subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
Understood and I do think that is fair. Tendulkar should have had at least one major run series, even if against lesser opposition.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Sachin Tendulkar vs Garry Sobers
- Thread starter PlayerComparisons
- Start date
karan_fromthestands
State Captain
I never appreciated Sachin earlier, but his consistency is simply unmatched. So many of his knocks are criminally underrated. Also, we've mostly had a very average bowling/fielding side for the most part when he was playing.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
That is true. His 136 against Pakistan is almost the same innings as Lara's 153 except that Tendulkar fell short. The former wont appear in people's top 50 list while the latter is in the top 3 ever.
Coronis
International Coach
Lots of players have great innings like that if you add qualifiers like that to them. Also helps that Australia’s attack was clearly superior to Pakistan’s.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I think you are selling the Chennai innings short. It was a top drawer innings that is just completely ignored because of the match result and somehow people claim Tendulkar never played great knocks.
On paper, yes, Australia had a better attack. But Akram and Saqlain were bowling very well that innings while Warne was well below par in that WI series so it is closer than it seems.
Coronis
International Coach
Except MacGill, Gillespie and even McGrath were literally in the form of their lives, so no, not really that close imo.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
My point is that the Chennai knock is an objectively great innings and should rate higher regardless of result. Like Sanga's 192, Gavaskar's 96, etc.
Coronis
International Coach
Its not necessarily losing marks, but another innings receiving extra marks (deservedly imo) for literally winning a match.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I think it is natural to rate innings higher if it contributed to a victory, but sometimes it goes too far.
BazBall21
International Captain
You have it right then. But not everyone does.
h_hurricane
International Vice-Captain
Sobers for me was the greater batsman, by a very thin margin. Though, it is a reasonable opinion to rate Sachin higher.
karan_fromthestands
State Captain
Tbh, you can't do much if players around you are simply not up to the mark(or not up to the mark in a given match/series). Considering winning/losing while judging an innings is sometimes not correct. Imagine if Lara didn't get support from 3 other batters in the team who scored useful 30s and WI would have lost, people wouldn't have rated that brilliant 153 that highly and that would have been stupid.
karan_fromthestands
State Captain
Agreed, so it's like claiming that a performance is good, but not great because others around the player failed.
h_hurricane
International Vice-Captain
I think Tendulkar gets marked down unfairly for India's defeat against Pakistan. But he was dismissed that innings, which means it wasn't as he was stranded at one end. It was a great great innings though most would agree that Lara's 153* was a step higher.
On the other hand, there could be valid counter points that Sachin had a terrible back injury through that innings and Lara was fortunate to be dropped by Healy close to achieving the target.
On the other hand, there could be valid counter points that Sachin had a terrible back injury through that innings and Lara was fortunate to be dropped by Healy close to achieving the target.
subshakerz
Hall of Fame Member
I guess my point was that the innings are close. But one gets featured in the top five of all-time, the other doesn't make the top 100 most times.
karan_fromthestands
State Captain
Sachin only had Mongia who provided some support in that innings, while Lara had 3 batters who chipped in with useful 30s. I would still not claim that Sachin's inning was better or on par, just pointing out at the variables we always miss when we are so obsessed with stats and certain conditions without really looking at so many other factors that impact each game/innings.
Also, as mentioned by @subshakerz that "the innings are close. But one gets featured in the top five of all-time, the other doesn't make the top 100 most times. "
Overall, stats-crunching is good for the romance of it, but a lot of times it create a very unclear picture of things.
Arachnodouche
International Captain
Also, I know the "weight of a country on his shoulders" thing is a bit of meme, but that Chennai game was insane, cave-the-earth in kind of pressure, the like no countries other than India and Pak of that time can understand. All these ppl with their pretty little stable borders pfft...you're comparing cricket as chess with bloody russian roulette.
Of course Tendulkar failed to finish the job unlike Lara so he doesn't get to brag but he was very close there to the greatest Test innings of all time.
Of course Tendulkar failed to finish the job unlike Lara so he doesn't get to brag but he was very close there to the greatest Test innings of all time.
anil1405
International Captain
Agree how stats obsessed people get when it comes to rating players but pitch conditions, match situations and peer pressure circumstances often gets overlooked.
The latter factors add even more substance when we are comparing players with almost identical status/records.