• 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.

Viv Richards vs Sachin Tendulkar

Who was better?


  • Total voters
    55

Johan

State Regular
Sorry I meant 2011 when he faced peak Steyn and Morkel at home. Cbf digging stats but it is just not true to say Tendulkar never faced an attack as good as West Indies in the '80s.

Viv was too cool to score against lesser bowlers. His swagger only shone against the best.

/s
Ah but in that series , there were also Prter Harris and Tsotsobe in the SA side , 38 and 48 averaging bowlers respectively , then Morkel who is like Southee/Boult tier and uptill 2012 he was a 30+ averaging pacer and then ofcourse Steyn , won't really call this a Truly ATG attack , its one ATG pacer , one Decent support pacer and then two who weren't relevant on international level.

regarding the other point , thats easily refutable , regarding Australia his average was high until last 3 years , quite a bit after Lillee and Thommo were gone and Viv was in decline.

with Newzealand he had two series , one great one and one bad one ( 3-4 innings of averaging 19 ).

with Pakistan I'll have to do a deep dive in his record , gimme a little time.
 
Last edited:

Gob

International Coach
You really shouldn't have the irrelevant 'funny' 3rd option if you want to get the right results from a poll
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
SRT dominating the poll like this has to do with change in age demographics on this forum: most if not all old timers are gone and replaced by younger posters.
Back in 2009 when CW did an exercise to vote top 50 cricketers of all time, Tendulkar was still ranked above Viv Richards.
 

Johan

State Regular
If half cooked numbers is what you want to look at then here is the other angle to it.

If he averages 46+ in matches involving Imran and 50+ with a young Wasim Akram, his overall average against Pak is just short of 42. Performed below par against not so good Pakistan bowlers then?

If he averages 48+ against Lillee then his overall average against Aus is 44.

Overall average against NZ is 43.

He has been monstrous against Eng but let's not pretend Willis and Botham were same level as other pacers of their generation.

Basically Viv only averaged 50 or more against India and England while he didn't even touch 45 against other nations.
so basically the Critisicm against Viv for you is that he didn't Pile on runs on side missing their best bowler but if he did they would count as soft runs no?

either way , he averaged 47+ against Aus till his terminal decline where he was performing below par against pretty much everyone.

against NZ he played 2 series , once where he did extremely well and then 3 innings few years later where he failed but are we judging his batting based on 3 innings in conditions he never played in before? Give me a break , its just like saying DK was a failure in Pakistan and Sri Lanka , contextless and questionable.

against Pak , you'll have to give me some time to look at the bowlers he failed against

Edit - Ah , he had failiure in the first two series he played in 70s and it just happens to be they were against lighter attacks , averaged 72+ ( only two batsmen in this series averaged 35+ ) in his third series against Imran/Iqbal/Nawaz/Qadir attack in Pakistan and was crucial in WI winning the four match series 1-0 ( kek ) , again in 88 was the best Batsmen against Imran/Wasim and Qadir ( Viv averaged 69 ) , in 86 again the best batsmen ( averaged 35 , only other was Haynes who averaged 37.5 via a single not out , both Viv and Haynes played same number of innings and Viv scored more , every one else below 30 ) and bowlers were Imran/Qadir/Akram.

so from what I am seeing , he was the best against their top tier attack in three continous series over 8 years , saying he " struggled " against their average bowlers is true but only in context of his early career , other then that he was pretty Gun against every other pakistan attack he faced , which happened to be really good attacks three times in a row.
 
Last edited:

anil1405

International Captain
so basically the Critisicm against Viv for you is that he didn't Pile on runs on side missing their best bowler but if he did they would count as soft runs no?
Ever heard of the term consistency? When we are comparing two high profile players like Sachin and Viv, consistency plays a key role.

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'.
either way , he averaged 47+ against Aus till his terminal decline where he was performing below par against pretty much everyone.
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.

