "vs Pak in Aus" and with statements like that "Pak > Aus in the 70s and 80s as a bowling unit". Pak had Imran, Nawaz and young Akram with spinners like Qadir and Qasim. Aus had super-fast men like Lillee, Thomson, Pascoe, Hogg and fantastic fast swing bowlers like Gilmour and backups like Walker, Hurst etc. Aus >> Pak in the 70s/80s and were no 2 in that era only to the WI. We are clear on that.

Since you have conveniently clubbed the two eras together when the two men in question actually belonged to two disparate eras I decided to do some filtering myself.

NOW below are the same stats you presented for SL from 1990 to date AND for the rest from 1975 to 1990 (Not even taking 1970 to 1075)

1) SL (Through the 90s and 00s) gives an average of 26.10 (In the 80s it was 22 in SL ODIs so that it was much tougher in the 80s)

2) AUS (Through the 70s and 80s) gives an average of 24.91

3) IND (Through the 70s and 80s) gives an average of 29.47

4) PAK (Through the 70s and 80s) gives an average of 26.56

5) NZ (Through the 70s and 80s) gives an average of 24.78

6) WI (Though the 70s and 80s) gives an average of 29.06

You left out England and so I did not bother but I know what the result there will be. SAF did not play in the 70s/80s.

The SRT era with an average of 26+ helped raise SL's overall average from 22 in the Richards' era to just below 26 overall.

SRT era raised AUS overall average from 24.91 in the Richards era to 25.92 (should have been at least 26 to 27 in the SRT era)

SRT era lifts India's average from 29.47 in the Richards era to 30.09 overall

SRT era lifts Pakistan's average from 26.56 in the Richards era to 29.79 overall (Huge jump)

SRT era raises NZ's average from 24.78 in the Richards era to 26.96 overall (Another big jump).

The ONLY anomaly is the WI. Here, Richards' era averages less than SRT era by about 2 points.

This tells me that Aus of the 70s/80s and NZ of the 79s/80s, with averages of 24.--, were the two most difficult countries for batting across all eras and all countries in the history of ODI cricket. And we can see Richards's performances there. Moreover Aus in Richards period and NZ in Richards period had tougher venues to bat in than SL in SRT's period.

You conveniently left out to factor in the more bowler-friendly conditions of Richards' era. And then you clubbed both eras together when you were the first to admit after a link I posted that averages and SR should be adjusted between the 70s/80s and 90s/00s. AND you are also taking to account tailenders here. Something tells me tailenders have contributed more in this era than the last (for obvious reasons) So I shall be back with the stats for positions 1 to 7 for the same methodology above.

Thanks for this post - it only shows that Richards was averaging more with a higher sr in an era where both were lower viz SRT.

 

[Migara]

I don't find your general comment that SL pitches are more difficult to bat on even worth replying to. HOWEVER since you have resorted to stats I shall reply to you with the same.

Dream on. i have proved it with stats that SL pitches are the worst to bat on, especially for touring batsmen. You can hold on to yuor thin arguments

You are coming up with bizarre stats like "vs Pak" in Aus and with statements like that "Pak > Aus in the 70s and 80s as a bowling unit". Pak had Imran, Nawaz and young Akram with spinners like Qadir and Qasim. Aus had super-fast men like Lillee, Thomson, Pascoe, Hogg and fantastic fast swing bowlers like Gilmour and backups like Walker, Hurst etc. Aus >> Pak in the 70s/80s and were no 2 in that era only to the WI. We are clear on that.

That may be true for an average batsmen who could be intimidated from short fast stuff, but not for Viv. Viv's achilles heel was spin. And Aussies did not have an ODI spinner even close to class of Qadir. And Nawaz and Imran did nor resort to short fast stuff. They were swing bowlers, providing no short stuff for Viv to feast. Paskitan ahd a much better balanced attack to take advantage of spinning wickets than Aussies. Pak > Aus in 80s for sure.

Since you have conveniently clubbed the two eras together when the two men in question actually belonged to two disparate eras I decided to do some filtering myself.

That is the whole point that you've missed by stats selecting. The conditions and bowling of each country have changed a lot. There is no point comparing Viv with Sachin. If it was Sachin vs Ponting, yes, you have a good point.

NOW below are the same stats you presented for SL from 1990 to date AND for the rest from 1975 to 1990 (Not even taking 1970 to 1075)

1) SL (Through the 90s and 00s) gives an average of 26.10 (In the 80s it was 22 in SL ODIs so that it was much tougher in the 80s)

And Viv did not play a single match on the toughest wickets of the world at that time. Enough said.

