Jasprit Bumrah vs Malcolm Marshall

[subshakerz]

2. It's always stated how he dominated the WWs and Donald and Pollock and used to prove his dominance over Lara, but averaged 32 and 33 in the era vs both teams.

Nobody ever claimed that Tendulkar was dominant against those pacers but that he generally did not struggle as much as Lara and held his own. Especially when you factor in facing them as a teen.

And please don't forget, that like SA during the dead era, that India in the 90's was still flat and unhelpful to pacers.

India in the 90s wasn't flat. It wasnt a pace heaven but certainly offered more to plenty of capable touring pacers than the 2000s.

For me there's no clear distinction between the 4 or 5 (possibly even 6) batsmen who vie for that title, everyone may have their preference, but to suggest that Sachin is a half tier above is some retroactive adjustments that didn't exist over Lara even when they played.

I agree but I don't begrudge those who privilege certain criteria like longevity to set Tendulkar a notch ahead.

 

[subshakerz]

I know this isn’t fair but take 1976 out and he isn’t really that special anymore.

1977-1988 : 81 Tests. 5381 runs @ 49. 15 tons.
1977-1991 : 100 Tests. 6359 runs @ 46. 16 tons.
1976 : 11 Tests. 1710 runs @ 90. 6 tons.

Yeah but then we should add WSC since that took 2-3 years of his peak from international cricket.

 

[subshakerz]

I swear you can't read.

And you can go back to see the same things.

I have them as equals, if I have to list them it's in order of strength of attacks faced.

As I said, everyone would have their favorites, but to suggest that some are somehow separated from the rest is silly.

As you yourself have stated and advocated. It's quite simple for batsmen, we can trace that line from Hobbs to Smith for best batsmen of generations and it just lines up.

Hobbs - Bradman - Hutton - Sobers - Richards - Richards - Lara / Tendulkar - Smith.

Hammond probably squeezed in there for a couple years before Bradman, but basically that's it.

Those are the elite guys of the sport.

You have Tendulkar as first among equals in that group.

You agree with @capt_Luffy that he is the best since Bradman.

Case closed.

 

[DrWolverine]

Yeah but then we should add WSC.

Packer’s circus?

 

[subshakerz]

Packer’s circus?

Yes with high level of cricket and Viv facing Lillee, etc. in his peak.

 

[DrWolverine]

I will accept that Viv missed out few of his prime years in test cricket because of WSC.

 

[DrWolverine]

Viv was very lucky he didn’t have to face his own attack. Might have not even averaged 50 if he did.

Viv’s average touched 49.9 during his 117th Test.Luckily for him, he scored 4 fifties in his final matches against bowlers averaging 35+ and ended with average of 50.2. I wonder how his legacy would have been if he ended with average of less than 50.

Sachin was unlucky to not face his own attack

I do not know why but this made me laugh

 

[OverratedSanity]

Martin Crowe also called Barry Richards the best post war opening batsman, and had him on his first team until he was ready to produce the article for Cricinfo.

So you'll take all the lists calling Barry the best as gospel but one where Gavaskar is better is a Cricinfo conspiracy lol ok buddy. Absolutely ridiculous.

Crowe mentioned gavaskar as pretty much an equal to Viv many times. You just choose to ignore it. Fine if that's how you roll I suppose.

 

[capt_Luffy]

You have Tendulkar as first among equals in that group.

You agree with @capt_Luffy that he is the best since Bradman.

Case closed.

Sachin is not the best since Bradman, Hobbs is. Actually, yeah, Hobbs played before so in that aspect it's Sachin, but Hobbs is no 2 for me.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Listen to me carefully, not trying to suggest that he doesn't have an argument to be the best after Bradman, he was superb and definitely in that tier. When you try to kick the others out is where I take umbrage.

And two things about your graphic that amazes me,

1. Want to claim longevity then cut off years for comps.

2. It's always stated how he dominated the WWs and Donald and Pollock and used to prove his dominance over Lara, but averaged 32 and 33 in the era vs both teams.

And please don't forget, that like SA during the dead era, that India in the 90's was still flat and unhelpful to pacers.

For me there's no clear distinction between the 4 or 5 (possibly even 6) batsmen who vie for that title, everyone may have their preference, but to suggest that Sachin is a half tier above is some retroactive adjustments that didn't exist over Lara even when they played.

