lara vs tendulkar

[_00_deathscar]

Tendulkar's statistics are so seriously skewed because of his longevity. I did a filter earlier when I ran his stats for arguably his peak period (1993-2002). Also perhaps relevant for the discussion about weakest endings.

Here's another filter (1993-2011) - a 19-year test career.
Matches: 165
Runs: 14,203
Average: 58.20
Centuries: 47

Key stats:
Average vs Australia 62.78
Average vs England: 55.84
Average vs South Africa: 44.77

Average in Australia: 62.95
Average in South Africa: 51.60
Average in England: 53.20

His average dropped off almost 4.5 runs in 2 years following 2011 which is quite ridiculous.

To put this into context, this is:
- A higher average than Sanga or Kallis finished with
- More tests played than Sangakkara's entire career, and 1 short of Kallis' entire career
- More runs than either Sanga or Kallis accumulated
- More centuries than either Sanga or Kallis accumulated

Of course, these are all very arbitrary calculations (e.g. taking out Sachin's very early years when he was a teen and learning, as well as his final years when he was absolute shite).
a
But it just gives context into his longevity, as well as his 'peak' which (aside from his earlier ridiculous peak of 1993-2002) could legitimately be considered a whopping 19 years of test cricket.

 

[Bolo]

That 165 game period you have selected is one game less than the highest number of tests played by anyone not named Tendulkar. Not too bad on the longevity front at all.

His batting average was slightly lower at the end of that peak than Sanga, Kallis or Ponting managed before they fell away at the end though. We should avoid comparisons between peaks and careers because we will see some strange results.

His peak average (even ignoring longevity) was more impressive than the others though. Majority of games played in the 2000s for the others.

Sachin deserves every bit of criticism thrown at him for the poor end to his career. Even with it he still comes out clearly on top for my money.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That 165 game period you have selected is one game less than the highest number of tests played by anyone not named Tendulkar. Not too bad on the longevity front at all.

His batting average was slightly lower at the end of that peak than Sanga, Kallis or Ponting managed before they fell away at the end though.

Yeah but with fewer tests, which is less impressive.

 

[vcs]

Did Sanga and Kallis ever fall away? It can't have been a run of more than 4-5 poor Tests. Kallis even hit a hundred in his last match against us.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Did Sanga and Kallis ever fall away? It can't have been a run of more than 4-5 poor Tests. Kallis even hit a hundred in his last match against us.

They looked on the wane in their last couple of series and retired before they fell as far as Tendulkar and protected their averages. Selfish ****s in different ways to Tendulkar tbh

 

[vcs]

Sanga definitely had a couple of years in him. He was smashing the County circuit after retirement and he'd had an incredible World Cup only a couple of months prior.

 

[jimmy101]

Arguably Chanders had more in him too, and could have easily played for WI for a couple more years.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sanga definitely had a couple of years in him. He was smashing the County circuit after retirement and he'd had an incredible World Cup only a couple of months prior.

I know this is the popular opinion but I just don't agree. Ponting was piling on the runs in shield cricket but stunk it up whenever he played tests in his last few seasons.

Sangakkara looked pathetic against Ashwin in that final series and in the series v pakistan a few months prior. He completely lost his ability to use the crease against the spinners and found himself off balance too often which pretty much never happened before in his career.

I'm not saying he would've suddenly started averaging 12 but he wasn't the same batsman.

 

[vcs]

Fair enough, I didn't notice those things.

 

[OverratedSanity]

U n00b

 

[_00_deathscar]

That 165 game period you have selected is one game less than the highest number of tests played by anyone not named Tendulkar. Not too bad on the longevity front at all.

His batting average was slightly lower at the end of that peak than Sanga, Kallis or Ponting managed before they fell away at the end though. We should avoid comparisons between peaks and careers because we will see some strange results.

His peak average (even ignoring longevity) was more impressive than the others though. Majority of games played in the 2000s for the others.

Sachin deserves every bit of criticism thrown at him for the poor end to his career. Even with it he still comes out clearly on top for my money.

Ponting also played 165+ tests (168), so less than two. But you're right, that is absolutely incredible longevity to average very, very close to 60.

Not sure about peaks for Sanga and Kallis, but yea Ponting's peak was absolutely ridiculous (going by years only, 72.24 between 2002-2006 in 57 tests). Closest Sachin has come to that (just going by years) is 1993-1998 when he averaged 63.24 in 43 tests - although as you say, Sachin's peak came during the very peak of fast bowling around the world too.