2) AUS (Through the 70s and 80s) gives an average of 24.91

3) IND (Through the 70s and 80s) gives an average of 29.47

4) PAK (Through the 70s and 80s) gives an average of 26.56

5) NZ (Through the 70s and 80s) gives an average of 24.78

6) WI (Though the 70s and 80s) gives an average of 29.06

Now this is intellectual dishonesty at highest order. SL of 90 - 00 should be compared to AUS, SAF etc of 90 - 00, not to 70 - 80. We universally agree that global averages of 80 - 90 is about 1 run less than 90-00 era.

In 90 - 00 era, still SL was the toughest place to bat, and still it is in the 00 - 10 era. Would have been the same in 70s and 80s too.

You left out England and so I did not bother but I know what the result there will be. SAF did not play in the 70s/80s.

My bad.

The SRT era with an average of 26+ helped raise SL's overall average from 22 in the Richards' era to just below 26 overall.

And convieniently foregetting Richards never played in SL!

SRT era raised AUS overall average from 24.91 in the Richards era to 25.92 (should have been at least 26 to 27 in the SRT era)

SRT era lifts India's average from 29.47 in the Richards era to 30.09 overall

SRT era lifts Pakistan's average from 26.56 in the Richards era to 29.79 overall (Huge jump)

SRT era raises NZ's average from 24.78 in the Richards era to 26.96 overall (Another big jump)

Once again it's only one run difference. That does not prove anything. What you have to prove is What Richards faced was much better quality than what Sachin faced. FTR, Viv was never ever tested with quality spin in ODIs. When he was tested with Qadir, it reflected big time on his stats. Murali, Saqlain and Warne all are better ODI spinners than Qadir, and Sachin faced all of them, very successfully. I am not expecting Viv to dictate term to these three as he used to do against pacemen.

This tells me that Aus of the 70s/80s and NZ of the 79s/80s, with averages of 24.--, were the two most difficult countries for batting across all eras and all countries in the history of ODI cricket.

Wrong. In Every country the average was lesser in 70s and 80s. What would be better is to take the deviation from global norm. I would say BAN of 00s may take that title.

And we can see Richards's performances there. Moreover Aus in Richards period and NZ in Richards period had tougher venues to bat in than SL in SRT's period.

Codswallop. In Richards time, in every country the average was lower, and it was the norm for the era, because the game was not developed. As I mentioned earlier, the deviation is the important factor.

You conveniently left out to factor in the more bowler-friendly conditions of Richards' era.

Excuse me? Who say's it was more bowler friendly in 70s and 80s in ODIs? Let's say it was bowler friendly, but how much was it spinner friendly? I've said earlier, Viv was not the same self against quality spin.

And then you clubbed both eras together when you were the first to admit after a link I posted that averages and SR should be adjusted between the 70s/80s and 90s/00s. AND you are also taking to account tailenders here. Something tells me tailenders have contributed more in this era than the last (for obvious reasons) So I shall be back with the stats for positions 1 to 7 for the same methodology above.

I have seen somewhere that this has no effect. But needs clarification.

 

[NYLove78]

Now where is Viv's stats against Pakistan who had the second best bowling atatck to WI?

Against Pakistan in difficult to bat Australia - 14.5
Against Pakustan in difficult to bat West Indies - 17.5
Against Pakistan in easy to bat Pakistan - 40.5

If you want I also can do some srious stats pickings and back up my claims with a load of explanations like yours. You are extremely selctive in your stats. And your assumptions on picking stats are totally flawed.

My stats in my first post were for Richards against some of the best attacks ever on their homegrounds and for SRT against some of the best attacks of his era on their homegrounds. CONSISTENCY is what is the most important point about Statistics.

My second post (last here that you comment on) was more mixed and was against ALL the leading teams at places where tracks cannot be flat. Its well-known that Ind, Pak, SL, West Asia, SE Asia, and wherever Desis organize tournaments like Canada, Nairobi etc have flat tracks.

Did you notice that I included Richards stats in the WI in both my queries?

Did you appreciate that I excluded Richards 181 in 125 vs SL in the WC '87 (which had Rumesh Ratnayake - probably your fastest bowler to date)?

CONSISTENCY is the most important thing, please. vs Aus in Aus or neutral venue or together, vs Pak in Pak etc. If you think SL in the SRT era with an average of well over 26.10 was SO difficult to bat on, then why dismiss Pak of the Richards era with an average of 26.56?

