What is Sachin's 99.94?

[GuyFromLancs]

It's tough to say, because you can't blame Kallis for cashing in on the quality of attacks he faced, and the increasingly lifeless pitches.

But, as I state above, if Tendulkar were 10 years younger and had peaked in the last 10 years, he'd probably average above 70.

(at a quicker pace and excluding minnows)

 

[NUFAN]

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.

Tendulkar averaged over 70 in 4 out of 25 calendar years. Are you seriously suggesting that the difference is that huge 53 vs. 75?

 

[centurymaker]

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.

Even Tendulkar is not a fan of his crazy fans. He tries to steer away from that as much as possible.

Actually... should just ignore Zinzan, he's been anti-Tendulkar all along my time on CW, even when Tendulkar was gunning it a few yrs back.

 

[centurymaker]

It's tough to say, because you can't blame Kallis for cashing in on the quality of attacks he faced, and the increasingly lifeless pitches.

But, as I state above, if Tendulkar were 10 years younger and had peaked in the last 10 years, he'd probably average above 70.

(at a quicker pace and excluding minnows)

Gone out of your mind? Tendulkar would not have averaged 70, or even close to that. His concentration levels weren't as high for an avg of 70. (as proven by his low number of 200s)

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Tendulkar averaged over 70 in 4 out of 25 calendar years. Are you seriously suggesting that the difference is that huge 53 vs. 75?

In some respects, yeah. Although the difference will differ from player to player.

I'm not saying any player who averaged 50 in the 90s could take that up to 70 in the 00s. But some could.

Fact is though, I don't believe for a minute Kallis would average 58 for the entirety of the 90s. No chance.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Gone out of your mind? Tendulkar would not have averaged 70, or even close to that. His concentration levels weren't as high for an avg of 70. (as proven by his low number of 200s)

And yet he averaged 58 for a decade of much tougher cricket.

 

[Zinzan]

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.

You've just illustrate my point beautifully. The myth I refer to is not him being a great batsman (because clearly that's no myth at all), it's the myth that it's somehow an objective fact that he's the better than his contemporaries, and to argue their case against him suggests a personal agenda or a dislike for him. Perhaps you've developed a dislike for Kallis since you believe Ponting was a better bat. This isn't an obvious, objective, black and white thing like it is with Bradman and to buy into the theory that it is a similar open-shut case is the myth.

 

[Zinzan]

Even Tendulkar is not a fan of his crazy fans. He tries to steer away from that as much as possible.

Actually... should just ignore Zinzan, he's been anti-Tendulkar all along my time on CW, even when Tendulkar was gunning it a few yrs back.

Haha, nice one, rather than rationally dealing with the points made, let's get all emotional about it shall we. 'Ahh, ignore him, he has a different view than me.'... Childish reaction...

 

[centurymaker]

And yet he averaged 58 for a decade of much tougher cricket.

That does not prove that he would have averaged 70! Because he never did. Just because he would have faced slighly lower quality bowling, doesn't mean he would've dominated them to a much greater extent. It always only takes 1 ball to get out. And he had a habit of getting out to **** bowlers you know.

 

[Zinzan]

Even Tendulkar is not a fan of his crazy fans. He tries to steer away from that as much as possible.

Actually... should just ignore Zinzan, he's been anti-Tendulkar all along my time on CW, even when Tendulkar was gunning it a few yrs back.

BTW, while you're making the allegation, find one post when I've ever rubbished Tendulkar (as opposed to me arguing the case for batsmen like Lara, Ponting & Kallis). Or is merely comparing others to him 'anti-Tendulkar' in your mind?

 

[GuyFromLancs]

That does not prove that he would have averaged 70! Because he never did. Just because he would have faced slighly lower quality bowling, doesn't mean he would've dominated them to a much greater extent. It always only takes 1 ball to get out. And he had a habit of getting out to **** bowlers you know.

There are no easy answers to all this, but there is an easy question - would Kallis have averaged 58 throughout the 90s? (not to mention rock the ODI world too).

Of course the answer is no. Kallis cashes in big-time on second-rate opposition, on batsman friendly pitches. Tendulkar did this also for the last 10 years of his career, but Tendulkar proved himself an ATG when cricket was dominated by men who actually valued test cricket. An era when The West Indies weren't just a slightly superior Bangladesh. And an era when Bangladesh themselves weren't even a test team.

