Ever heard of the term consistency? When we are comparing two high profile players like Sachin and Viv, consistency plays a key role.
Sure thing , but I don't see your point here regarding consistency because you're not really proving that Viv was " inconsistent " in any sense against Pakistan or Australia is really just ignoring any form of context behind numbers , in the 5 series he played against Pakistan he was the best Batsmen 3 times
Soft runs are the runs scored against teams like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe. I wouldn't really coin runs scored against decent to good bowlers of teams like Aus, Pak and NZ as 'soft runs'.
I mean , if someone doesn't score too many runs against strong attacks while completely brutalizes weak attacks we don't rate him but when the deal is the exact opposite we still blame the Batsmen because of not completely cashing on the average bowlers?
Viv scored two centuries in 11 games against Aus that Lillee played in. Again not a great output for a guy who is known to have dominated pace bowlers.
so now its about how many centuries they scored? Viv scored 2 centuries in 19 innings against Lillee , 2 in 24 against immy , while this is true , Viv played in a lineup of stars and wasn't really scoring most of the team's run , imagine a scenario where the target is 250 , the openers put a hundred runs and how Viv scores 80* with his partner scoring 70* , that doesn't in any sense mean he " struggled "
using hundreds is a meassure which is exactly like Five fers , they are dependant on factors beyond the control of the player , do you rate Dennis Lillee above McGrath and Marshall because of five fers? Garner must be below likes of Morkel due to lack of five fers too huh? Why is this hundred logic applied to batting and not to bowling and five fers as well?
'Terminal decline' holds true for Sachin as much as it does for Viv during the same last three years of career period.
And I am using sachin's last three years where?
Take a break and look at Sachin's first series in England and Australia when he was barely 18.
again , I already saw what Viv could do against NZ attack in a full blown series and I have no reason to take a three inning series and claim he was subpar against Newzealand.
To have averaged 72 and 69 in two series against Pak while his overall average was 41.96 means he really sucked in remaining games.
He was newbie in first series , failed in it and the attack was meh , was subpar in the second series , was the best Batsmen by far in the third series , was the best Batsmen in the four series ( everyone except haynes who viv Outscored averaged 29 or less ) and then again the clear cut best in the third series and all three series had good attacks , being the best Batsmen in 3 out of 5 series against a team and against their best attacks at that isn't " sucking " or being bad against the team
In games involving Imran or Wasim or both he scored 2 centuries in 14 games.
seven innings against wasim and 1 hundred , 24 against imran and 2 hundreds and again , I don't buy this stuff , I don't buy the the great amount of five fers as evidence of Lillee being the best ever or lack of five fers as evidence Garner isn't one of the very best of all time and thus I see no reason to buy the " number of hundred " logic as that also depends on factors such as who else is in the team , same thing as five fer , If I apply it to bowling I'll apply it to batting and any other way is simply hypocritical.
its not like Sachin did something classic against pacers , 2 out of 18 against McGrath , 2 out of 20 against Donald , 1 in 12 against Wasim , 2 out of 23 against pollock , 0 in 6 against Ambrose , 0 in 4 against bond , 1 in 12 against Akhtar , 1 in 10 against Walsh , 1 in 26 against Jimmy Anderson
Man , seems like selective reading on Viv stopped you from looking at the amount of hundreds Sachin has in tests against Great Pacers , Sachin's hundred rate doesn't seem any good when met with same metrics that Viv is being asked to follow.
