Richards v Tendulkar - ODIs

[Uppercut]

Richards, just, on the grounds that his dominance over his contemporaries was greater than Tendulkar's is. Richards is the WG Grace of ODIs in that people sometimes underrate him by judging his record out of context. Over the duration of his career the typical strike rate was 65. Richards struck at 90. That's almost 50% quicker than average! No wonder the West Indies were so good.

Plenty of cases you can make for Tendulkar too, obviously. Phenomenal players, both of them. This is just what swings it for me.

 

[Sir Alex]

I have a doubt.

Having double the number of 100s, having played so many breathtaking innings, having given the nation such exhilirating moments of happiness (and some moments of heartbreak) all these are rendered meaningless by just a strike rate?

So what is the purpose of consistency and longetivity in these arguments? Does it have any relevance?

Tendulkar has scored almost 3 times the no. of runs that Richards scored. Almost that number of times he played and yet averages almost similar to him. Isn't that something brilliant?

Incredible.

 

[zaremba]

'tis indeed damning evidence...

Sunny Gavaskar appeared to me in a dream and revealed that particular argument to me so I don't see how it can be argued against

 

[Uppercut]

I have a doubt.

Having double the number of 100s, having played so many breathtaking innings, having given the nation such exhilirating moments of happiness (and some moments of heartbreak) all these are rendered meaningless by just a strike rate?

Incredible.

 

[zaremba]

I have a doubt.

Having double the number of 100s, having played so many breathtaking innings, having given the nation such exhilirating moments of happiness (and some moments of heartbreak) all these are rendered meaningless by just a strike rate?

Incredible.

Precam I think you may be missing Uppercut's point: that Viv Richards and Tendulkar are very hard to separate, and he's right. Did you not see Viv Richards play? I daresay he gave people from his nation, and the other nations of the Caribbean and elsewhere, just as many exhilarating moments of happiness as Tendulkar. In fact if it's exhilaration you're after, Richards comes out ahead of Sachin for me.

 

[Sir Alex]

Yeah it is out of disappointment and frustration. Personally I don't know what more Tendulkar can/has to do to be called the greatest ODI batter ever. It is as if there are 99 cases in favor and 1 case against, people pick that 1 case and argue on that.

 

[Sir Alex]

Precam I think you may be missing Uppercut's point: that Viv Richards and Tendulkar are very hard to separate, and he's right. Did you not see Viv Richards play? I daresay he gave people from his nation, and the other nations of the Caribbean and elsewhere, just as many exhilarating moments of happiness as Tendulkar. In fact if it's exhilaration you're after, Richards comes out ahead of Sachin for me.

Firstly I am not precum.
Secondly it is simply unfair on Tendulkar. Had he played only those ODIs between 1998 and 2004, Tendulkar would still have scored much more runs than Richards at a greater average and comparable strike rate. Richards is incredible no doubt but I don't think he could have kept Tendulkar's consistency. People tend to underrate longetivity and consistency a lot here.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, look, it's bloody close. How the hell else are you going to separate them? As far as I can see your argument amounts to the fact that Tendulkar invokes more man-love in you than Richards does.

 

[Pratters]

I don't know what more Tendulkar can/has to do to be called the greatest ODI batter ever.

Kareem Abdul Jabar scored the most points. Wilt 'the stilt' Chamberlain scored 100 points in a game. What more could they have done? Yet Jordan is considered the greatest player ever, simply because he did more. Richards scored at 1.5 times the S/R of his peers. Tendulkar peer S/R would be 75. He scores at 1.2 times the S/R of his peers. It should at least be above 1.35.

 

[zaremba]

Firstly I am not precum.
Secondly it is simply unfair on Tendulkar. Had he played only those ODIs between 1998 and 2004, Tendulkar would still have scored much more runs than Richards at a greater average and comparable strike rate. Richards is incredible no doubt but I don't think he could have kept Tendulkar's consistency. People tend to underrate longetivity and consistency a lot here.

