From "Overrated Sanity", great words.
1) Tendulkar's average touched 59.16 in February 2001 after 90 tests over 12 years. Almost as long as Sanga's career and considering how this entire period was during a time which everyone likes to say was tough to bat in, and although I'm not saying he smashed the 90s great bowlers for fun, it's an extraordinary statistical achievement.
2) After this Tendulkar went through a slight decline, but still somehow managed to rack up big runs through sheer grit. Even though he wasnt in form, his average was 58.4 when he played Pakistan in 2004. After 15 years of test cricket and 113 tests, his average was still stratospheric. But there's more: At this point in his career, he had 33 hundreds. Only 3 of them came against Bangladesh/Zimbabwe. And he played 54 tests, almost half his tests, away from the SC. While I will never slag Sanga off for bashing Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, getting to almost 60 average without getting anywhere near as many opportunities to pump up his average against weaker teams or playing every week in familiar home conditions is just phenomenal. This is why when people judge Tendulkar without having really appreciated what he achieved in those years, it just shows a great deal of ignorance.
3) If this isn't enough, after going through a big decline in the mid 2000s, Tendulkar roared back in the end of the 2000s and once again became the best in the world. After his last ton in test cricket, that classic at Capetown against Steyn, Tendulkar's average stood at 56.95. After 176 tests. More than anyone had ever played. So at that point, Tendulkar had played more test cricket than anyone and still managed to keep his average at ungodly heights. Almost freaking 57 after 22 years. . Compare that with 59 over 14 years for Sanga and tell me whats more impressive statistically.