For the record, Kohli is currently on 71.42, albeit in only 28 tests between 2016-2018.

 

[Daemon]

Smith in the 4 years from 2014-2017

44 matches, average of 75 with 21 100s.

Mental.

 

[stephen]

Ponting looked absolutely shot in his last series. Kallis in particular made him look awful. But after that he went and averaged 100 in shield cricket until his retirement from that. I'm not sure that Sanga or Chanderpaul were quite up to test standard at the end, even if they were dominating first class.

Cricket, moreso than most sports is a game about quality cutoffs. You can dominate in one grade and suffer even one grade above because the game moves that much more quickly. It's brutal.

 

[Jack1]

Making excuses for Tendulkar is all well and good, but he brought it upon himself. Very self orientated in the sense of aiming for individual milestones and even retired on exactly 200 tests.

I think when you are ignoring part of a player's career then that is getting dangerous. Then you have to start ignoring the start of a career for a player that has been forced into test cricket too soon. When/if you're picked you're picked and you need to contribute to the team. If Tendulkar didn't think he was good enough, he should have retired. If his average slid at any point that's his fault. Cook's average is sliding down, no one to blame but himself for that. He needs to get his level up or retire if he thinks he's past it.

I notice a dangerous precedent on here of trying to make excuses for Tendulkar's bad points and trying to exaggerate his good points.

 

[_00_deathscar]

Making excuses for Tendulkar is all well and good, but he brought it upon himself. Very self orientated in the sense of aiming for individual milestones and even retired on exactly 200 tests.

I think when you are ignoring part of a player's career then that is getting dangerous. Then you have to start ignoring the start of a career for a player that has been forced into test cricket too soon. When/if you're picked you're picked and you need to contribute to the team. If Tendulkar didn't think he was good enough, he should have retired. If his average slid at any point that's his fault. Cook's average is sliding down, no one to blame but himself for that. He needs to get his level up or retire if he thinks he's past it.

I notice a dangerous precedent on here of trying to make excuses for Tendulkar's bad points and trying to exaggerate his good points.

Funny you should say that - didn't Tendulkar debut at just over the age of 16?

There's a reason I was looking at his 'middle' period (sure he'd already have a heads up but that was the entire point) - and it's not like his middle period consisted of 30 tests...it's a whopping 165 tests, averaging over 58, with all the pain in between that (drop of form in between, tennis below and recovery etc).

 

[OverratedSanity]

I think when you are ignoring part of a player's career then that is getting dangerous. .

Not when even after removing parts of a career, the remainder is still literally the longest career of all time.

Is it not a pretty incredible feat that this "peak" was longer than the careers of most batsmen that have ever played cricket.

 

[Bolo]

Kallis managed 67ish from 03-07, which I'm assuming was his peak 5. Not a htb for the period, which most are when looking at big runs

I'd assume Sanga had a monster peak as well.

Sanga and Kallis were both starting to look scratchy at the end. Sanga could definitely have played on as an asset to his team, if not up to his own standards. Kallis was probably past it as a bat, and would have looked like Tendulkar if he'd tried. As an allrounder though, he likely could have played on a bit

Yeah but with fewer tests, which is less impressive.

For sure. Longevity can't be ignored when discussing Tendulkar. It's a great tiebreaker in favour of him if you think it's unclear where he stands. I'm clear where he stands though- he's the greatest of his era even without bringing longevity into it, and it's just one more (big) feather in his cap.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Player 1
avgng 40 in first 5 yrs 50 tests
Avgng 60 in next 10 yrs 100 tests
Avgng 40 in next 5yrs 50 tests
Career avg 50 in 20yrs 200 tests

Player 2
Career avg 60 in 10yrs, 100 tests

For me, player 1 is better.
Because
Player 1 = first 5 yrs + player 2 + last 5yrs

Its not 1st player's fault, 2nd player not good for playing tests in those 2 x 5yrs.

Also 1st player did everything 2nd player did and more.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Donald vs Mcgrath

Arguable both in odis and tests

Tests Mcgrath
Odis Donald

For me

 

[Bolo]

Maybe. You are assuming player 1 is good enough to play for the entire duration of those 10 years. Tendulkar definitely was not for his last two years and falls in my estimation as a result.

Viv is an interesting case. He averaged 60 for half his career and 40 for the other half, and was good enough for his entire career.