Richards v Tendulkar - ODIs

[The Sean]

Top new poster, this.

Corrected.

 

[Maximus0723]

I like the polls now.

 

[Ilovecric]

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.

Because viv played less game all his scores mattered more - while tendulkar's low scores won't have an impact on his record.

Viv batting like a 20/20 player in terms of his aggression and strike rate when compared to the avg ODI strike rate - 20/20 today is advanced batting in terms of scoring quickly, Viv was head and shoulders above his peers. In viv's time alot of players for the WI played until they were 40 if possible - but they did it to maintain WI winning record and continuing WI dominance, Tendulkar has no real incentive to keep playing but himself. Look at Lara who just walked away because he had nothing to play for in WI.

What Viv did was uncommon in his time and is still ahead of the best of today. Tedulkar isn't doing anything thats exceptional when compared to many ODI players today and in recent time.

 

[Sanz]

Because viv played less game all his scores mattered more - while tendulkar's low scores won't have an impact on his record.

Well his big scores would matter more as well, as opposed to a Tendulkar Big score, No ?

What Viv did was uncommon in his time and is still ahead of the best of today. Tedulkar isn't doing anything thats exceptional when compared to many ODI players today and in recent time.

Yes many current players are scoring 200 in ODIs, it is so common.

 

[Teja.]

Because viv played less game all his scores mattered more - while tendulkar's low scores won't have an impact on his record.

Viv batting like a 20/20 player in terms of his aggression and strike rate when compared to the avg ODI strike rate - 20/20 today is advanced batting in terms of scoring quickly, Viv was head and shoulders above his peers. In viv's time alot of players for the WI played until they were 40 if possible - but they did it to maintain WI winning record and continuing WI dominance, Tendulkar has no real incentive to keep playing but himself. Look at Lara who just walked away because he had nothing to play for in WI.

What Viv did was uncommon in his time and is still ahead of the best of today. Tedulkar isn't doing anything thats exceptional when compared to many ODI players today and in recent time.

The first point as I stressed in my previous post is a flawed argument.

Viv was great no doubt and head and shoulders above the majority of his peers, no argument about that.

Tendulkar is playing because he is one of the best batsmen in the side or for the world for that matter on present form He is an integral part of the Indian batting line-up, and is to borrow words from you, maintaining the Indian winning record and to stabilize their dominance in test match cricket.

Scoring @ an average of 50 and a strike rate of 90 is pretty damn exceptional considering the fact that he's an opener. If you ask me one thing exceptional about Sachin, it is his ability to adapt, any lesser batsman would wither away after an injury and two years of bad form, but not the great man, he adapted his game to suit the limitations of his body and is still arguably the best opener in ODI cricket purely on present form. Also He is still breaking world records for individual brilliance (3 150+ scores in the last 2 years and 4 overall which is more than any other batsmen, 1st ODI 200 et al.)

 

[Ilovecric]

Well his big scores would matter more as well, as opposed to a Tendulkar Big score, No ?

Yes many current players are scoring 200 in ODIs, it is so common.

I'm sure if every good ODI batsman played over 400 games they might score a double after a while. How significant is a score that took 400 tries to accomplish ? While other players came 6-15 runs without doing the same thing years ago ?

Viv only had 10 centuries, not too many big scores to make a big difference.

 

[Pratters]

I Love Cric, I don't see how you can argue against Tendulkar for playing more ODIs. As Teja said, it is a ridiculous point even though I rate Viv ahead of Tendulkar as an ODI batsman.

 

[Sanz]

I'm sure if every good ODI batsman played over 400 games they might score a double after a while. How significant is a score that took 400 tries to accomplish ? While other players came 6-15 runs without doing the same thing years ago ?

The point is you wont' remain good enough to play 400+ ODIs. As good as Viv was, he wouldn't have lasted 400+ ODIs and even if he did he wouldn't have maintained the same statistical consistency like Tendulkar has shown. And It doesn't matter how many innings it took to score 200, it is very significant, at least for me and I am sure for Tendulkar himself.

 

[Ilovecric]

I Love Cric, I don't see how you can argue against Tendulkar for playing more ODIs. As Teja said, it is a ridiculous point even though I rate Viv ahead of Tendulkar as an ODI batsman.

I'm saying it makes his avg better, not saying Tendulkar isn't extremely good but i'm saying viv was alot better.

Just simple things like fielding restrictions play a big role in tendulkar's record, the bats he played with play a big role aswell.

Especially the Indian bats, ive seen Yuvraj block yorkers for six, mis-timing easily going for six, edges going for six - everything is his Tendulkar's favour. Pitches etc etc etc

 

[Pratters]

I'm saying it makes his avg better, not saying Tendulkar isn't extremely good but i'm saying viv was alot better.

