Richards v Tendulkar - ODIs

[Pratters]

And I said all this very initially in the thread. So you are only repeating.

 

[Teja.]

Whether Jeff hit the sightscreen or not, he clocked 147.9 kmph at the fastest bowler competition, FACT.

 

[NYLove78]

Whether Jeff hit the sightscreen or not, he clocked 147.9 kmph at the fastest bowler competition, FACT.

Yeah also that he, Roberts, Lillee, Holding all clocked 152 to 160 ks in '75 and '76.

AND UNLIKE the speedguns of the 90s and this decade they were the AVERAGE of the ball over the 22 yards of the pitch. So we can safely add 12% to the speeds obtained in the 70s/80s.

 

[NYLove78]

And I said all this very initially in the thread. So you are only repeating.

Oh you did???!!!

 

[Teja.]

Yeah also that he, Roberts, Lillee, Holding all clocked 152 to 160 ks in '75 and '76.

AND UNLIKE the speedguns of the 90s and this decade they were the AVERAGE of the ball over the 22 yards of the pitch. So we can safely add 12% to the speeds obtained in the 70s/80s.

I'll concede I didn't know that piece of knowledge.
Source please?

 

[Cevno]

Besides thomson was really quick up until 1976(before the shoulder injury) only and Richards faced him only once in ODI cricket in the 1975 final when he got out for 5.Not that thomson was as good in ODI's with bowling 12 overs as he was in tests.

And when he faced, Lillee and certainly Thomson's best in a series in 1975 in tests, he averaged 36 in the series.

A classic case of romanticising from the past.

 

[vcs]

I'll concede I didn't know that piece of knowledge.
Source please?

FWIW, I follow tennis and I have heard people say similar things about the speed guns (used to measure service speeds) of previous generations compared to these days. It seems today's guns measure the speed much closer to the release point (bowler's arm or the tennis player's racquet) compared to previous generations. So it naturally results in bigger readings. I don't have a source, though.

 

[Cevno]

far more games played overall=less rest, games more scrutinized, more specialized ODI players, better bowlers, being opener, better fielders, more countries, inclusion of south africa...it can go both ways mate.

Not to forget 50 vs 60 over matches, more variety of pitches, better spinners,more distractions ETC.............

It goes both ways and is stupid to suggest otherwise.

Another case of romanticising the past.

 

[Sir Alex]

I read somewhere Tendulkar has "run" around 550 kilometres in his International cricket so far!!

 

[Migara]

Viv faced Jeff Thomson without a helmet mate. I'm sure he could have dealt.

He was practised to do it, and any legendary batsman from todays era, if trained from childhood without the helmet will be able to do it.

If Viv was so daring, should have played without the box. Then I would admit this "daring" or "manly" rant

 

[Migara]

I know you rate Richards > SRT and was not accusing you of anything. But one has to put some price on factors like the more difficult pitches, absence of restrictions on bowlers and fielders, lack of good protective gear, and more intimidatory fast bowling that were prevalent in the Richards era viz SRT's. Add to this the flat decks of the subcontinent, Sharjah, etc. And that this decade batting got still better.

And keeps dead silent about much better spin attacks that SRT faced.

 

[Migara]

Yeah that's what I said - Thommo sent down many deliveries in the 70s that thudded into the sight-screen on the full - while Akhtar's bounced only half a dozen times before gently rolling into the SS. Biased SRT-fans'

Ha Ha! Did Thommo ever hit the side screen on full in India or Pakistan? DO you get my point? And Akthar is not the fastest that Tendulkar faced. There were one or two Pakistanis who were still quicker, and possibly the quickest bowlers in the history.

 

[Migara]

Yeah also that he, Roberts, Lillee, Holding all clocked 152 to 160 ks in '75 and '76.

AND UNLIKE the speedguns of the 90s and this decade they were the AVERAGE of the ball over the 22 yards of the pitch. So we can safely add 12% to the speeds obtained in the 70s/80s.

That 147.9km/h is the sum of vertical and horizontal components of the speed, over 22 yards. What is measured today is only the horizontal component. That's why yorkers from a bowler always record higher speeds than a bouncer. Adding 12% has no basis, unless you give us proven study on that.

 

[Maximus0723]

Richards did average higher.--True

Richards did strike much better.--nope not much better. Just little better.

Richards did play on faster, bouncier, more difficult tracks (where even 200 was a good total).--True

Richards did that without even a helmet (unlike helmet + arm-guard + chest guard + abdomen guard etc)--So...

