Viv Richards vs Sachin Tendulkar

[Prince EWS]

Given the recent goings on in the chess world, are you suggesting Tendulkar was a cheat?

Yes.

 

[Burgey]

Yes.

I thought so.

Off to the Hague with you then

 

[Slifer]

While it is true that Sachin was never really dominant against pace like Viv was, he was pretty good against pace for a very long period over over 15 years.

Probably true but then I wonder how him and his contemporaries would fare had they played Lillee and thommo etc with minimal protection and limitless bouncers. Anyway Sachin > Viv isn't exactly the end of the world or anything.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Sachin being a cheat is a proven fact

unlike David Warner who is only an alleged cheat

 

[Prince EWS]

Sachin being a cheat is a proven fact

unlike David Warner who is only an alleged cheat

Exactly.

Purely from the cheating/lying aspect it has to be Sachin.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah and purely from a chess perspective it's probably Tendulkar but that's not the question.

come on man, that is unnecessarily harsh.

 

[Burgey]

Sachin being a cheat is a proven fact

unlike David Warner who is only an alleged cheat

That's renowned justice dispenser to racists/ racist adjacents David Warner to you, thanks very much.

 

[Fuller Pilch]

Taking a players best season/series away to judge is the most ****ty way to critique him.

Sachin if you take his hundreds and fifties away was worse batsman then Shane Warne. Sachin went 210 innings without a 100/50 in his career Warne only 187 so Warne is better.

Chris Martin only went 104 innings and had 52 not outs - better than both of them.

 

[TheJediBrah]

That's renowned justice dispenser to racists/ racist adjacents David Warner to you, thanks very much.

Imagine David Warner and Ben Stokes out on the town together. Social Justice never looked so achievable

 

[subshakerz]

Probably true but then I wonder how him and his contemporaries would fare had they played Lillee and thommo etc with minimal protection and limitless bouncers. Anyway Sachin > Viv isn't exactly the end of the world or anything.

I think Sachin would adapt, his technique was good enough and I rarely recalled him flustered by pure pace or bounce. I think he would be more troubled by Imran's late swing and Hadlee's seam.

 

[Chrish]

Don’t really recall that many instances where Tendy was hit on the body by short pitch stuff. He wore helmet but that’s because he grew up in the helmet era.

Players in 70s started without helmets and some of them carried on without it when it became mainstream.

 

[Johan]

Viv in both formats , more clutch and better against pace in my opinion.

 

[mr_mister]

Taking a players best season/series away to judge is the most ****ty way to critique him.

Sachin if you take his hundreds and fifties away was worse batsman then Shane Warne. Sachin went 210 innings without a 100/50 in his career Warne only 187 so Warne is better.

If you don't see a difference between taking one year away to make a point compared to all his hundreds I dunno what to tell ya

 

[subshakerz]

If you don't see a difference between taking one year away to make a point compared to all his hundreds I dunno what to tell ya

I see your point but the reason people rate Viv in the first place is because of his highs. You take that away and there isnt any argument left.

 

[mr_mister]

Is it easier to swallow if I just say from 1977-1991 he had ATVG statistical output, not ATG output and certainly not potentially best after Bradman output

 

[Johan]

the problem with removing 76 and judging 77 to 91 is that viv from 77 to 88 averaged 49.3 ( 81 matches 5381 runs ) and from 79 to 88 around 51.65 ( 74 matches , 5000+ runs ) and these are without his wsc stuff , it falls to 45 because of last 3 years.

 

[ashley bach]

Explosive, elegant, boring. and you all know which player fits that description.
It's an old cliche but Jacques average is much better than his rivals, so that certainly counts for a lot, still think he's the 3rd best bat but reckon
it's much closer than what the votes will determine.

 

[subshakerz]

Is it easier to swallow if I just say from 1977-1991 he had ATVG statistical output, not ATG output and certainly not potentially best after Bradman output

No because in reality he was still peak ATG from 77 to 81, ATVG from 82 to 88 and below par after that. If you looking at huge portions of a career it has to make sense which periods you select. His peak began in 76 so not including that in your calculations and then beginning from 77 which is mid-peak doesn't make sense.

I think it would be better to just reframe your argument that Viv's peak doesn't compensate for a longer time he was ATVG or below, which is fair. But his 76 year was a monumental achievement that in some way compensates for his latter shallower times.

 

[Johan]

Viv's average from 77-88 is 50+ with WSC included , its really just the last three years that ruins his average , from 84-88 it was also 49 with 75+ SR.

Viv averaged 50+ in 8 out of 18 years ( not counting WSC ) he played while sachin 12 out of his own like 25? , Its not a proper argument at all

 

[h_hurricane]

Viv until his 37th birthday was averaging 52.83 in tests. That is around 15 years into his career. Slump in his average happened after an age when most players retire. Raw average hardly does justice to him. Same could be said about Sachin as well btw.