Erroneous revisionism that needs to be corrected

[Maximas]

What people say: "Jayasuriya and Kaluwitharana's explosive starts were the prime reason why SL won the 96 world cup"

Reality :Kalu averaged 12 in that tournament

And his best innings was against Kenya I think, literally did nothing in the knockouts

But it was the mindset I suppose, they came out and took to attacks early, and that approach despite losing early wickets was successful against both India and Australia when it mattered

 

[OverratedSanity]

I guess so, but it was just way less effective than what people actually remember. Kalu gets clubbed in with jayasiruya because he was his partner, but the guy doing the damage was basically just jayasuriya in every single game. Even in the semi final and final, that approach completely backfired and would've been the end for them if Aravinda hadn't saved their asses.

 

[Maximas]

The legend was probably born in the matches leading up to the WC, particularly in the 1995/96 tour to Aus where that approach worked.

The truth is that SL had a particularly strong ODI batting line-up at the time

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Because he's not the best ODI batsman of all-time. Top 5? Yes. But he's not better than Viv, and Kohli's current level > his peak (though Sachin might have him beat on longetivity)

In Tests it's fair enough to say he's in the mix for the second greatest batsman of all-time, but he's far from clear cut in that regard.

Sachin Arguably better than Kohli , Viv and ABDV. Sachin's peak arguably better than Kohli peak.

 

[wpdavid]

May as well have a pop at the myth that excessively abusive verbals and send-offs are fine because they have always been part of the game.

 

[Teja.]

Was it Gideon Haigh who said something along the lines of “Marshall was brilliant, the rest had long limbs” or am I confusing writers.

Fred to confirm.

EDIT: It was David Frith, not Haigh.

 

[wpdavid]

Was it Gideon Haigh who said something along the lines of “Marshall was brilliant, the rest had long limbs” or am I confusing writers.

Fred to confirm.

David Frith was the guilty party. Haigh would never write anything as ridiculous as that.

 

[Teja.]

David Frith was the guilty party. Haigh would never write anything as ridiculous as that.

Thanks a lot, edited my post. I read that several years ago and just remember it being a writer I respected and cringed reading that.

 

[the big bambino]

Jeez some of those numbers are dodgy. Going by the highlights available in the 1999/00 season (a much larger sample of numbers than that list) he was generally bowling low 130s, which is nowhere near some of the numbers claimed there for that period. I think there's a measurement error or two.

Speaking of not knowing what sort of pace people bowl, I'd like to gain an impression from people here who watched him at the time of what pace they think Courtney Walsh was bowling around 1992.

I don’t think they had the guns back then but I remember him barely getting out of the 120s when he made his last tour here. Maybe he was 5 or 10k faster in 92. Walsh’s angle seam and bounce where his weapons. I also recall McGilvray commenting on his speed on his first tour in the mid 80s and he called him fast medium.

 

[Starfighter]

I don’t think they had the guns back then but I remember him barely getting out of the 120s when he made his last tour here. Maybe he was 5 or 10k faster in 92. Walsh’s angle seam and bounce where his weapons. I also recall McGilvray commenting on his speed on his first tour in the mid 80s and he called him fast medium.

Oh he was recorded in the high 120s in 00/01, and just around 80 mph in England a few months previously. But he is often given as right arm 'fast' unqualified in retrospective writing (for example on his cricinfo profile) and you can find writing even as late as '92 which gives the impression of him bowling quite fast.
It's just in South Africa in 92/93 they had had speed guns and displayed the speed for occasional deliveries. In the Newlands ODI where Pakistan were bowled out for 43 he was recorded at 134 km/h, and I think 138 too, though I can't currently find that particular ball. In comparison Anderson Cummins was recorded at 131 km/h which I think few would dispute. No measurement unfortunately for Patterson.

 

[Coronis]

Sachin is definitely one. He has just as much claim as greats like Graeme Pollock, Steve Smith or Adam Voges.

Those are the three that first come to mind.

Also the idea that someone who averaged 45 for half his career is an acceptable candidate for 2nd greatest of all time.

 

[Red]

He's not the best ODI batsman of all time. He's the most prolific, for now.

He belongs in the argument about being the best player since Bradman. It's not an argument he would win, but he belongs in it.

In any event, neither of those things fall into the category of revisionism.

I can think of more reasons why Sachin is the best after Bradman than I can for anyone else tbh

 

[AndrewB]

Was it Gideon Haigh who said something along the lines of “Marshall was brilliant, the rest had long limbs” or am I confusing writers.

Fred to confirm.

EDIT: It was David Frith, not Haigh.

‘Holding was usually magnificent – as was Wes Hall before him – and Garner and Ambrose were fortunate to be endowed with such long limbs.’

 

[Burgey]

I can think of more reasons why Sachin is the best after Bradman than I can for anyone else tbh

That's a matter for you. But whether you do or don't think that, it isn't revisionism to take a view one way or the other.

 

[TheJediBrah]

May as well have a pop at the myth that excessively abusive verbals and send-offs are fine because they have always been part of the game.

Can't agree with this enough. There's nothing more pathetic than a bowler having a crack at a batsman once they're out. I've seen it so many times after the batsman has played brilliantly, dominated the bowling and then the bowler just gets lucky then gives a send off as if he'd taken a hatrick of clean bowled's with inswinging yorkers.

 

[stephen]

The number of people going around now who don't rate Sachin as the best ODI batsman of all time, and worthy 2nd to Bradman overall, is staggering. Let alone the number of people who don't even think he is Top 5 or 10.

So you mean everyone who knows how to rate cricketers on something other than national bias?

Tendulkar wasn't the best ODI batsman around - Viv was.

Most people who saw him play rate Sobers as the second best behind Bradman.

I happen to think Smith is a better test batsman than Tendulkar.

You may have a point if you combine tests and ODIs but who the hell does that? And Kohli might just be better than Tendulkar. The jury is still out.

Tendulkar had one thing going for him that separates him from everyone else and that's his longevity. And even then Lara and Kallis both have claims to being as good as Tendulkar for almost as long.

 

[Daemon]

While I don’t think he’s the clear cut no.2, it’s not just longevity, he also has the most complete record and turned up against all attacks in all conditions regardless of the quality of the attack and difficulty of conditions. And he did it time and again. And again.

 

[srbhkshk]

So you mean everyone who knows how to rate cricketers on something other than national bias?

This is such a bullshit statement to make, he has a good genuine case for both #1 ODI and #2 Test batsman.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is such a bullshit statement to make, he has a good genuine case for both #1 ODI and #2 Test batsman.

***** wasn't talking about having a "good genuine case" for it though. ***** made the claim that anyone who doesn't agree with it is performing "revisionism"

 

[91Jmay]

Yousuf Youhana > Mohammed Yusuf