Which cricketer has the most complete record?

[abmk]

Lara's record against Raju must surely be worth a look.

lol, yeah.

Let's also look at his record in India and declare he was average against spin

 

[jaideep]

funny cos' lara never got a century against Pak with wasim in the Pak side, nor with donald in the SA side. He had more trouble with donald than sachin did clearly, wasn't better against wasim either from what I remember.

sachin had 3 tons vs donald+wasim, all 3 brilliant ones -> 111 as an 18 year old at durban out of a total of 227, 169 at capetown when India were down 58/5 and the 136 vs Pak at chennai in 99. that is not even mentioning the 97 on a tough mumbai pitch in 2000 and the match-saving 50 odd in his debut series

lara's only real innings that was great vs either of these 2 was an 80 odd in the 4th innings vs SA

There is a reason why donald chose him over lara, even wasim said he's pick sachin over lara if forced to

lara did better against mcgrath no doubt

Ok.Lara scored 7 100's in ODIS and tendulkar just 2 against mcgrath/donald/wasim.That makes Tendulkar an average ODI batsman.

 

[Bun]

You guys lol need to chill out , you're arguing over such trivial things.

Haha agree

 

[Bun]

Miscer, please don't avoid the swear filter. Just type out the full word and let the filter star it out. Thanks.

Never understood the reasoning behind this. Surely f*** = **** given anyone with half a brain can deduce from the context?

 

[four_or_six]

Never understood the reasoning behind this. Surely f*** = **** given anyone with half a brain can deduce from the context?

The swear words are removed because it is a family forum, and to try to make it more pleasant for everyone. The original post wrote out the swear word with numbers replacing letters - essentially leaving the swear word in place.

 

[Maximus0723]

IDK wtf Jaideep it talkin about but man Lara and Sachin's record are very close when involving Wasim, Waqar, Donald, Pollock, Warne.
Lara beats Sachin vs McG. 46 vs. 36.
Though, Sachin done better against Ambrose (57) and Walsh (65) whereas Lara hasn't India's best in that era, Kumble (33).
Sachin has also done very well against likes of Steyn, Lee, Clark and Murali. Lara not as good against Lee but very good against Murali. Lara hasn't played Styen and Clark.

So basically, IDK, wtf is going on. Ppl are just nitpicking stats to make their favourites look better. Both Lara and Sachin have done well vs. great players of their time and both Lara and Sachin have done crap vs. great players of their time.

If one's point is that Lara or Sachin are notably and significantly better then the other...then well, you fail. Unless u go about nitpicking stats and point out form, injuries, etc.

 

[abmk]

Ok.Lara scored 7 100's in ODIS and tendulkar just 2 against mcgrath/donald/wasim.That makes Tendulkar an average ODI batsman.

I'm sure this guy , you know the lefty, who was one of those at the receiving end agrees

YouTube - Sachin's 98 of 75 balls against Pakistan

 

[ankitj]

YouTube - Sachin Tendulkar 76 vs Australia, Mumbai 2001

YouTube - Sachin Tendulkar 65 vs Australia, 2000/01

The 126 at Chennai is there too:

YouTube - Sachin Tendulkar 126 vs Australia - Chennai Test - 2001

Even I hadn't seen it before.

Wow. Why did I not remember these knocks better? Some orgasmic drives through the V there.

 

[smash84]

Is there a place to look at this sort of breakdown or is this extreme nerdiness on your part, Smalish?

lol.........not nerdiness....some research .....u can look at cricinfo or howstat

then do a little bit of maths...

thanks

HowSTAT! Wickets by Batting Order Graph


HowSTAT! Wickets by Batting Order Graph

thanks

I'm sure this guy , you know the lefty, who was one of those at the receiving end agrees

YouTube - Sachin's 98 of 75 balls against Pakistan

I still remember this match vividly. Sachin really took Shoaib to the cleaners. One of the best ODI innings you will ever see against a very good bowling attack. Wasim was bowling well against Sachin initially IIRC. Abdur Razzaq the idiot dropped a chance at Mid- on or mid-off and the rest as they say is history..........

 

[slog sweep]

You are right. As a batsman you do tend to remember bowlers who make you play and miss and set you up nicely. Waqar didn't have the patience for all that setting up. He just wanted to blast the stumps out of the ground. I remember a Nasser Hussain innterview on youtube where he mentions that "I heard that a new guy called waqar had come into the county circuit and was cleaning up teams like never before and these batsmen were not out caught or anything but bowled and lbws almost all of them". So in a way he was uni-dimensional, which doesn't mean of course that he wasn't effective.

Smalishah, this is a good assessment.

