Richards v Tendulkar - ODIs

[Maximus0723]

Sir Alex, if you want your satisfaction, make a poll for overall batsman(Test and ODI).
I think Sachin edges Sir Viv there due to better test record.

 

[Agent TBY]

Pratters.

 

[mohammad16]

Sir Alex, if you want your satisfaction, make a poll for overall batsman(Test and ODI).
I think Sachin edges Sir Viv there due to better test record.

LOL oddly enough, I think Richards was a better test batsman than Tendulkar... Even though I have Tendulkar ahead of everyone else in ODIs

 

[AaronK]

If you asked me the same question a couple of years ago.. i would say Sir Viv..Maybe Sachin of late 90s could have challanged Viv but still Viv was my answer..however, watching sachin geting back to his prime despite his age.. forced me to go for Sachin..lets admit this.. he is getting better with time..

I can't understand why people are comparing Bevan with Sir viv and Sachin anyways.. we are talking about two of the most expelasive batsman in the history of cricket...Sachin and Sir Viv could prove a nightmare to any bowler in any calibar in any formate of the game.. I don't seee Bevan match the same aggression of Sir Viv and Sachin.. not even in his peak..

 

[Pratters]

Let's not forget that GIMH's response "Your intellect and wit astound me" was way more classy than the tasteless post from pratters "Poms suck GIMH".

And you think Poms Suck was serious exactly why? GIMH has himself agreed he said them sarcastically at me. Asshole was to give him a taste of his own medicine. It is funny the reaction is polarised in favor of GIMH. Heh. I am not the one who comes in to make a smart arse comment like GIMH made. I of course knew the poster isn't new but thought of welcoming him any way. I joke about him being a Pom as a response to GIMH and my wit and intellect is questioned. WTF. Questioning some one's intellect is one of the worst things you can do.

 

[Pratters]

Lolled, if ever there was a whingy **** who could dish it out but not take it, it's you.

I don't see how it's a breach of rules whatsoever actually. Surely the purpose of a forum is to challenge people on their intellect.

Questioning some one's intellect. Pronouncing it astounding is a shockingly bad thing to say.

And I can take it. I just don't like double standards. Like the one who come up with to get behind the ass of your friend GIMH.

 

[Pratters]

Give him 7 /10

Why exactly? If GIMH can say things like intellect is astounding in jest, surely asshole can come up as one too. Heh.

 

[Andre]

Keep digging...

 

[Pothas]

Just calm down....really no need for any of this, there was clearly no offense meant.

 

[Pratters]

I am calm. I just don't like some one saying 'your intellect is astounding.' and it was meant seriously. How would you joke about some thing like that.

 

[Maximus0723]

If you asked me the same question a couple of years ago.. i would say Sir Viv..Maybe Sachin of late 90s could have challanged Viv but still Viv was my answer..however, watching sachin geting back to his prime despite his age.. forced me to go for Sachin..lets admit this.. he is getting better with time..

I can't understand why people are comparing Bevan with Sir viv and Sachin anyways.. we are talking about two of the most expelasive batsman in the history of cricket...Sachin and Sir Viv could prove a nightmare to any bowler in any calibar in any formate of the game.. I don't seee Bevan match the same aggression of Sir Viv and Sachin.. not even in his peak..

It's just one guy dude.

And that happens to be Aussie.
Dam what a coincidence.

 

[stephen]

I'd have both in an ODI XI:

Tendulkar
Gilchrist+
Ponting
Richards
Lara
Bevan
Imran
Wasim
Garner
McGrath
Murali

 

[Anil]

i'd have:

tendulkar
haynes
richards
lara
bevan
gilchrist
akram
hadlee
garner
mcgrath
murali

 

[honestbharani]

Well, I think Sachin is the Bradman of ODIs... I am tempted to go for Richards but then again, things were so different and with Richards, he probably would have been just as successful over a longer period but I am not sure.


Sachin for me has:

a. Longevity
b. More dependency on him by the team
c. Plays dual natured very well... Can be the aggressor or the accumulator as the situation demands..


I am not really not sure how Richards fared in all the 3 things above as I never had the privilege of watching him bat live but I think if he was indeed better than Sachin as a batsman, Sachin has still achieved enough to be ranked #1 on those alone... Not sure if it makes complete sense, not at my best today but hope ppl get what I mean here..

 

[pasag]

Was always just Viv for me but Sachin over the past year culminating in this week has tipped things in his favour. He is the Bradman of ODIs, not in how far he is away from the pack, but in the sense that he has reached the peak of field.

 

[punter2002]

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.

I have been a passive reader of this forum for ages, but that statement wanted me to sign up and highlight how absurd it was to say that. Not to mention the patronizing tone involved in debating the point in hand.

Who determined 1.35?

In cricket you can only score 6 runs per ball. If somehow everybody in world cricket learns to score at 6 runs per ball, does that mean no body can be considered a match to Sir Vivian Richards? It gets harder and harder to get above 90 strike rate with out losing out on consistency. That factor has been the same since cricket started. It has not suddenly changed.

Scoring at a strike rate of 90 with consistency is the bench mark set by Sir Vivian. Sachin Tendulkar has matched that in terms of aggression and bettered him in terms of consistency. Sachin's peers did better at getting closer to Sir Vivian's benchmark than Sir Vivian's peers.....but pray tell me how does that take anything away from Sachin, who has pretty much matched it one respect, and exceeded in another? You can't revere someone for others being ****e...