1. I literally made the point that Sachin played longer, especially started young and on removing them has a better overall record to Viv.
2. Literally almost always the reverse point is made on how he struggled vs them..... Which isn't really true as well. He debuted vs WWs at 16 and played like a 3 match series afterwards. Hardly worth counting. Had quality knocks in all his SA tours as well, but you can still count that in favour of Donald overall. The ATGs who's names comes up on getting dominated by Sachin are Murali, Warne and Steyn.

Yeah, Sachin and Lara are pretty close and were rightfully rated so while they played. But you are forgetting that Sachin literally hit another peak after Lara retired, despite starting a year back. Again, it's not even half a tier, more like slight edge, that's just enough for me to rank him and Hobbs as best bar Bradman.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Viv’s average touched 49.9 during his 117th Test.Luckily for him, he scored 4 fifties in his final matches against bowlers averaging 35+ and ended with average of 50.2. I wonder how his legacy would have been if he ended with average of less than 50.



I do not know why but this made me laugh

Sadly he would get downgraded, but I don't think it really would had mattered at all. 50 is just a round pretty number, 49 and 50 has no difference more than 50 and 51.

 

[subshakerz]

So you'll take all the lists calling Barry the best as gospel but one where Gavaskar is better is a Cricinfo conspiracy lol ok buddy. Absolutely ridiculous.

Crowe mentioned gavaskar as pretty much an equal to Viv many times. You just choose to ignore it. Fine if that's how you roll I suppose.

He is all over the place when it comes to pundits and who he rates.

 

[subshakerz]

Yeah, Sachin and Lara are pretty close and were rightfully rated so while they played. But you are forgetting that Sachin literally hit another peak after Lara retired, despite starting a year back. Again, it's not even half a tier, more like slight edge, that's just enough for me to rank him and Hobbs as best bar Bradman.

Tendulkar between 93 to 2011 had a batting prime of 157 tests averaging nearly 60, averaging over 45 in every single country.

The only reason it's close between him and the others is because we cut points for his leaner teen years (we shouldn't really) and the end dip. Otherwise he would indeed be a tier ahead.

 

[capt_Luffy]

Also, call it me blabbering, but I am more fine Barry>Gavaskar than Barry>Pollock. The latter somehow makes even less sense to me, though I rate Gavaskar clearly over Pollock.

 

[DrWolverine]

So you'll take all the lists calling Barry the best as gospel but one where Gavaskar is better is a Cricinfo conspiracy lol ok buddy. Absolutely ridiculous.

Crowe mentioned gavaskar as pretty much an equal to Viv many times. You just choose to ignore it. Fine if that's how you roll I suppose.

Imran called Viv & Sunil Gavaskar as the two best batsmen - Viv as the best attacking batsman and Sunny as the best defensive batsman with most compact technique

 

[subshakerz]

Imran called Viv & Sunil Gavaskar as the two best batsmen - Viv as the best attacking batsman and Sunny as the best defensive batsman with most compact technique

That's because they were the two best bats of the era.

 

[DrWolverine]

Barry Richards may be talented but he should not be mentioned in these all time great debates since he hardly played at the highest level.

 

[subshakerz]

Also, call it me blabbering, but I am more fine Barry>Gavaskar than Barry>Pollock. The latter somehow makes even less sense to me, though I rate Gavaskar clearly over Pollock.

Yeah he never could defend rating Barry > Pollock when so many lists, players and even Cricket SA itself make it clear Pollock was SA's greatest bat.

 

[subshakerz]

Barry Richards may be talented but he should not be mentioned in these all time great debates since he hardly played at the highest level.

If @kyear2 does mention him we should always ask him about why Van Der Bijl isn't an ATG.

Yet another case of him running away when cornered or deflecting.

 

[OverratedSanity]

1. Want to claim longevity then cut off years for comps.

I mean, you already know why doing this makes sense... because even if you lop off the early and late years, Sachin played more years and tests than virtually any other ATG batsman. 19 years, 160 odd tests, averaged ~60.

You can't do that with most other players, because after chopping off the young/octogenarian years would leave you with a much smaller sample of tests/years, not two decades like for Tendulkar.