The ATG Teams General arguing/discussing thread

[Slifer]

1. Sachin averaged 40+ against every opponent.

Lara averaged 40+ against every opponent except India against whom he averages 34.

2. Sachin averaged 40+ in every country.

Lara averaged less than 40 against India and NZ

3. Average in different countries

Sachin vs Lara

South Africa : 46 vs 46

England : 54 vs 48

NewZealand : 49 vs 36

Australia : 53 vs 41


Sachin Tendulkar was more consistent and performed better in tougher conditions than Brian Lara despite playing almost 70 matches more than him.

Sachin vs lara

Pakistan 40 vs 48
Sri Lanka 68 vs 101

So tendy averaged more away vs 3 teams and Lara 2 no real biggie. And this stuff about tendy doing it in tougher conditions is laughable. Tendulkar played a ton of tests vs the likes of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. Lara played 4 !! Tendys best series vs Australia came at home to Australia vs the mighty Warne, kaspa and some other no named bowlers. Lara has 7 series of 500 runs or more, tendy zero. Lara also crossed the 900 mark in the ratings a few timea; tendy zero times. Lara has at least 2 great series vs atg attacks: '99 vs Oz and '01 in SL (SL were great at home) again tendy has zero.

I'll give you that tendy was more consistent and yeah imo tendy was a smidgen better than lara. But if ever there was a batsman to churn out something extraordinary; something would put the team in a strong position Lara's the guy.

 

[Chrish]

In 35 Tests in Australia, Smith has 13 100s
In 35 Tests outside of Australia, Smith has 13 100s

But okay..

Interesting stat!

Players' inning to hundred ratio:

Sachin: 329/51 = 6.5

Viv: 182/24 = 7.5

Smith: 126/26 = 4.8

 

[srbhkshk]

No it is not. And I never said Lara was above Sachin's tier. I think they are both a tier below Bradman. But there are many who think others exist between these two tiers. I don't necessarily have to agree, but what is flat out wrong is to think only you are right. And honestly, I do not have time for a Sachin Vs Lara debate.. I will simply ask you to go read the Lara Vs Sachin thread in this very forum. Suffice to say, irrespective of however you wanna word it, there is more than enough reason for many to rate Lara to be the better batsman of the two. But since stats seems to be the language you speak (I am not getting into the drivel that is "tougher conditions"), here is some facts for you to chew on:

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com


TL;DR : Lara averages more against the better bowlers of his era than Sachin. End of story.

Dude, that's not even a 1 point difference. :/

 

[Coronis]

Interesting stat!

Players' inning to hundred ratio:

Sachin: 329/51 = 6.5

Viv: 182/24 = 7.5

Smith: 126/26 = 4.8

Smith is 3rd all time in this measure.

Bradman 2.76
Headley 4.00
Smith 4.85
Walcott 4.93
J.F Reid 5.17
Kohli 5.22
Sutcliffe 5.25
Kambli 5.25
Weekes 5.4
Pollock 5.85

Sanga, Hayden and Sobers just miss the 10. Reid the big surprise there, helped by his 75% conversion rate! Anyone know why Kambli played so few tests?

 

[srbhkshk]

Sanga, Hayden and Sobers just miss the 10. Reid the big surprise there, helped by his 75% conversion rate! Anyone know why Kambli played so few tests?

He was found out against the pacers who could get some bounce, should have played more tests anyway.

 

[Red]

On Sachin, what a batsman. If Bradman was not included, and I had to pick a batsman to bat for my life (make 100 in randomised conditions against a randomised ATVG attack), I'd take Sachin, without any second thoughts. He was the epitome of technique and soundness, against pace, spin, bounce, turning, whatever. Had it all.

 

[stephen]

On Sachin, what a batsman. If Bradman was not included, and I had to pick a batsman to bat for my life (make 100 in randomised conditions against a randomised ATVG attack), I'd take Sachin, without any second thoughts. He was the epitome of technique and soundness, against pace, spin, bounce, turning, whatever. Had it all.

I'd pick Smith but Sachin would be a house bet too.

 

[aussie tragic]

Change it to 'had to pick a batsman to bat for their life' and I'd definitely pick Smith.