The problem with Waqar, was that once his physical skills started to deteriorate, there was no Plan B. At 90mph, he would prove to be irresistible, but at 80mph, he became predictable, and quite hittable. Once you have a great reduction in pace, the margin for error, becomes a lot smaller. He lacked the subtlety of Wasim Akram, which is why he didn't have his longevity.

Akram, on the other hand, was a real fast bowling master. His greatest asset was his brilliant cricket brain, and the ability to find a weakness in a batsman's technique, and then expose it. Even after his natural gifts started to diminish, he made the necessary adjustments, and remained a force in the twilight of his career.

There may be statistical arguments to rank Waqar ahead of Wasim, but anybody who understands the science behind great bowling, will always hold Wasim Akram at a higher level. He had a touch of class, that only the elite possess.

 

[Blaze 18]

Smalishah, this is a good assessment.

The problem with Waqar, was that once his physical skills started to deteriorate, there was no Plan B. At 90m/hr, he would prove to be irresistible, but at 80m/hr, he became predictable, and quite hittable. Once you have a great reduction in pace, the margin for error, becomes a lot smaller. He lacked the subtlety of Wasim Akram, which is why he didn't have his longevity.

Akram, on the other hand, was a real fast bowling master. His greatest asset was his brilliant cricket brain, and the ability to find a weakness in a batsman's technique, and then expose it. Even after his natural gifts started to diminish, he made the necessary adjustments, and remained a force in the twilight of his career.

There may be statistical arguments to rank Waqar ahead of Wasim, but anybody who understands the science behind great bowling, will always hold Wasim Akram at a higher level. He had a touch of class, that only the elite possess.

 

[smash84]

Smalishah, this is a good assessment.


There may be statistical arguments to rank Waqar ahead of Wasim, but anybody who understands the science behind great bowling, will always hold Wasim Akram at a higher level. He had a touch of class, that only the elite possess.

True. Come to think of it when you think of Wasim you always think about the bowler who could do just about anything with the ball while when you think of Waqar the only delivery that comes to mind is the inswinging yorker but by God those yorkers of his were some of the most unplayable deliveries at 90+mph

 

[weldone]

Nah... I don't wanna bury my head into the whole "if there were no bananas and nobdoy to distribute them to, will each one's share still be one?" debate.. I will stick to "divide anything by zero giving infinity" thanks..

Ha ha, no. Divide anything by zero, and the answer is 'undefined' and not 'infinity'.

Simple deduction for you:
If a/b=c, then b*c=a.
Here, if a = a finite number, b = '0' then c must be something that when multiplied by '0' returns a. Infinity is clearly not that thing. Such a thing is 'undefined'.

 

[TumTum]

Ha ha, no. Divide anything by zero, and the answer is 'undefined' and not 'infinity'.

Simple deduction for you:
If a/b=c, then b*c=a.
Here, if a = a finite number, b = '0' then c must be something that when multiplied by '0' returns a. Infinity is clearly not that thing. Such a thing is 'undefined'.

In addition, as '0' is neither positive or negative, 1/0 will give you either a positive or negative infinity, and as you can't choose a direction it is undefined.

 

[miscer]

In addition, as '0' is neither positive or negative, 1/0 will give you either a positive or negative infinity, and as you can't choose a direction it is undefined.

well the lim as x-> 0 of 1/x would be +infinity so I don't think you can just choose a direction and say it's negative infinity.

not sure just sayin'. i think undefined is the only answer to the division problem.

 

[Blaze 18]

Nah... I don't wanna bury my head into the whole "if there were no bananas and nobdoy to distribute them to, will each one's share still be one?" debate.. I will stick to "divide anything by zero giving infinity" thanks..

Ha ha, no. Divide anything by zero, and the answer is 'undefined' and not 'infinity'.

Simple deduction for you:
If a/b=c, then b*c=a.
Here, if a = a finite number, b = '0' then c must be something that when multiplied by '0' returns a. Infinity is clearly not that thing. Such a thing is 'undefined'.

Division by Zero .........

Maybe both of you are right ?

 

[ankitj]

well the lim as x-> 0 of 1/x would be +infinity so I don't think you can just choose a direction and say it's negative infinity.

not sure just sayin'. i think undefined is the only answer to the division problem.

The limit of the function exists only when you get the same result when approaching the limit from both direction. In this case, yes, 1/0 has no proper limiting value. Most of the time though people mean the right limit, as they are dealing with x >= 0.

Too much maths though.

 

[honestbharani]

Division by Zero .........

Maybe both of you are right ?

If only we were to come to that conclusion reg. most debates on CW..

 

[Burgey]

Oh sweet Jesus. Another maths thread.

 

[smash84]

cricketing mathematicians