About your Richards' stats against Pak in Aus its in a minority viz Richards' stats. Not even taking into account conditions or adjustments in average and strike-rates one can see the vast difference in figures for the two sets I produced. The majority of SRT's stats were dismal where it mattered most and often he never faced the guys that mattered most in his era.

In doing so you also :
1) Dismiss Richards' overall performance against Imran or Nawaz or young Akram (He slaughtered Imran in the WSC btw and averages highly against him in Tests)
2) Overlook Richards ODI average of 40+ vs Aus (the best attack he faced internationally) in the WI, almost 66 vs Eng in the WI, 60+ against NZ in the WI. In fact he averages only 35 vs Ind in the WI and 17 vs Pak in the WI.

You also conveniently ignore :
1) Richards' average of 90 vs Lillee and Thomson (together) in Aus a figure that declined to 56 when the Aus attacks actually got weaker after '84.
2) That Richards in Aus averaged 50+ against the stronger Aus, Eng and NZ attacks while he got only 46 against SL.

Statistically there is a 10% that can always be excluded; if you want to look at it otherwise as I said your stats where Richards failed are in that 10% minority. He destroyed Imran in the WSC peak to peak and also had some stirring shows in tests and ODIs. Richards failed often against the weaker attacks in easier conditions, unlike some of the greats of recent years, who have jumped onto such chances to boost their stats.

Oh btw MOST of his matches vs Pak in Aus (that you harp on) were from after '84. His performances against every team declined from after '82. I know there will be an enormous uproar here if I were to bring in Richards' stats for 1974-80 which covered most of his peak, a good part of which was spent playing the unofficial Pakcer Series where I think he averaged almost 100 early on against Lillee, Thomson, Imran, Hadlee, Willis, Procter, Pascoe, Van Der Bijl, Le Roux, Ward and many many more. His stats in both Tests and ODIs till end-80 or even till end-82 defy belief.

 

[NYLove78]

You forgot Kallis?

Nowhere does he come close to those six guys.

Chris Cairns and Andrew Flintoff are the two best in this era (1990 till now) as far as allrounders go. Probably they are at 7 and 8 on that list. Don't know where to rate the others like Mankad, Benaud etc.

 

[Migara]

My stats in my first post were for Richards against some of the best attacks ever on their homegrounds and for SRT against some of the best attacks of his era on their homegrounds. CONSISTENCY is what is the most important point about Statistics.

My second post (last here that you comment on) was more mixed and was against ALL the leading teams at places where tracks cannot be flat. Its well-known that Ind, Pak, SL, West Asia, SE Asia, and wherever Desis organize tournaments like Canada, Nairobi etc have flat tracks.

Did you notice that I included Richards stats in the WI in both my queries?

Did you appreciate that I excluded Richards 181 in 125 vs SL in the WC '87 (which had Rumesh Ratnayake - probably your fastest bowler to date)?

CONSISTENCY is the most important thing, please. vs Aus in Aus or neutral venue or together, vs Pak in Pak etc. If you think SL in the SRT era with an average of well over 26.10 was SO difficult to bat on, then why dismiss Pak of the Richards era with an average of 26.56?

About your Richards' stats against Pak in Aus its in a minority viz Richards' stats. Not even taking into account conditions or adjustments in average and strike-rates one can see the vast difference in figures for the two sets I produced. The majority of SRT's stats were dismal where it mattered most and often he never faced the guys that mattered most in his era.

In doing so you also :
1) Dismiss Richards' overall performance against Imran or Nawaz or young Akram (He slaughtered Imran in the WSC btw and averages highly against him in Tests)
2) Overlook Richards ODI average of 40+ vs Aus (the best attack he faced internationally) in the WI, almost 66 vs Eng in the WI, 60+ against NZ in the WI. In fact he averages only 35 vs Ind in the WI and 17 vs Pak in the WI.

You also conveniently ignore :
1) Richards' average of 90 vs Lillee and Thomson (together) in Aus a figure that declined to 56 when the Aus attacks actually got weaker after '84.
2) That Richards in Aus averaged 50+ against the stronger Aus, Eng and NZ attacks while he got only 46 against SL.

Statistically there is a 10% that can always be excluded; if you want to look at it otherwise as I said your stats where Richards failed are in that 10% minority. He destroyed Imran in the WSC peak to peak and also had some stirring shows in tests and ODIs. Richards failed often against the weaker attacks in easier conditions, unlike some of the greats of recent years, who have jumped onto such chances to boost their stats.

