no i am not saying that. i am trying to explain how reputations are built. take the 2007-8 ind vs aus series for example. sachin scored two hundreds against the likes of lee, clark and johnson. ponting too, IIRC, scored a hundred. but that series is considered a triumph for tendulkar the batsman despite his team losing the series 2-1. no one remembers what ponting did with the bat. it is because sachin played against a better bowling attack, and in alien conditions. for the opposition batter to score runs against zaheer and co in his home, it would not take the same amount of skill and talent. so tendulkar is hailed as a genius. no one is asking how he would do against mcgrath and warne.
now extend the whole scenario to all of india - australia rivalry in tendulkar's time. or for that matter india vs anyone in his time. while his opponents have feasted on india's weak bowling attack he has consistently delivered against much tougher bowlers. this has been going on for decades. in australia in 99-00 he did that against mcwarne too. and won MOS. did that against mcdermott, reid etc. in 92. delivered against SA in 96. and even in the recent series in SA, his century in third test is more valuable than kallis' twin hundreds because had he not weathered the steyn storm the series would have been lost. his third test century against mcwarne in chennai in 2001 set up the series win for india. the series in which he once again averaged 50+.
had he played all his tests against australia only if warne or mcgrath played in them then he would still have been called a legend.
Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo
this is how reputations are built. this is how a great player becomes a legend. it is always about doing better than others. look at the context. and please stop relying on that stupid stat about a player X's avg in games against player Y. it means nothing.
