Steve Smith vs Sachin Tendulkar

[trundler]

Where exactly?

I pointed out precisely why Viv's stats are top notch.

When then?

Viv dominated rankings to a greater extent than Tendulkar or Hutton and maybe Smith too. This is an imperfect measure but he stood out a lot more during his career generally.

Very nice to meet you pot, I’m kettle.

'no u'

 

[Coronis]

I pointed out precisely why Viv's stats are top notch.

Viv dominated rankings to a greater extent than Tendulkar or Hutton and maybe Smith too. This is an imperfect measure but he stood out a lot more during his career generally.

'no u'

You pointed out his stats are great which, congrats I’ve already agreed with on several occasions. Point is they’re not as good as those who I consider top tier.

Perhaps he did? What’s more important short term domination or long term domination/consistency? Clearly we have differing views on this.

Anyway tired of this argument - its derailed this thread enough and I only get so many days off work.

I’ll see you in another thread brother

 

[Silver Line]

Vivian Richards was an outstanding Test Batsman. He averaged 55.5 from 1976-88. He has played 2/3 career games away where he averaged 53 in this time span.

he averaged 58.5 at home during this time and had he had equal distribution of home and away games like every other batsman, he would have likely been an overall 57 averaging batsman on true stats.

viv is absolutely comparable to the elite test batsmen, his away stat is comparable to smith’s away game. Thats how good it is!

i do not like the strike rate argument in tests though. Batsmen often need to go defensive to win a game in test. High SR values nothing in Tests. As Low SR could be a sign of grit too to counter the values of High SR.

 

[Chrish]

I would universally take a batsman who can score faster over the others if other factors are equal.

Scoring faster demoralizes the opposition. Counter-attacking player who smashes your bowlers and you realize game is already slipping away from your hand. That’s the worst feeling ever.

 

[Silver Line]

I would universally take a batsman who can score faster over the others if other factors are equal.

Scoring faster demoralizes the opposition. Counter-attacking player who smashes your bowlers and you realize game is already slipping away from your hand. That’s the worst feeling ever.

blocking the balls away like a wall also demoralizes the opposition. SR in statistical evaluations does not hold regard. Every test match requires different Strike approaches.

 

[trundler]

You pointed out his stats are great which, congrats I’ve already agreed with on several occasions. Point is they’re not as good as those who I consider top tier.

Yes they are, with context. Viv's average is lower but he played in a tougher era and didn't get to minnow bash. These two factors pretty much any difference on that front. How much do other comparable batsman average without minnows? It's only fair to exclude them when comparing to someone who didn't get to minnow bash at all. They're not just 'great', they're elite.

I’ll see you in another thread brother

This is a given, isn't it?

 

[Chrish]

Viv was also capable of blocking. Those highlights don’t show you his iron defense. Being in that WI team meant he didn’t usually need to play defensive.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Counter-attacking player who smashes your bowlers and you realize game is already slipping away from your hand. That’s the worst feeling ever.

These are a very small minority of innings for any top order batsman not named Viv or Sehwag

 

[Chrish]

These are a very small minority of innings for any top order batsman not named Viv or Sehwag

Hayden scored at brisk pace too. I still have nightmares remembering when he got set.

 

[OverratedSanity]

You pointed out his stats are great which, congrats I’ve already agreed with on several occasions. Point is they’re not as good as those who I consider top tier.

Perhaps he did? What’s more important short term domination or long term domination/consistency? Clearly we have differing views on this.

Anyway tired of this argument - its derailed this thread enough and I only get so many days off work.

I’ll see you in another thread brother

This is just going to lead to the old Viv vs Greg Chappell argument again when you argue Chappell averaged 53 and I argue Viv averaged the same after an equal number of tests.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I would universally take a batsman who can score faster over the others if other factors are equal.

Scoring faster demoralizes the opposition. Counter-attacking player who smashes your bowlers and you realize game is already slipping away from your hand. That’s the worst feeling ever.

yeah and this is only the tip of the iceberg. We've been over this here ad nauseam in the past, general summary is that a quicker scoring rate is a huge advantage for many reasons. Not the least winning games of cricket which an important of the point of playing.

 

[Coronis]

yeah and this is only the tip of the iceberg. We've been over this here ad nauseam in the past, general summary is that a quicker scoring rate is a huge advantage for many reasons. Not the least winning games of cricket which an important of the point of playing.

Ok Baz

 

[kyear2]

Its really not.

Also consensus = general agreement, there is no general agreement (and I doubt there ever will be) of who is the greatest after Bradman. The 3 names most discussed by a margin (on CW at least) are Hobbs, Sobers and Tendulkar. Richards is most often considered in the next group below that alongside Hammond, Lara etc.

This is demonstratively not true. The general consensus here for some time besides you and PEWS is that the best after Bradman, in some order is Hobbs, Sobers, Richards, Tendulkar, Smith. I disagree with Hobbs but that's not my call to make.

And to echo something JB also said a little further down in the thread, SR is important for a number reason, not least as he said to win the actual games.

It is also a hallmark of great teams, they attack, demoralize and gets the bowlers off rhythm.

It's also one of the main reasons we don't rate Kallis as highly, Chanderpaul at all (personal pet peeve) and Barrington etc isn't included in the pantheon.

And Trundler is somewhat right, some do tend to over rate players we've never seen and honestly played a completely different game to what's played today, in only 2 countries and vs limited competition.

On topic, I think Sachin is either one or two in this little group, so for now I'll go with him.

 

[Adorable Asshole]

yeah and this is only the tip of the iceberg. We've been over this here ad nauseam in the past, general summary is that a quicker scoring rate is a huge advantage for many reasons. Not the least winning games of cricket which an important of the point of playing.