 

[Coronis]

On Sachin, what a batsman. If Bradman was not included, and I had to pick a batsman to bat for my life (make 100 in randomised conditions against a randomised ATVG attack), I'd take Sachin, without any second thoughts. He was the epitome of technique and soundness, against pace, spin, bounce, turning, whatever. Had it all.

I’ve really found it impossible recently for myself to choose between Hobbs, Sobers and Tendulkar as next after Bradman. Of course Smith may end up leapfrogging the lot.

1900’s
Hobbs
Sutcliffe
Bradman*
Chappell
Hammond
Sobers
Knott+
Hadlee
Marshall
Warne
Ambrose

2000’s
Hayden
Sehwag
Lara
Smith
Tendulkar
Kallis
Gilchrist+
Pollock
Steyn
Murali
McGrath

With cross century players went with whichever decade they scored most, made an exception for Warne (351 to 357). Anderson probs deserves a spot over Pollock but **** Anderson. Hard to pick a captain for the 2000’s.

 

[ataraxia]

I think that Hobbs and Hutton should be next after Bradman. Incredible averages in very hard eras for batting.

 

[honestbharani]

Dude, that's not even a 1 point difference. :/

I didn't say they were not close or make any sweeping generalistic BS statement like the post I was quoting now, did I? See, having watched the two, I feel Lara was the better test batsman by a small yet clear margin. If you include both ODIs and Tests, then Sachin wins hands down as he was a MUCH better ODI batsman than Lara. This has always been my position. I mean, their overall test batting averages are like within 1.5 points of each other, it is obviously close.

And I don't pick a fight with anyone who says they pick Sachin over Lara either. I am just pointing out how wrong the posts I quoted were. That is all.

 

[Coronis]

I think that Hobbs and Hutton should be next after Bradman. Incredible averages in very hard eras for batting.

Which part of Hutton’s career was very hard for batting?

 

[ataraxia]

Which part of Hutton’s career was very hard for batting?

Just after the war. Perhaps not 'very hard' but harder than anything else in the past 100 years.

 

[Coronis]

Just after the war. Perhaps not 'very hard' but harder than anything else in the past 100 years.

Doesn’t seem that hard to me. A literal ton of players averaging 50+ in the 40’s.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Doesn’t seem that hard to me. A literal ton of players averaging 50+ in the 40’s.

It's more about the early 50s where there were only a handful. And particularly in two back to back Ashes where he was the best player from either side by a long way.

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

 

[jimmy101]

Doesn’t seem that hard to me. A literal ton of players averaging 50+ in the 40’s.

 

[Tom Flint]

Yes, forgot about Woolmer. You can have Ames + Knott(+) instead of Chapman + Ames(+) if you like.

They also had Colin Blythe. By their all-time third XI they'd have a world-class spinner and keeper surrounded by (relative) mediocrities.

Middlesex also have a decent XI:
Andrew Strauss
Jack Robertson
Denis Compton
Bill Edrich
Patsy Hendren
Mike Gatting
John Murray
Fred Titmus
Gubby Allen
Jack T Hearne
Angus Fraser

Ramprakash

 

[kyear2]

There is quite a short legitimate list for best after Bradman.

Tendulkar, Hobbs, Richards and Lara, with Pollock, Hammond and Headley having legitimate arguments as well.

But ultimately I personally think it really comes down to Sobers or Hutton with Sachin closest to those two.

I haven't factored in Smith as yet, but if he keeps up what he is doing, he I wouldn't be considering him the best after sir Son, but possibly legitimately better.

 

[Chrish]

There is quite a short legitimate list for best after Bradman.

Tendulkar, Hobbs, Richards and Lara, with Pollock, Hammond and Headley having legitimate arguments as well.

But ultimately I personally think it really comes down to Sobers or Hutton with Sachin closest to those two.

I haven't factored in Smith as yet, but if he keeps up what he is doing, he I wouldn't be considering him the best after sir Son, but possibly legitimately better.

Yeah hypothetically if Smith plays 120 tests and ends up with the average close to 70; then I personally would put him in the same bracket as Bradman, or perhaps even better.

 

[Slifer]

Idk about all that, but if Smith somehow crosses 100 tests with an average and a century conversion rate similar to what he has now, then he's the 2nd best no questions asked.....