Richards v Tendulkar - ODIs

[morgieb]

Richards. As gun as Tendulkar is, the era in which Richards batted in was far harder to score runs in, and when Tendy did play then, he sucked.

 

[Cevno]

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.
.

Zaheer Abbas | Cricket Players and Officials | Cricinfo.com

How about this guy then?

Played all of his ODI cricket before Richards boosted his strike rate in his alst 6 years a bit.

Proves that there was someone else too with a similar strike rate and average too ,when richards played.And he did not even have the cushion of the batting line up if he failed or the bowling as richards did.

 

[Sir Alex]

Richards. As gun as Tendulkar is, the era in which Richards batted in was far harder to score runs in, and when Tendy did play then, he sucked.

Lol, the decade averages for 1980s and 1990s suggest otherwise.

1980s - 28.61 - 4.38
1990s - 29.28 - 4.58

Not excrutiatingly harder considering it was an age when ODIs were just an offshoot of test matches.

 

[Sir Alex]

Zaheer Abbas | Cricket Players and Officials | Cricinfo.com

How about this guy then?

Played all of his ODI cricket before Richards boosted his strike rate in his alst 6 years a bit.

Proves that there was someone else too with a similar strike rate and average too ,when richards played.And he did not even have the cushion of the batting line up if he failed or the bowling as richards did.

Quite a good spot that is. He didn't have as many notouts either. He indeed has a case for being above Viv Richards.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Do explain.

You said that the two eras were different and mentioned many reasons why. Yes, which makes Viv's numbers for his era even more impressive then than it would now.

If you're an all time great attacking batsman playing ODI's in an era where stifling the run rate is a widely accepted strategy, you're more often than not going to end up with a lower Strike rate than if you were playing in an era where it wasn't a widely accepted strategy.

 

[honestbharani]

If you're an all time great attacking batsman playing ODI's in an era where stifling the run rate is a widely accepted strategy, you're more often than not going to end up with a lower Strike rate than if you were playing in an era where it wasn't a widely accepted strategy.

yeah, but there were more bowler friendly wickets in ODIs then than there are now... This is really a losing argument coz you are trying to simply belittle one man's career for another... I listed the reasons why I think Sachin is better without having to belittle Richards' achievements just now...

And point is, how are the non-minnow averages for both when comparing? Genuine question, btw...

 

[Cevno]

To say that Tendulkar played in a era where Strike rate of 90 was normal and Viv played in a era where sr of 65 was normal is complete BS.

Just look at these strike rates of players with average above 40 when viv played and Sachin played-

Viv-

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Sachin-
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

There does seem that much of a difference does there?
Do not know where ridiculous arguments like sr of 65 was considered good and that 90 was normal when sachin played come from.

These arguments are based on the presumption that VIV only played in the 1970's and Tendulkar played only after 2004 when some surreal strike rates came into being.
So that blows that argument out of water.

 

[Sir Alex]

Between 1998 and 2003, Tendulkar scored 6,851 runs (210 runs mroe than Richards) @ 52.7 and SR of 90

The comparitive average and SR during the same period was 29.78 and 79

During Richards' lifetime, his avg was 47 and SR 90
Correspongin avg and SR were 28.38 and 72.

And remember Tendulkar played in an era of ODI specialists as opposed to Richards era when they had Boycott, Lambetc who played.

 

[honestbharani]

To say that Tendulkar played in a era where Strike rate of 90 was normal and Viv played in a era where sr of 65 was normal is complete BS.

Just look at these strike rates of players with average above 40 when viv played and Sachin played-

Viv-

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Sachin-
Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

There does seem that much of a difference does there?
Do not know where ridiculous arguments like sr of 65 was considered good and that 90 was normal when sachin played come from.

These arguments are based on the presumption that VIV only played in the 1970's and Tendulkar played only after 2004 when some surreal strike rates came into being.
So that blows that argument out of water.

try a filter of 1000 runs + mate.. you will be surprised..


EDIT: Juz figured out that u used the entire career of Richards for the first set and used 1993 to 2000 alone for Sachin.. Interesting manipulation, that...

 

[Cevno]

Between 1998 and 2003, Tendulkar scored 6,851 runs (210 runs mroe than Richards) @ 52.7 and SR of 90

The comparitive average and SR during the same period was 29.78 and 79

During Richards' lifetime, his avg was 47 and SR 90
Correspongin avg and SR were 28.38 and 72.

And remember Tendulkar played in an era of ODI specialists as opposed to Richards era when they had Boycott, Lambetc who played.

A good point that.