Richards did so without rules favoring batsmen---True

Richards did so against faster, better, more intimidatory bowling---Not true. Sachin faced better bowlers.

Richards did so with inferior equipment.---So did the bowlers of that time. So it evens out.

Richards did so on larger grounds with slower outfields.---True

Bold are my answers. I agree Sir Viv beats Sachin--not by huge margin tho.

 

[Migara]

The difference in Viv and SRT is hyphed a lot. But no one has taken care of the superior bowling attack WI had by then.

All the stats are sans minnows

IVAR - played from 07/06/1975 to 27/05/1991

IVAR
Average - 46.72
SR - 89.62

of all the batsmen
Average - 27.57
SR - 65.98

of opposition bowlers
Average - 33.78
ER - 4.25

of Team bowlers
Average - 26.75
ER - 3.89

SRT - played from 18/12/1989 to date

Avg - 43.36
SR - 85.15

of All batsmen
Avg - 27.57
SR - 73.03

of opposition bowlers
Avg - 34.89
ER - 4.82

of Team bowlers
Avg - 35.3
ER - 4.87

Since SRT has played more matches his stats will be taken as benchmark (could take IVAR too, and it would not make any difference as well to the analysis)

SRT - Adjusted Avg - 43.36, SR - 85.15
IVAR - Adjusted Avg - 48.98, SR - 99.20

IVARs team would give away 194.5 runs in a match, while his oppositions used to give away 212.5 runs.

In SRTs case it's 243.5 and 241 in average.

Now that shows SRT was always 2 runs short on a target due to bowling standards of IND, while IVAR enjoyed a 18 run advantage during a match.

Now what would happen if they had similar bowling line ups?

Since out adjusted Avg and SR available (43.13 and 85.15 for SRT, 48.98 and 99.20 for IVAR) we can use the Average SR during SRTs time as bench mark.

SRT would use 50.92 deliveries to score his 43.13 runs, and IVAR will use 49.37 balls to score his 48.98 runs.

According to adjusted average SR, the 50 over team score will be 219.09.

That will leave SRTs fellow bastmen to score runs at 70.55 and IVARs fellow batsmen to score at 67.88

Although IVAR shows to have slightly better impact on a game than SRT the impact is not a huge one.

Add SRT's longevity, and better playing of spin, and that impact will also be nullified.

 

[Migara]

Now we'll see fro the other side of the story, that is what IVARs and SRTs fellow batsmen did for them.

Once again all stats are sans minnows.

IVARs fellow batsmen

Avg - 30.25, Adjusted Avg - 31.71
SR - 68.81, Adjusted SR - 76.16

SRTs fellow batsmen

Avg - 29.06
SR - 75.8

Now we ave found that IVAR on average makes 48.98 runs in 49.37 balls and SRT makes 43.36 runs in 50.92 deliveries.

That gives 250.63 and 249.08 balls left for IVARs and SRTs fellow batsmen in average.

In that time, they score 190.88 runs and 188.80 runs respectively. Once again, Tendulkar had poorer support from batsmen as well.

This clearly shows that SRT played with poorer support from both bat and ball, and perhaps field as well.

 

[alternative]

Sachin, but seriously Ganguly is better.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah also that he, Roberts, Lillee, Holding all clocked 152 to 160 ks in '75 and '76.

AND UNLIKE the speedguns of the 90s and this decade they were the AVERAGE of the ball over the 22 yards of the pitch. So we can safely add 12% to the speeds obtained in the 70s/80s.

That actually isn't true. The argument came up here before many times and Manan (silentstriker) e-mailed the scientist who ran the whole thing to clear it up once and for all. The speeds were measured on precisely the same trajectory and at precisely the same location as they are today.

I'm not sure you have the speeds correct either.

 

[The Sean]

That actually isn't true. The argument came up here before many times and Manan (silentstriker) e-mailed the scientist who ran the whole thing to clear it up once and for all. The speeds were measured on precisely the same trajectory and at precisely the same location as they are today.

That's fascinating, I never knew that. Did he happen to say why all the bowlers were markedly slower in that study than they had been when clocked in an actual match?

 

[Uppercut]

That's fascinating, I never knew that. Did he happen to say why all the bowlers were markedly slower in that study than they had been when clocked in an actual match?

Dunno the details really, just know that they were clocked out of the hand (not at the batsman's end, as Jeff Thomson infamously claimed). Ask Manan.