DoG's Top 100 Test Batsmen Countdown Thread

[Logan]

I was talking about tendulkar, but it applies to both. Each of them great players but the idea they “took cricket itself” further is just kind of, well, not true. Sort of reeks of the “Warne saved spin bowling” trope.

There are great players and there are great players who also changed the game. Brian Lara, Shane Warne and Virat Kohli belong to the former category while Sachin Tendulkar belongs to latter category.

 

[Migara]

I don’t know about Gavaskar not backing down to Lillee. He averaged 20 in the only series he played a full strength Australian attack here, so I don’t know that he had a great deal of room to move tbh.

I appreciate your sentiments and he was certainly a fine player, but I’m not entirely sure how you’ve answered my query about how tendulkar went on to change cricket itself, as great a player as he was.

Did a full strength Aussie side tour India?

 

[srbhkshk]

There are great players and there are great players who also changed the game. Brian Lara, Shane Warne and Virat Kohli belong to the former category while Sachin Tendulkar belongs to latter category.

I think it's more appropriate to say that he changed cricket in India rather than cricket itself, When no one from a country has done X and somewhat goes ahead and does that it's certainly a confidence booster, but I don't think Tendulkar's career would have anywhere near as much to do with a young budding batsman from Australia compared to someone from India.

 

[h_hurricane]

There are great players and there are great players who also changed the game. Brian Lara, Shane Warne and Virat Kohli belong to the former category while Sachin Tendulkar belongs to latter category.

Tendulkar was a highly individualistic player, played for a lot of records, was good enough to grab many of them. Indians including me remember him for all his records and setting the bar pretty high in that regard. It is hard to see how a lot of other countries, Australia specifically, take the same amount of liking to record breaking and equate it to impacting/changing the game.

 

[Burgey]

No cricketer including Don Bradman had a bigger impact on modernising the game of cricket than Sachin.


Cricket changed forever the moment Sachin Tendulkar signed a $7.5 million contract way back in 1995. Lokesh Sharma, India’s leading sports consultant said "Sachin would be earning thrice as much as all the cricketers combined in the history of Indian cricket."

For the first time, BCCI realised that cricket was a goldmine waiting to be untapped. Few years after Sachin’s contract; various cricketers began signing contracts worth millions of dollars. Today when cricketers sign contracts of millions of dollars for a weeks of IPL, they can thanks the Sachin for showing there was money making potential in cricket.





This

I presume you aren’t aware of what happened in 1977? I think HB is right in terms of both fellas inspiring the next gen of players in India for sure, but I think the idea of any player sort of moving the game forward in and by themselves is sort of overblown. Understandably in a lot of cases, but still overblown.

I think many of the really big things which have advanced cricket - proper player payments, night matches, IPL and other leagues etc have actually been the result of administrators rather than players.

But again, I get the inspiring later generations thing. Particularly as someone who has inspired a younger generation of posters on CW.net myself.

 

[Burgey]

Did a full strength Aussie side tour India?

They did in 1970 iirc but I don’t know if he’d debuted then. I think the next time they toured there was maybe late 70s during WSC but I might be mistaken in that and I CBF looking it up at half eleven at night on my phone. I know we toured there in 86 when the tied test happened in the City Which Dare Not Speak Its Name with the open sewer around the ground, but again, not sure when Australia toured there between times. It wasn’t a tour on the radar back then and there was zero tv coverage here, sadly.

 

[h_hurricane]

I would say Yuvraj Singh impacted Indian cricket in a big way and to a lesser extent world cricket. If he had not won those couple of WT20 matches out of nowhere, IPL would not have happened or at the very least would not have had the same mass following.

 

[Logan]

Gavaskar changed the game in India. Sachin changed the game overall. Big difference.

 

[srbhkshk]

I would say Yuvraj Singh impacted Indian cricket in a big way and to a lesser extent world cricket. If he had not won those couple of WT20 matches out of nowhere, IPL would not have happened or at the very least would not have had the same mass following.

This is getting suspiciously close to saying that RP Singh impacted Indian cricket in a big way and I'm not sure I like that.

 

[Burgey]

Gavaskar changed the game in India. Sachin changed the game overall. Big difference.

But he really didn’t mate. He was a really great and prolific middle order batsman. Terrific player but he genuinely did not change the game of cricket. Not an iota.

 

[h_hurricane]

If India goes on to produce a set of ATG quick bowlers in the next decade or so, Kohli would be seen as the player who impacted that in a big way by the coming generations. Even for a nanosecond, I don't believe Kohli, Lara and Warne do not belong to the same category as Sachin as Logan has put here.

 

[Logan]

I
I think the idea of any player sort of moving the game forward in and by themselves is sort of overblown. Understandably in a lot of cases, but still overblown. .

The game would move forward no doubt. But Sachin was a catalyst that accelerated the growth of the game at a much faster pace. Sachin showed that cricketers could make a lot of money. After Sachin signed the WorldTel contract, Jayasuriya signed a similar contract which inspired many SL cricketers to actively pursue the game.

I believe without Sachin, the game of cricket wouldn’t have been as big as today in India. India is a cricket power centre and generates the maximum revenue. All this would have been delayed. The administrators played a huge role but they needed a figure to attract the masses. Prassana took a break from cricket to pursue engineering. After the 90s, cricket became a full time profession as many youngsters realised there was financial incentive to being a cricketer.