Oh btw MOST of his matches vs Pak in Aus (that you harp on) were from after '84. His performances against every team declined from after '82. I know there will be an enormous uproar here if I were to bring in Richards' stats for 1974-80 which covered most of his peak, a good part of which was spent playing the unofficial Pakcer Series where I think he averaged almost 100 early on against Lillee, Thomson, Imran, Hadlee, Willis, Procter, Pascoe, Van Der Bijl, Le Roux, Ward and many many more. His stats in both Tests and ODIs till end-80 or even till end-82 defy belief.

You have still not understood the point. I have pointed out how stats can be picked with very good consistency. because I believe Pakistan > Australia in 80s, and on the"diffcult" conditions that you have described Viv has failed. I could post a similarly long explanation, but that won't add anything to the debate as what you've just posted.

Don't stat pick. If you want to pick it,
1) Have a sound reason behind it (like excluding minnows)
2) Make sure you have a large enough sample size
3) Appreciate same set of filter cannot be used to every player because their skills differ.

 

[NYLove78]

Dream on. i have proved it with stats that SL pitches are the worst to bat on, especially for touring batsmen. You can hold on to yuor thin arguments

That may be true for an average batsmen who could be intimidated from short fast stuff, but not for Viv. Viv's achilles heel was spin. And Aussies did not have an ODI spinner even close to class of Qadir. And Nawaz and Imran did nor resort to short fast stuff. They were swing bowlers, providing no short stuff for Viv to feast. Paskitan ahd a much better balanced attack to take advantage of spinning wickets than Aussies. Pak > Aus in 80s for sure.

That is the whole point that you've missed by stats selecting. The conditions and bowling of each country have changed a lot. There is no point comparing Viv with Sachin. If it was Sachin vs Ponting, yes, you have a good point.

Now this is intellectual dishonesty at highest order. SL of 90 - 00 should be compared to AUS, SAF etc of 90 - 00, not to 70 - 80. We universally agree that global averages of 80 - 90 is about 1 run less than 90-00 era.

In 90 - 00 era, still SL was the toughest place to bat, and still it is in the 00 - 10 era. Would have been the same in 70s and 80s too.

My bad.

And convieniently foregetting Richards never played in SL!

Once again it's only one run difference. That does not prove anything. What you have to prove is What Richards faced was much better quality than what Sachin faced. FTR, Viv was never ever tested with quality spin in ODIs. When he was tested with Qadir, it reflected big time on his stats. Murali, Saqlain and Warne all are better ODI spinners than Qadir, and Sachin faced all of them, very successfully. I am not expecting Viv to dictate term to these three as he used to do against pacemen.

Wrong. In Every country the average was lesser in 70s and 80s. What would be better is to take the deviation from global norm. I would say BAN of 00s may take that title.

Codswallop. In Richards time, in every country the average was lower, and it was the norm for the era, because the game was not developed. As I mentioned earlier, the deviation is the important factor.

Excuse me? Who say's it was more bowler friendly in 70s and 80s in ODIs? Let's say it was bowler friendly, but how much was it spinner friendly? I've said earlier, Viv was not the same self against quality spin.

I have seen somewhere that this has no effect. But needs clarification.

Pak in Richards' era averages the same as SL in the SRT era ...... according to Cricinfo

Aus in Richards' era and NZ in Richards' era more difficult to bat in than SL in the SRT era .... according to Cricinfo

ALL gibberish cuz His Majesty Migara says so

You are delving deep into spin-friendly and spinners' wickets. From the early 90s till now SRT has been struck on the helmet by Aaqib, Donald, Shoaib, Lee, Jones, Anderson etc (The biased me is not including the Younis incident when SRT was not even 17). On the more fast bowler friendly pitches, against bowlers with no restrictions on them, without even a helmet, I am sure those more dangerous guys of the 70s/80s would have murdered SRT, applying your logic viz Richards and the spinners.

A few points that I shall not be arguing anymore :

Aus of 70s&80s >> Pak of 70s/80s for bowling

Imran was more than just a swing bowler. (Nawaz was no pea-shooter either - he was chosen among the ten scariest fast bowlers ever - a list headed by Thomson, Patterson etc.) Imran at his peak was as fast and as lethal and as much a threat to libm and life as to wicket and score as anybody in the history of the game. He DID bounce when needed (read Amarnath - arguably the best ever player of fast bowling from the Indian subcontinent - in Imran's own words)

Shall be back later with the stats for the positions 1 to 7. Too tired and late today.

 

[Cevno]

Using the kind of selective stats NYLOVE has used ,I can show Agarkar is better than Akram in ODI's.

As Sidhu said "Statistics are like bikinis… what they reveal is suggestive, what they hide is essential!".

