What is Sachin's 99.94?

[Prince EWS]

But hold on, isnt all this Tendulkar adulation built around 200 Tests, 100 international hundreds and longevity? Surely it will also apply if Cook does the same. Isnt this long career and volume what separates him from the others who have claims to be his equal or better (Lara, Ponting, Waugh etc.)

Firstly, if he plays until he's 40 as flibbertyjibber suggested, he'll have still played for about five years fewer than Tendulkar. That's nothing to sneeze at as a difference of longevity at all.

Furthermore, as others have said, if Cook plays until he's 40 and knocks up 50 Test hundreds then he'll probably do it a much lower average then Tendulkar has and have fewer positive contributions, because he's just not in the same class of batsmanship. I really don't see Cook's average rising 6 points from now if he plays long past a batsman's regular peak years, and I think that's kind of the point fj was making in a roundabout way. What makes Tendulkar special isn't just the longevity as such; it's the longevity at such a high level.

If Cook plays Test cricket for 25 years and finishes with an average in the mid 50s then sure, he'll be very comparable to Tendulkar. But it's highly unlikely from where basically everyone sits, and even what flibbertyjibber said as a best case scenario is a bit short of that.

 

[Zinzan]

That misses the point he's making though.

I fully agree with the notion that Tendulkar is a greater batsman than Kallis (or anyone else of the modern era for that matter) so have no issue at all with that, but a lot of the arguments for Tendulkar's status seem to be along the lines of "played longer + scored more = greatest" so if someone else plays for even longer and scores even more then it would seem hypocritical to then say that you can't just judge on career totals.

 

[centurymaker]

Good for you if you choose Sachin over kallis based on just watching them.

My point was that stats-mongers who point to just Tendulkar's stats and his "24 years" and "51 hundreds" as though it's conclusive proof of Tendulkar being greater will be made to look foolish by stats-mongers on the kallis side if he does get close to or break his records, which is possible

Noooo

Stats are just like a concrete evidence of how good he was. Even if he had retired in 2003 (10 yrs ago), he still would've been a top-level ATG.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

That misses the point he's making though.

I fully agree with the notion that Tendulkar is a greater batsman than Kallis (or anyone else of the modern era for that matter) so have no issue at all with that, but a lot of the arguments for Tendulkar's status seem to be along the lines of "played longer + scored more = greatest" so if someone else plays for even longer and scores even more then it would seem hypocritical to then say that you can't just judge on career totals.

But I'm not saying that. Therefore it is a strawman.

If SRT had retired in 2004, I'd still call him better than Kallis.

 

[benchmark00]

That misses the point he's making though.

I fully agree with the notion that Tendulkar is a greater batsman than Kallis (or anyone else of the modern era for that matter) so have no issue at all with that, but a lot of the arguments for Tendulkar's status seem to be along the lines of "played longer + scored more = greatest" so if someone else plays for even longer and scores even more then it would seem hypocritical to then say that you can't just judge on career totals.

No Goughy seems to be arguing a point that no one actually made here.

 

[Prince EWS]

That misses the point he's making though.

I fully agree with the notion that Tendulkar is a greater batsman than Kallis (or anyone else of the modern era for that matter) so have no issue at all with that, but a lot of the arguments for Tendulkar's status seem to be along the lines of "played longer + scored more = greatest" so if someone else plays for even longer and scores even more then it would seem hypocritical to then say that you can't just judge on career totals.

If Kallis plays for longer and scores more at a similar average then in all likelihood I will rate him higher than Tendulkar as a batsman when he's done. I just don't see it as at all likely; he wasn't the absolute earlier bloomer Tendulkar was so he didn't debut at 16 and therefore he'll have to play much longer at the back end to make up for it.

 

[Prince EWS]

No Goughy seems to be arguing a point that no one actually made here.

Yeah, this I think.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Noooo

Stats are just like a concrete evidence of how good he was. Even if he had retired in 2003 (10 yrs ago), he still would've been a top-level ATG.

Well, yeah I never said no.

No one got what I was trying to say unfortunately.... There is a section of Tendulkar's fanbase that will point to his no of hundreds and his longevity as CONCRETE proof that he's better than Lara, Ponting, etc. What will they then say if kallis overtakes him? By their own broken logic, kallis would be better

I was indirectly sating what you said, that Tendulkar's greatness, like all other players, lies beyond the stats.

 

[Prince EWS]

No one got what I was trying to say unfortunately.... There is a section of Tendulkar's fanbase that will point to his no of hundreds and his longevity as CONCRETE proof that he's better than Lara, Ponting, etc. What will they then say if kallis overtakes him?

I, for one, will say Kallis was better. With a big cheesy grin on my face.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Without wishing to sound disrespectful to the Kallis fans, there is no comparing him to Tendulkar.

In the second half of the 90s, Tendulkar was murdering everyone in both formats in what was a much, much tougher era for batsmen. Look at the bowling attacks on display at this time. Compare them to some of the feeding frenzies of the last decade. It's a division higher. Like comparing Premiership games to Championship games at times. And Kallis played in the 90s and averaged about 40. Sure, it was the first few years of his career, and I'm confident he would have taken it up to 47 or thereabouts, but I've seen Kallis on the odd seaming track, and he looks uncomfortable.