 

[Logan]

Even for a nanosecond, I don't believe Kohli, Lara and Warne do not belong to the same category as Sachin as Logan has put here.

The game of cricket is as popular today as it was when Kohli debuted. The game’s popularity in India exponentially increased due to Sachin and the revenue from that impacted cricket to a huge extent.

 

[Logan]

But he really didn’t mate. He was a really great and prolific middle order batsman. Terrific player but he genuinely did not change the game of cricket. Not an iota.

It changed a lot. The very next year after Sachin signed his huge contract, Jayasuriya signed a similar contract. In a few years time, Ganguly signed another big contract. It all started with Sachin.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

A single sportsperson can make a huge difference to a sport in a country. Like Gavaskar in India, Imran in Pakistan and Ranatunga in SL. Cricket in those respective countries saw a drastic rise in popularity due to them.

You did not refute the point that India was probably passionate for cricket before Gavaskar.

It's a matter of perception, including retrospect. I'm not saying someone can't be hero-worshipped or idolised or anything or that their success cannot give new life to something or new-found popularity—we see it all the time—, but that may obscure the groundwork: cricket was popular in India before Gavsakar, and more popular after, and he is not exceptional in that regard. How did people get into cricket in India before, did they have their own heroes? Did it effect the tone of media coverage thereby inflating the sport's prominence in newspapers, etc. despite it already being incredibly popular to make it even more incredibly popular? You mentioned the national situation: did rising living standards play a part, and an ever so slightly wealthier population more able to partake in such activity latch onto someone who was round at the right time, but would have remained much more obscure if he'd debuted in 1949?

And so on, you will disagree with what I am saying, but it's the same sort of thing, and it behoves one to take a less wrapped-up view of things. Don't be like the Big Bash commentators.



Two other points:

First, to say that, 'In India, many people inspired, therefore must make greatest' is a somewhat blinkered view, but this is what your argument collapses too. Did Bradman not count because Aus's population was much smaller than England's, ergo, cricket 'wasn't as popular'? Or the WI population is smaller again, so they don't count as much? Population may determine bums on seats, but greatness as a sportsman to be ultimately measured in sporting terms, with other factors secondary. From an Aus perspective, I actually doubt he would have made that much of an impression on the Australian fans compared to the WI players. India saw its tours of Aus cut from 5 tests in 77/78 (its first since 67/68) to 3 in 80/81 and 85/86, only increasing again after his retirement: perhaps he damaged India's cause in Ind-Aus cricket and his retirement raised it again (absurd, I know, but the same sort of logic).
Also, for raising India's profile: New Zealand improved in the some period India did, what about that? Should Bevan Congdon and Geoff Howarth be put up several rungs in Circket's greats because New Zealand became a team that could win and draw (rather constantly lose series) under their watch?

As for the commercial side of the game, Kerry Packer was the first to actually turn cricket into a commercial package, what about him? Perhaps Ian Chappell should be the man who 'changed cricket itself' as he was the player who did the most (IIRC) to spearhead the change and establish WSC, and everyone else is just followers or merely copying the latest trends in other sports to greater commercialisation and pay.

 

[harsh.ag]

Depends on what you mean by changed? Sachin probably accelerated the advent of a few things by making cricket more popular in India than it had a right to be during that time. If you consider acceleration of history "change", then he did change things.

 

[h_hurricane]

The game of cricket is as popular today as it was when Kohli debuted. The game’s popularity in India exponentially increased due to Sachin and the revenue from that impacted cricket to a huge extent.

Kohli has a different set of challenges to face w.r.t Sachin as far as popularity though. People are passionately taking to other sports, for instance Badminton. Leagues like Indian Super League, Pro Kabaddi League have huge fan following if you ask me. Tendulkar also benefited from the advent of Television. There were hardly many when Gavaskar and Kapil were at their peak. Though many fans would be glued to radio during those times.

 

[Burgey]

Depends on what you mean by changed? Sachin probably accelerated the advent of a few things by making cricket more popular in India than it had a right to be during that time. If you consider acceleration of history "change", then he did change things.

But what? MRF sponsoring bats? I mean, good on him and all, great player, but he’s not a WG Grace or a Bosanquet is he? more than happy to say he’s a hero and all, but this idea he accelerated or transformed cricket seems really weird to me. If you argued the same about Frankie Worrell I’d have your back, but I genuinely don’t get it with Tendulkar (or warne, or Lara etc).

Fmd Murali had the biggest influence on transforming the game over any other player on the past 20 years, surely? Doug Marrillier was more influential, come to that.

 

[Coronis]

Yeah yeah, love your work DoG... Can you do top 100 players who changed the game of cricket next?

 

[harsh.ag]

But what? MRF sponsoring bats? I mean, good on him and all, great player, but he’s not a WG Grace or a Bosanquet is he? more than happy to say he’s a hero and all, but this idea he accelerated or transformed cricket seems really weird to me. If you argued the same about Frankie Worrell I’d have your back, but I genuinely don’t get it with Tendulkar (or warne, or Lara etc).

Fmd Murali had the biggest influence on transforming the game over any other player on the past 20 years, surely? Doug Marrillier was more influential, come to that.

Without the great increase in commercialization due to Sachin, T20 leagues would probably have taken more time to get off the ground.