More matches means your average tends to average out, not become better over time.

[/quote]Just simple things like fielding restrictions play a big role in tendulkar's record, the bats he played with play a big role aswell.

Especially the Indian bats, ive seen Yuvraj block yorkers for six, mis-timing easily going for six, edges going for six - everything is his Tendulkar's favour. Pitches etc etc etc[/QUOTE]

I agree with these two points but they are unrelated to the original point of discussion.

 

[Cruxdude]

When you discuss different ages, there are both positives and negatives. The most common one used every time. Sachin played during the time when ODI's were dime a dozen. That does take a lot out of the body. I have grown up watching Sachin bat and will always hold him as the best I have seen.

Also making a debut at 16 and playing a lot of ODIs as a young kid batting late in the order his numbers are affected too.

 

[Ilovecric]

The point is you wont' remain good enough to play 400+ ODIs. As good as Viv was, he wouldn't have lasted 400+ ODIs and even if he did he wouldn't have maintained the same statistical consistency like Tendulkar has shown. And It doesn't matter how many innings it took to score 200, it is very significant, at least for me and I am sure for Tendulkar himself.

Think about it, after playing 400 plus games Tendulkar is 36 while Viv played until he was 39 and came nowhere near to playing 400 games.

 

[Teja.]

Ilovecric,

For every reason that cricket was harder back in those days, there is an inverse reason suggesting the opposite, it all evens out in the end.

 

[Sanz]

Think about it, after playing 400 plus games Tendulkar is 36 while Viv played until he was 39 and came nowhere near to playing 400 games.

Viv Made his debut when he was 23, SRT made his debut when he was 16.

 

[Cruxdude]

Viv Made his debut when he was 23, SRT made his debut when he was 16.

Which works against Sachin too.

 

[Cevno]

Has the pressure Tendulkar had both of a billion people and playing in a way weaker team,when your wicket was the decider (for most of the career) been mentioned yet?

There was no way that had Viv been in Tendulkar's era ,and had all the media attention,fan attention ,money Tendulkar has ,that he would have been able to concentrate for so long like Tendulkar has.
Even back in his time his off field activities were a bit suspect.(Neena gupta and all)

There is very less chance, had he been in Tendulkar's shoes ,that he would have played as long as tendulkar with respect to motivation for the game, specially after so mnay injuries in this era of continous cricket.And that he would have been not distracted by oiff the field stuff with the popstar culture that has more come into the game.

 

[Furball]

Has the pressure Tendulkar had both of a billion people and playing in a way weaker team,when your wicket was the decider (for most of the career) been mentioned yet?

There was no way that had Viv been in Tendulkar's era ,and had all the media attention,fan attention ,money Tendulkar has ,that he would have been able to concentrate for so long like Tendulkar has.
Even back in his time his off field activities were a bit suspect.(Neena gupta and all)

There is very less chance, had he been in Tendulkar's shoes ,that he would have played as long as tendulkar with respect to motivation for the game, specially after so mnay injuries in this era of continous cricket.And that he would have been not distracted by oiff the field stuff with the popstar culture that has more come into the game.

You can't really claim that with any degree of certainty.

 

[Pratters]

Also making a debut at 16 and playing a lot of ODIs as a young kid batting late in the order his numbers are affected too.

This is true. Tendulkar had a very average start to his ODI career and scored his first century after many, many matches. His average from that point on would be far more specfacular 47-52ish.

It is Viv Richard's Strike Rate v Tendulkar's consistency over the years IMO and I take Richards because the Strike Rate differential especially considering the era and fielding restrictions and the era was unfathomable.

 

[The Sean]

Has the pressure Tendulkar had both of a billion people and playing in a way weaker team,when your wicket was the decider (for most of the career) been mentioned yet?

There was no way that had Viv been in Tendulkar's era ,and had all the media attention,fan attention ,money Tendulkar has ,that he would have been able to concentrate for so long like Tendulkar has.
Even back in his time his off field activities were a bit suspect.(Neena gupta and all)

There is very less chance, had he been in Tendulkar's shoes ,that he would have played as long as tendulkar with respect to motivation for the game, specially after so mnay injuries in this era of continous cricket.And that he would have been not distracted by oiff the field stuff with the popstar culture that has more come into the game.

This is pure speculation. You may be right, but there's no way you can be as certain as you are IMO.

 

[Cevno]

This is pure speculation. You may be right, but there's no way you can be as certain as you are IMO.

But you cannot claim it the other way round too,as has been done in this thread recently.