This fits nylove's contribution perfectly.And still despite the selective use of stats he needs his own made assumptions to back them up.

 

[Ilovecric]

Some minor facts about stats - the more games played increases the likeliness of a player having a good avg - so tendulkar playing twice as much as viv means he should end up fairing better. Viv had less opportunity to fail and still have a good avg. Tendulkar could make 20 ducks in his next 20 innings and still maintain a decent avg.

Viv didn't play with all these restrictions which made scoring quickly easier, his target wasn't 300 like it is today so he took on more risk because he knew if WI got to 220 they would win.

What viv did is akin to 20/20 style batting today, way more entertaining and special.

Tendulkar is old now and probably still playing cricket for himself - he has done all that can be done for IND, most players at his stage move on and give competent IND players a chance. Viv only played for WI legacy, micheal holding said he didn't play for records or cared about personal milestones. He didn't take time to get that century like alot of players today, Viv is greater than Tendulkar is everyway possible. There are great players, then there are Legends of the game.

 

[Teja.]

Some minor facts about stats - the more games played increases the likeliness of a player having a good avg - so tendulkar playing twice as much as viv means he should end up fairing better. Viv had less opportunity to fail and still have a good avg. Tendulkar could make 20 ducks in his next 20 innings and still maintain a decent avg.

Viv didn't play with all these restrictions which made scoring quickly easier, his target wasn't 300 like it is today so he took on more risk because he knew if WI got to 220 they would win.

What viv did is akin to 20/20 style batting today, way more entertaining and special.

Tendulkar is old now and probably still playing cricket for himself - he has done all that can be done for IND, most players at his stage move on and give competent IND players a chance. Viv only played for WI legacy, micheal holding said he didn't play for records or cared about personal milestones. He didn't take time to get that century like alot of players today, Viv is greater than Tendulkar is everyway possible. There are great players, then there are Legends of the game.

The first point, I dare say, is ridiculous. It is generally agreed that people who play more matches are worse off in average preservartion as it is very hard to maintain a high degree of performance over a longer duration rather than the opposite. The whole 'duck' theory is balanced out by the fact that if Viv and Sachin score a similar amount of runs in a match, Viv's average goes up by a higher amount due to the lower bulk of runs he has. There is always a flip side to arguments like these.

I think it is undermining Viv's greatness to even suggest that he batted like a T20 batsman, He had way more grace and elegance in his shotmaking.

Sachin has scored 2751 runs for his team @ 51.90 and an amazing strike rate of 90 since the World Cup of 2007, If that is being selfish, define 'playing for the team' for me. He has been arguably one of the top 3 batsmen ODI batsmen in the world during this period. Regarding Tendulkar being 'old', he is only 36 years old, not to compare across eras, but Viv played till he was 39. If Sachin is batting like a miracle like he is now and is fit and obviously merits a team in even a World XI let alone a Team XI, I don't see why he should quit.

I hold Viv in high regard as one of the legends of the game who revolutionized attacking batting, but at the same time, comparing Viv with statistically the most Brilliant ODI batsmen ever is no insult to Viv's greatness.

 

[andyc]

Pretty much agreeing completely with Teja here, not too sure how you can count the fact that Tendulkar's record spans almost 450 ODIs against him...

 

[Uppercut]

The first point, I dare say, is ridiculous. It is generally agreed that people who play more matches are worse off in average preservartion as it is very hard to maintain a high degree of performance over a longer duration rather than the opposite. The whole 'duck' theory is balanced out by the fact that if Viv and Sachin score a similar amount of runs in a match, Viv's average goes up by a higher amount due to the lower bulk of runs he has. There is always a flip side to arguments like these.

I think it is undermining Viv's greatness to even suggest that he batted like a T20 batsman, He had way more grace and elegance in his shotmaking.

Sachin has scored 2751 runs for his team @ 51.90 and an amazing strike rate of 90 since the World Cup of 2007, If that is being selfish, define 'playing for the team' for me. He has been arguably one of the top 3 batsmen ODI batsmen in the world during this period. Regarding Tendulkar being 'old', he is only 36 years old, not to compare across eras, but Viv played till he was 39. If Sachin is batting like a miracle like he is now and is fit and obviously merits a team in even a World XI let alone a Team XI, I don't see why he should quit.

I hold Viv in high regard as one of the legends of the game who revolutionized attacking batting, but at the same time, comparing Viv with statistically the most Brilliant ODI batsmen ever is no insult to Viv's greatness.

Top post, this.

 

[Jono]

Loving Teja's debut on these boards.