Graham Thorpe would have averaged 52-ish in the 00s had he been 10 years younger.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Yeah this is getting a bit ridiculous now

 

[NUFAN]

Wait a minute, which one is Sachin again? #sachinsmumsthoughts

 

[harsh.ag]

You've just illustrate my point beautifully. The myth I refer to is not him being a great batsman (because clearly that's no myth at all), it's the myth that it's somehow an objective fact that he's the better than his contemporaries, and to argue their case against him suggests a personal agenda or a dislike for him. Perhaps you've developed a dislike for Kallis since you believe Ponting was a better bat. This isn't an obvious, objective, black and white thing like it is with Bradman and to buy into the theory that it is a similar open-shut case is the myth.

Cool. You are not wrong. Your opinion can not and should not be derided. If you think Kallis is a better bat than Sachin, it does not mean you have anything against Tendy at all. On a marginally related note, how would you rank the following list of batsmen? :-

Shiv Chanderpaul, Ricky Ponting, Inzamam ul-Haq, Rahul Dravid, Kumar Sangakkara.

 

[Prince EWS]

That does not prove that he would have averaged 70! Because he never did. Just because he would have faced slighly lower quality bowling, doesn't mean he would've dominated them to a much greater extent. It always only takes 1 ball to get out. And he had a habit of getting out to **** bowlers you know.

While I 100% agree with you that you get diminishing returns with your average as you lower the standard of bowling because batsmen are human and are prone to concentration lapses, Tendulkar scored 4,825 runs @ 85 for Mumbai in 63 innings. That's not a small sample size and isn't not a joke level of cricket either; he demonstrated the ability to really bat bowlers of moderately lower levels into submission. He definitely had the concentration to average that sort of amount against professional cricketers.

I think the "decreased bowling standards this century" argument is massively exaggerated so I don't agree with GFL, but I don't think it's silly to suggest that if the bowling standards were lower Tendulkar would've had a much higher average.

The really silly thing about GFL's argument is that Tendulkar is only two years older than Kallis. Yeah Tendulkar started a bit earlier but they reached their peak years at roughly the same time against roughly the same opposition and Tendulkar was not conclusively better.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

Yeah this is getting a bit ridiculous now

By your own admission, you're too young to remember the 90s.

The quality of cricket was much higher than it is now.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

While I 100% agree with you that you get diminishing returns with your average as you lower the standard of bowling because batsmen are human and are prone to concentration lapses, Tendulkar scored 4,825 runs @ 85 for Mumbai in 63 innings. That's not a small sample size and isn't not a joke level of cricket either; he demonstrated the ability to really bat bowlers of moderately lower levels into submission. He definitely had the concentration to average that sort of amount against professional cricketers.

I think the "decreased bowling standards this century" argument is massively exaggerated so I don't agree with GFL, but I don't think it's silly to suggest that if the bowling standards were lower Tendulkar would've had a much higher average.

The really silly thing about GFL's argument is that Tendulkar is only two years older than Kallis. Yeah Tendulkar started a bit earlier but they reached their peak years at roughly the same time against roughly the same opposition and Tendulkar was not conclusively better.

And for the period that their careers overlapped in the second half of the 90s, Tendulkar averaged about 60 to Kallis' 40.

And SRT averaged 55 against Australia to kallis' 38

 

[Zinzan]

Cool. You are not wrong. Your opinion can not and should not be derided. If you think Kallis is a better bat than Sachin, it does not mean you have anything against Tendy at all. On a marginally related note, how would you rank the following list of batsmen? :-

Shiv Chanderpaul, Ricky Ponting, Inzamam ul-Haq, Rahul Dravid, Kumar Sangakkara.

Hmmm IMHO, as Test batsmen, and I'd be open to arguments to the contrary;

1.Ponting
2=Dravid/Sangakkara
3= Chanderpaul/ Inzamam

Yours?

 

[NUFAN]

And for the period that their careers overlapped in the second half of the 90s, Tendulkar averaged about 60 to Kallis' 40.

Established batsman averaging higher than inexperienced batsman shocker.

 

[Prince EWS]

2=
3=

Nah ****. If you have two blokes in second then there's no third; it goes straight to fourth.