Kallis ranks below SRT, Lara, Ponting and Dravid, for me. In fact Dravid is the best comparison for Kallis, but Dravid is better because he handled seaming tracks better.

 

[The Sean]

As for the question at hand, while I don't necessarily like combining cross-format stats (and the use of combined international runs and centuries is becoming more and more prevalent these days from what I can see), I do think that Tendulkar's quantity of international runs and centuries is his mark that is unlikely to ever be challenged.

At a push, I could see his Test numbers being broken eventually (whether it be by Cook or someone else) - though it's by no means certain. Likewise, when you see what Kohli is doing at the moment it's tempting to think that maybe - just maybe - his ODI numbers may eventually come under threat. Though again it's a hell of an ask, and probably even more unlikely than having his Test numbers broken.

Put the two together though and that's where it gets near-impossible to foresee a challenge. It's really difficult for me to envisage someone being so good for so long across both formats as Tendulkar was to ever get close to his overall total. Though anyone who does will be bloody special, and I hope I get to see it.

 

[OverratedSanity]

I, for one, will say Kallis was better. With a big cheesy grin on my face.

You may, sure, but that can't be the only reason for you doing so, that would be a flawed judgement

ie kallis overtaking Sachin in centuries and /or runs scored

 

[benchmark00]

If by significant you refer purely to his profile ( he does come from a nation of 1.2 billion people besotted by the game) & longevity, (which is simply amazing) that's true. However if you're referring to performances on the cricket field, the last 15 years has almost certainly belonged to Jacques Kallis, who scored more runs at a significantly higher average along with the small tally of 264 wickets @ 32. To claim otherwise on cricketing performances is simply buying into the myth IMHO.

Anyone who has seen Tendulkar bat knows he's not a myth. He's not an accumulator. He is a master batsman. Has every shot, can dominate, can defend, has the temperament. He's a complete player.

It sounds to me that you've grown a dislike for him because of his cult following in India which is no doubt at times ****ing insanely annoying and leads to him being overhyped (comparisons to Bradman and even people claiming he's better), but it would be absolutely foolish of you to let that distort your views of how good he is/was as a batsman.

I love Kallis, honestly think he is an absolute weapon. But if we're comparing batsman to batsman, Kallis just doesn't compare with Tendulkar. Tendulkar bats without limitations. He just simply isn't a myth.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Without wishing to sound disrespectful to the Kallis fans, there is no comparing him to Tendulkar.

Of course there is don't be silly. You may convince me Tendulkar's a better bat but never that Kallis doesn't even deserve to be compared.

 

[NUFAN]

I haven't been a Kallis fan since finishing second to him in a beauty contest, but I find it hard to argue against his excellent ability to stay at the crease regardless of what the pitch is doing.

 

[Prince EWS]

You may, sure, but that can't be the only reason for you doing so, that would be a flawed judgement

ie kallis overtaking Sachin in centuries and /or runs scored

Total centuries and runs scored mean little to me, but at the end of the day why I think I'll rate Tendulkar as a better batsman than Kallis is how long he was able to keep it up.

If Kallis played until he was 46 or something like that and remained one of the best batsmen in the game for most of that and Test standard until the very end - like Tendulkar - then I think I'd rate Kallis higher. I find this highly unlikely, and if Kallis retired now or in the next couple of years then I'd definitely rate Tendulkar as the better bat but we're talking hypotheticals here. It would absolutely make a huge difference to me if he carried on for that long. More total centuries and runs are just a by-product of that longevity rather than an actual reason to rate him higher (which is the longevity itself).

 

[The Sean]

Well, yeah I never said no.

No one got what I was trying to say unfortunately.... There is a section of Tendulkar's fanbase that will point to his no of hundreds and his longevity as CONCRETE proof that he's better than Lara, Ponting, etc. What will they then say if kallis overtakes him? By their own broken logic, kallis would be better

I was indirectly sating what you said, that Tendulkar's greatness, like all other players, lies beyond the stats.

Yeah this was essentially what I thought you and Goughy were getting at, and what I agreed with. It may be that I projected that Tendulkar opinion on a few of the blokes here when it wasn't really what they were saying.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Of course there is don't be silly. You may convince me Tendulkar's a better bat but never that Kallis doesn't even deserve to be compared.

You can compare Kallis with the Tendulkar of the past 10 years. But you can't compare Kallis at any time to Tendulkar in his prime.

The difference really is that big.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Had Tendulkar been born in 1983 instead of 1973; made his debut in 1999, and then peaked say between 2002 and today, I seriously think he'd have averaged 75 by now.

 

[NUFAN]

You can compare Kallis with the Tendulkar of the past 10 years. But you can't compare Kallis at any time to Tendulkar in his prime.

The difference really is that big.

What more do you think Kallis needed to do between 1999 and 2007 (his peak).