Well you edited your point about longevity into your post after I had begun to answer it.

Anyway Richards played at a very high level up to the age of about 40 ffs. Richards played less ODI cricket than Tendulkar for the simple reason that ODIs were less frequent in his day. And as I say your previous point about "exhilaration" was just completely wide of the mark.

I just think you're picking the wrong fight here.

 

[Sir Alex]

Yeah, look, it's bloody close. How the hell else are you going to separate them? As far as I can see your argument amounts to the fact that Tendulkar invokes more man-love in you than Richards does.

Having played about 300 matches more than him, having scored three times more runs, having scored 46 hundreds, all these are as relevant as a career strike rate in my opinion. How many contemporary openers have Tendulkars SR in terms of centuries? How many of them his average and strike rate?

 

[Pratters]

There careers were just as long in time period.

 

[Sir Alex]

Kareem Abdul Jabar scored the most points. Wilt 'the stilt' Chamberlain scored 100 points in a game. What more could they have done? Yet Jordan is considered the greatest player ever, simply because he did more. Richards scored at 1.5 times the S/R of his peers. Tendulkar peer S/R would be 75. He scores at 1.2 times the S/R of his peers. It should at least be above 1.35.

And Tendulkar scored hundreds at a bigger pace than his contemporaries. Isn't that a stat? Shahid Afridi scored about roughly that times than his contemporaries. So he is a better player?

Tendulkar scores a hundred at twice better consistency than Richards. Scoring hundreds is what helps your team to build a big score.

 

[Sir Alex]

There careers were just as long in time period.

16 years in case of Richards and 20 years in case of Tendulkar.

So Tendulkar had also the burden of so much ODIs in so little time, little breathing space, constant travelling, having to adapt to different surfaces quickly etc etc. also.

 

[Pratters]

In Richards' time OD cricket was very bowler friendly. It was test cricket in 60 overs mostly. The fielders were all set on the boundary if you needed 5 runs an over to win a match for instance. Scoring was very tough. And slow. Yet Richards managed an average of 47 when an average of 30 would be considered good and a S/R of 90. You ask what could Tendulkar have done. What more could Richards have done?

And playing conditions and touring was far tougher compared to today's five star hotels. There were cases of food posioning, bad hotel and suchline aplenty. Pitches were very different. The tours were spaced in longer intervals. So you had more difficulty adopting to alien conditions.

As one day cricket progressed, it became more and more batsmen friendly. One bouncer an over. 15 over restriction. Power play. Wides any thing down the leg side. Strict calls on no balls at a height. The batsmen are always being advantaged.

 

[zaremba]

16 years in case of Richards and 20 years in case of Tendulkar.

So Tendulkar had also the burden of so much ODIs in so little time, little breathing space, constant travelling, having to adapt to different surfaces quickly etc etc. also.

Really struggling to see what you're hoping to prove here Precam. Yes Sachin played in an era when ODIs were ten-a-penny. I don't think that makes him a greater ODI player than Viv.

Steve Waugh played more than 3 times as many Tests as Don Bradman. Big deal.

 

[Uppercut]

16 years in case of Richards and 20 years in case of Tendulkar.

So Tendulkar had also the burden of so much ODIs in so little time, little breathing space, constant travelling, having to adapt to different surfaces quickly etc etc. also.

Ah, we've heard it all before. One had to deal with more games and more travelling and having to adapt more quickly and blah blah blah. The other had to deal with vastly inferior bats and bigger grounds and less flat pitches (a CW favourite, that one) and much lower quality training and blah blah blah. Bringing in all of these factors just gives you a big, blurry mess similar to the filthy gray you get when you mix all the colours in a paint pot together.

 

[Sir Alex]

Duh fair enough. I am retiring for the day.

 

[Athlai]

Richards by a very small margin, though obviously you'd take both in your team.

 

[zaremba]

Duh fair enough. I am retiring for the day.

Retired out or retired hurt? Your average is at stake here Precam.