The sheer weight of runs scored invariably tends to take away a bit from peak career strike rate and average. Yet he has still got a strike rate and average comparable to that of any one else in this form of cricket. And further, If you only take his peak period alone, he has done better than every body out there in terms of every meaning full statistic in cricket, matched played, runs scored, average, strike rate.......yet you think it is absurd to state his case?

People are so very eager to dismiss the number of runs he has scored because he played for 21 long years and is still going strong.......but at the same time take away the fact that playing for such a long time has had a sizable dent on his career average and strike rate.

There is nothing wrong in thinking Sir Vivian is better or that Sachin is better.....but you have no bleeding right to state that others can't have a different point of view.

edit:
actually why did i bother with this?

Oh wait, hold the press, Tendulkar is not the best ODI batsman, Pratters has said so....

 

[Sir Alex]

I have been a passive reader of this forum for ages, but that statement wanted me to sign up and highlight how absurd it was to say that. Not to mention the patronizing tone involved in debating the point in hand.

Who determined 1.35?

In cricket you can only score 6 runs per ball. If somehow everybody in world cricket learns to score at 6 runs per ball, does that mean no body can be considered a match to Sir Vivian Richards? It gets harder and harder to get above 90 strike rate with out losing out on consistency. That factor has been the same since cricket started. It has not suddenly changed.

Scoring at a strike rate of 90 with consistency is the bench mark set by Sir Vivian. Sachin Tendulkar has matched that in terms of aggression and bettered him in terms of consistency. Sachin's peers did better at getting closer to Sir Vivian's benchmark than Sir Vivian's peers.....but pray tell me how does that take anything away from Sachin, who has pretty much matched it one respect, and exceeded in another? You can't revere someone for others being ****e...

The sheer weight of runs scored invariably tends to take away a bit from peak career strike rate and average. Yet he has still got a strike rate and average comparable to that of any one else in this form of cricket. And further, If you only take his peak period alone, he has done better than every body out there in terms of every meaning full statistic in cricket, matched played, runs scored, average, strike rate.......yet you think it is absurd to state his case?

People are so very eager to dismiss the number of runs he has scored because he played for 21 long years and is still going strong.......but at the same time take away the fact that playing for such a long time has had a sizable dent on his career average and strike rate.

There is nothing wrong in thinking Sir Vivian is better or that Sachin is better.....but you have no bleeding right to state that others can't have a different point of view.

edit:
actually why did i bother with this?

Oh wait, hold the press, Tendulkar is not the best ODI batsman, Pratters has said so....

It is indeed an awesome first post. Welcome to CW sir.

 

[honestbharani]

I have been a passive reader of this forum for ages, but that statement wanted me to sign up and highlight how absurd it was to say that. Not to mention the patronizing tone involved in debating the point in hand.

Who determined 1.35?

In cricket you can only score 6 runs per ball. If somehow everybody in world cricket learns to score at 6 runs per ball, does that mean no body can be considered a match to Sir Vivian Richards? It gets harder and harder to get above 90 strike rate with out losing out on consistency. That factor has been the same since cricket started. It has not suddenly changed.

Scoring at a strike rate of 90 with consistency is the bench mark set by Sir Vivian. Sachin Tendulkar has matched that in terms of aggression and bettered him in terms of consistency. Sachin's peers did better at getting closer to Sir Vivian's benchmark than Sir Vivian's peers.....but pray tell me how does that take anything away from Sachin, who has pretty much matched it one respect, and exceeded in another? You can't revere someone for others being ****e...

The sheer weight of runs scored invariably tends to take away a bit from peak career strike rate and average. Yet he has still got a strike rate and average comparable to that of any one else in this form of cricket. And further, If you only take his peak period alone, he has done better than every body out there in terms of every meaning full statistic in cricket, matched played, runs scored, average, strike rate.......yet you think it is absurd to state his case?

People are so very eager to dismiss the number of runs he has scored because he played for 21 long years and is still going strong.......but at the same time take away the fact that playing for such a long time has had a sizable dent on his career average and strike rate.

There is nothing wrong in thinking Sir Vivian is better or that Sachin is better.....but you have no bleeding right to state that others can't have a different point of view.

edit:
actually why did i bother with this?

Oh wait, hold the press, Tendulkar is not the best ODI batsman, Pratters has said so....

lol.. mate.. mostly agree about being dismissive of the claims of Sachin as the best but tbh, he started the thread.. Means he thinks they are close enough, but he just listed out why he thought Viv was better.


And the others were not **** back then either.. You have got your opinion totally mixed up on that. Fact is, ODI cricket was very different back then and yet Viv achieved such feats, which would be considered as the best in the world even today, at a time when they were even more difficult to achieve, as shown by how many class acts DID NOT get anywhere close to what Sir Viv did.. The reason Bradman stood out is not just because he averaged that high, but because he averaged that high when NO ONE could even come close... The standing with respect to peers always is a good measure to rate players comparitively..

 

[Cevno]

No-one is overlooking it, it's there and that's why Sachin has been able to accumulate the most runs and most 100s. You've got to take your hat off to him.

But for heaven's sake let's not get into comparing not outs as though that somehow flatters Richards' average.

Because it did somewhat.

Westindies used to get teams out for paltry scores,which resulted in the not outs while chasing.

Not a big point,but not a one to be completely ignored.

 

[Cevno]

When we do this poll 20 years from now,Tendulkar will cinch it comprehensively.

There is always a case of people judging players in history more favourably ,to players they have seen going through their lows and highs and realisisng their mortals.When in some cases they have not even watched the players in history live and have only listened to their fables,etc.. which often do not include their downs.