'Terminal decline' holds true for Sachin as much as it does for Viv during the same last three years of career period.

against NZ he played 2 series , once where he did extremely well and then 3 innings few years later where he failed but are we judging his batting based on 3 innings in conditions he never played in before? Give me a break , its just like saying DK was a failure in Pakistan and Sri Lanka , contextless and questionable.
Take a break and look at Sachin's first series in England and Australia when he was barely 18.

against Pak , you'll have to give me some time to look at the bowlers he failed against

Edit - Ah , he had failiure in the first two series he played in 70s and it just happens to be they were against lighter attacks , averaged 72+ ( only two batsmen in this series averaged 35+ ) in his third series against Imran/Iqbal/Nawaz/Qadir attack in Pakistan and was crucial in WI winning the four match series 1-0 ( kek ) , again in 88 was the best Batsmen against Imran/Wasim and Qadir ( Viv averaged 69 ) , in 86 again the best batsmen ( averaged 35 , only other was Haynes who averaged 37.5 via a single not out , both Viv and Haynes played same number of innings and Viv scored more , every one else below 30 ) and bowlers were Imran/Qadir/Akram.

so from what I am seeing , he was the best against their top tier attack in three continous series over 8 years , saying he " struggled " against their average bowlers is true but only in context of his early career , other then that he was pretty Gun against every other pakistan attack he faced , which happened to be really good attacks three times in a row.
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.

In games involving Imran or Wasim or both he scored 2 centuries in 14 games.
 

Slifer

International Captain
Tendulkar probably faced better fast bowlers too, than Richards.

Richards - Imran, Wasim, Hadlee, Lillee, Thomson, McDermott
Tendulkar - McGrath, Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Pollock, Steyn, Bond, McDermott. He played very little of Wasim, Waqar, Asif, Rabada and Marshall I suppose.
Facing and doing great are two different things. Sachin was mediocre vs Donald, Bond and the WWs. Overall vs McGrath the same. He did well vs Steyn.
 

Slifer

International Captain
If half cooked numbers is what you want to look at then here is the other angle to it.

If he averages 46+ in matches involving Imran and 50+ with a young Wasim Akram, his overall average against Pak is just short of 42. Performed below par against not so good Pakistan bowlers then?

If he averages 48+ against Lillee then his overall average against Aus is 44.

Overall average against NZ is 43.

He has been monstrous against Eng but let's not pretend Willis and Botham were same level as other pacers of their generation.

Basically Viv only averaged 50 or more against India and England while he didn't even touch 45 against other nations.
Ok. Give Viv 16 tests vs Zim and Bang like Sachin did and watch him make up the difference.
 

Johan

State Regular
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.
 
Last edited:

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
Facing and doing great are two different things. Sachin was mediocre vs Donald, Bond and the WWs. Overall vs McGrath the same. He did well vs Steyn.
donald himself called tendulkar the best batsman he ever bowled to...mediocre indeed!
 

Johan

State Regular
Sachin averages 32.9 in matches Donald played , but hey he has 2 hundreds in 20 innings against Donald so he is def better then Viv's 48.7 and 46.6 averages against Lillee and Imran /s
 

Anil

Hall of Fame Member
Opinion is not the same as cold hard facts. And the fact is, Sachin sucked vs RSA when Donald was present.
it's not your opinion or mine, it is donald's and it matters more than selective stats pulled out from wherever...anyway...
 

anil1405

International Captain
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
You mentioned Viv averaged 72 and 69 in two series while his overall average against them is 41? Need I really prove a point here?
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?
We aren't comparing Viv with Ganguly here. When two players are near equal we need to go into detail.

I consider Viv to be a better bat than Sachin in ODIs and also consider him a great player of pace bowlers. But looking at Viv's numbers (number game that you started) things don't add up to Viv totally dominating 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?
Fair enough. I only used centuries to highlight Viv didn't totally dominate pacers.

If WI had a strong team Sachin carried the entire team on his shoulders for a decade.

And I am using sachin's last three years where?
Thats the issue. You are using Viv's last three years of decline to justify why his numbers have declined while ignoring that Sachin also had a near equal decline in his last three years.

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.
Applying same logic there is no reason to believe Viv would've dominated NZ based on one series numbers?
 

Johan

State Regular
You mentioned Viv averaged 72 and 69 in two series while his overall average against them is 41? Need I really prove a point here?
I mean , his consistency is such that he was the best Batsmen in three consecutive sefies and even was the clear cut best in a series where everyone else was batting with Pre Golden Era averages , Viv's only failiure against pakistan was early career ones other then that he was Great against their best attacks by being the best batsmen against Pakistan in 3 series straight, while you can use the first two series to argue that he wasn't good against them overall , he was great ahainst their best bowlers for 8 years straight.