Or as the recently concluded Ashes has shown that sometimes it could have negative consequences in not providing bowlers adequate time to rest.

 

[trundler]

This is demonstratively not true. The general consensus here for some time besides you and PEWS is that the best after Bradman, in some order is Hobbs, Sobers, Richards, Tendulkar, Smith. I disagree with Hobbs but that's not my call to make.

And to echo something JB also said a little further down in the thread, SR is important for a number reason, not least as he said to win the actual games.

It is also a hallmark of great teams, they attack, demoralize and gets the bowlers off rhythm.

It's also one of the main reasons we don't rate Kallis as highly, Chanderpaul at all (personal pet peeve) and Barrington etc isn't included in the pantheon.

And Trundler is somewhat right, some do tend to over rate players we've never seen and honestly played a completely different game to what's played today, in only 2 countries and vs limited competition.

On topic, I think Sachin is either one or two in this little group, so for now I'll go with him.

See, it isn't just your terrible opinions on Imran that annoy me.

 

[Coronis]

This is demonstratively not true. The general consensus here for some time besides you and PEWS is that the best after Bradman, in some order is Hobbs, Sobers, Richards, Tendulkar, Smith. I disagree with Hobbs but that's not my call to make.

And to echo something JB also said a little further down in the thread, SR is important for a number reason, not least as he said to win the actual games.

It is also a hallmark of great teams, they attack, demoralize and gets the bowlers off rhythm.

It's also one of the main reasons we don't rate Kallis as highly, Chanderpaul at all (personal pet peeve) and Barrington etc isn't included in the pantheon.

And Trundler is somewhat right, some do tend to over rate players we've never seen and honestly played a completely different game to what's played today, in only 2 countries and vs limited competition.

On topic, I think Sachin is either one or two in this little group, so for now I'll go with him.

lol did you seriously bump a 2 month old thread just to push your Richards agenda on me?

I said the 3 names most discussed on CW behind Bradman are Hobbs/Sobers/Tendulkar.

Looking at that CW batsman voting from last year - how did that vote for 3rd place go again… 11 votes for Sobers, 10 for Tendulkar, 1 for Richards?

But it’s demonstrably not true for me to say those two and Hobbs are more discussed and Richards is generally seen in that group behind them (with players such as Hammond, Hutton, Gavaskar, Lara, Smith - usually heading up this group but I often see Lara challenging him) - in fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen him beat any of those 3 in a poll here. Oh boy what a controversial thing to say though.

 

[kyear2]

See, it isn't just your terrible opinions on Imran that annoy me.

Same hwre

lol did you seriously bump a 2 month old thread just to push your Richards agenda on me?

I said the 3 names most discussed on CW behind Bradman are Hobbs/Sobers/Tendulkar.

Looking at that CW batsman voting from last year - how did that vote for 3rd place go again… 11 votes for Sobers, 10 for Tendulkar, 1 for Richards?

But it’s demonstrably not true for me to say those two and Hobbs are more discussed and Richards is generally seen in that group behind them (with players such as Hammond, Hutton, Gavaskar, Lara, Smith - usually heading up this group but I often see Lara challenging him) - in fact I don’t think I’ve ever seen him beat any of those 3 in a poll here. Oh boy what a controversial thing to say though.

Not pushing anything, responded to a post. I know there's no changing your mind on Richards and I have no desire to in any event, but strike rate is important for batsmen in cricket, and it does have a tangible impact.

Re the 3rd place vote, I do believe he's behind Sobers and Tendulkar, but next in line, so no surprise there.

I assume Hobbs was 2nd? My stance on that is clear but no arguments there

 

[Coronis]

Same hwre

Not pushing anything, responded to a post. I know there's no changing your mind on Richards and I have no desire to in any event, but strike rate is important for batsmen in cricket, and it does have a tangible impact.

Re the 3rd place vote, I do believe he's behind Sobers and Tendulkar, but next in line, so no surprise there.

I assume Hobbs was 2nd? My stance on that is clear but no arguments there

Our individual opinions aren’t the point here - the point is I said the overall opinion on here is that those 3 are ahead of Richards and you needed to come in with your demonstratively not true bs even when its been clearly shown in multiple threads that it is true.

 

[kyear2]

Our individual opinions aren’t the point here - the point is I said the overall opinion on here is that those 3 are ahead of Richards and you needed to come in with your demonstratively not true bs even when its been clearly shown in multiple threads that it is true.

Didn't say that they weren't ahead, I said that most see him as being in that top tier. Some see him as the very best after Bradman, but very few see him in a separate tier from them. Lara, Hutton, Hammond, Gavaskar generally would start off that second tier.

I believe I'm just about as well versed as you are as to the general tone of the forum.

 

[Prince EWS]

It's also one of the main reasons we don't rate Kallis as highly

Speak for yourself. I do rate Kallis as highly.

I think there are two prime reasons I don't care about strike rate at all for top order batsmen while most others on this forum do.

1. I care about winning series, not winning matches.
2. I care about how much players would help average and poor teams as much as how much they'd help good ones.

It's absolutely true that all other things equal, if you compared two batsmen who scored the same amount of runs every time but one did it quicker, that would change some draws into results.

But if 70% of your draws are games you would have lost if they had a sixth day, how on earth is that a good thing? You just lose more.

Scoring the same of runs but quicker creates more Test wins but also creates more Test losses. And depending on the strength of the team at the time that could be either good or bad overall for your series results.

And in the cases of Richards and Kallis we're not even just talking about "all things equal" comparisons a lot of the time. People often rate Richards ahead of players who they even admit was probably better at scoring runs before getting out because strike rate apparently closes the gap, which is I think is insane.