We aren't comparing Viv with Ganguly here. When two players are near equal we need to go into detail.
Very well , but we should also take into account the context behind the runs , we can't just accept viv to average 50 in a series where Miandad is averaging 29 as he is not The Don , what we could see is that he was the best batsmen that series and you can't really suck while being the best Batsmen in a series.

I consider Viv to be a better bat than Sachin in ODIs and also consider him a great player of pace bowlers. But looking at Viv's numbers (number game that you started) things don't add up to Viv totally dominating pace bowlers.
well I guess we have different views on the numbers then

Fair enough. I only used centuries to highlight Viv didn't totally dominate pacers.
yes but same thing with Sachin also applies

2 hundreds out of 18 innings against McGrath , 2 out of 20 against Donald , 1 out of 12 against Wasim , 2 out of 23 against pollock , 0 out of 6 against Ambrose , 0 out of 4 against bond , 1 ( Multan ) out of
12 against Akhtar , 1 out of 10 against Walsh , 1 out of 20 against Jimmy Anderson ( removed last 2 years )

this logic goes both ways , Sachin's hundred rate against great pacers is no different then Viv's but Viv's SR and average against great pacers of his time is a lot better then sachin's against his.

If WI had a strong team Sachin carried the entire team on his shoulders for a decade.
I mean , no one should ever question that Sachin carried the team until Ganguly and Dravid arrived.

Thats the issue. You are using Viv's last three years of decline to justify why his numbers have declined while ignoring that Sachin also had a near equal decline in his last three years.
Sachin had south africa tour in 11 iirc and averaged 47+ in 2011 in general , his last 2 years are abmysal and I pick no arguments from them.

Applying same logic there is no reason to believe Viv would've dominated NZ based on one series numbers?
If you wanna develope conjecture about what Viv could've done against NZ if he played more , the 85 series has a lot more innings then the 87 one so to develope conjecture the series with a greater sample size is the one to use , not the 3 inning one.
 

anil1405

International Captain
yes but same thing with Sachin also applies

2 hundreds out of 18 innings against McGrath , 2 out of 20 against Donald , 1 out of 12 against Wasim , 2 out of 23 against pollock , 0 out of 6 against Ambrose , 0 out of 4 against bond , 1 ( Multan ) out of
12 against Akhtar , 1 out of 10 against Walsh , 1 out of 20 against Jimmy Anderson ( removed last 2 years )

this logic goes both ways , Sachin's hundred rate against great pacers is no different then Viv's but Viv's SR and average against great pacers of his time is a lot better then sachin's against his.
The century count was used ONLY to highlight that Viv didn't totally dominate the pacers of his era in the test format as I pointed out in my previous post.
 

anil1405

International Captain
If you wanna develope conjecture about what Viv could've done against NZ if he played more , the 85 series has a lot more innings then the 87 one so to develope conjecture the series with a greater sample size is the one to use , not the 3 inning one.
So you want me to consider an 8 innings series of Viv over a 6 innings series to get an idea of what he could've achieved in NZ? Amazing.

I'd rather look at the 34 tests against Australia where he averaged 44.43 and 16 tests against Pak where he averaged 41.96 to get a picture of what he could've achieved against Hadlee and Co.
 

Johan

State Regular
The century count was used ONLY to highlight that Viv didn't totally dominate the pacers of his era in the test format as I pointed out in my previous post.
well sure thing , he didn't totally destroy the ATG bowlers he faced but did extremely well in comparasion to ATG batsmen of his own era and the next.
 

Johan

State Regular
So you want me to consider an 8 innings series of Viv over a 6 innings series to get an idea of what he could've achieved in NZ? Amazing.

I'd rather look at the 34 tests against Australia where he averaged 44.43 and 16 tests against Pak where he averaged 41.96 to get a picture of what he could've achieved against Hadlee and Co.
if you wanna play the assumption game , sure the 6 inning series is a lot better then 3 as it has literally twice the knocks.

I mean , Newzealand's conditions are a lot more similar to England then they are to aus and pakistan but you do you , if it means Viv would've been the best batsmen in 3 series straight against Hadlee I've no problem with that.
 

Johan

State Regular
Except that Eng never had a bowler close to the quality of Hadlee during Viv's days.
Hadlee rarely got him out even in the series where he averaged 19 , meanwhile he averaged 71.6 against Prime Botham , same Prime Botham took 215 wickets at 21.75 at 49
 

Top