I would assume Gavaskar would have contributed too ,to that low SR in the viv Era.

I do not know why people assume that Viv played all his ODI's in 1970's and tendulkar played them all after 2004?

 

[G.I.Joe]

yeah, but there were more bowler friendly wickets in ODIs then than there are now... This is really a losing argument coz you are trying to simply belittle one man's career for another... I listed the reasons why I think Sachin is better without having to belittle Richards' achievements just now...

And point is, how are the non-minnow averages for both when comparing? Genuine question, btw...

I'm not belittling anyone at all. I'm just explaining why it necessarily isn't a case of 90 > 86, therefore Viv>Sachin. I don't get why any argument in favour of one person has to be construed as a bellitling of another.

Comparison with peers isn't a definitive argument because any format always has a particular set of players who figure it out much earlier than the rest, thus distorting the picture. Good on them for doing so, but that doesn't necessarily put them ahead of a comparative player who played much later when the rest of the players had the blueprint worked out for them, thus narrowing the field between them and the great who came later. Therefore Richards having a comparatively higher SR or average or whatever over his peers than Tendulkar doesn't do it for me.

My original point was that it isn't about the numbers at all, for various reasons including the above. ODI cricket simply hasn't been the same game over the years to lend itself to any sort of meaningful comparison between players from different eras. Richards > Tendulkar. Tendulkar > Richards. Whatever.

 

[honestbharani]

Between 1998 and 2003, Tendulkar scored 6,851 runs (210 runs mroe than Richards) @ 52.7 and SR of 90

The comparitive average and SR during the same period was 29.78 and 79

During Richards' lifetime, his avg was 47 and SR 90
Correspongin avg and SR were 28.38 and 72.

And remember Tendulkar played in an era of ODI specialists as opposed to Richards era when they had Boycott, Lambetc who played.

Try top order averages alone.. Overall averages never really change too much because the tailender factor is mostly the same...

 

[Sir Alex]

A good point that.

I would assume Gavaskar would have contributed too ,to that low SR in the viv Era.

I do not know why people assume that Viv played all his ODI's in 1970's and tendulkar played them all after 2004?

Haha still the "difference" of 7 points in SR is more important to some guys than the 35 100s that seperate them.

 

[Cevno]

try a filter of 1000 runs + mate.. you will be surprised..

Richards-

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Tendulkar-

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...3;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...9;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

Done and What?

Still do not see the massive difference some on here have been talking about to offset the longevity argument.

 

[punter2002]

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..

1. With regards to your first paragraph, My post was mainly in response to another post by him suggesting another poster that Sir Viv is just better....accept and move on. Furthermore he backed it up with really ill formed logic. Why post a thread if you are going to be prejudiced and illogical?

2. With regards to your second paragraph.....Scoring 1 run a ball remains as difficult today as it was when Cricket was first played. Because this is a simple game....you can't score more than 6 runs a ball. So to do it consistently like Sir Vivian and Sachin is a mean feat. Very mean! I'll give you that. But i'm not going to indulge in reminiscing and romancing the past....just because Sir Vivian did it back in the day!!! I'm being thoroughly objective here. The changed rules in one day cricket has encouraged others to be more explosive in their run scoring and push the envelope a bit (we tend to do that as a Society...funny that). But scoring a run a ball remains as difficult as it was back in the day, because you can only score a maximum of 6 runs a ball.....that has not changed. I'll give credit to Sir Vivian for being aggressive when it was not actually the norm. But he hasn't been any more aggressive than Sachin...if you get my point. So just because being daring is the norm these days (thanks to Sir Vivian, Jayasurya, Martin Crowe, Sachin, Sehwag, Gilli and the likes) does not mean that Sir Vivian could have been any more daring than he was without losing out on consistency.

They are greats. Statistically very similar, but Sachin has done it over twice the number of games.....Statistical Significance and all that.

I do love Sir Vivian more for the swagger with which he played the game back in the day. But this is a debate of who is better as a batsman, Sachin shades it for me.

 

[honestbharani]

I'm not belittling anyone at all. I'm just explaining why it necessarily isn't a case of 90 > 86, therefore Viv>Sachin. I don't get why any argument in favour of one person has to be construed as a bellitling of another.

Comparison with peers isn't a definitive argument because any format always has a particular set of players who figure it out much earlier than the rest, thus distorting the picture. Good on them for doing so, but that doesn't necessarily put them ahead of a comparative player who played much later when the rest of the players had the blueprint worked out for them, thus narrowing the field between them and the great who came later. Therefore Richards having a comparatively higher SR or average or whatever over his peers than Tendulkar doesn't do it for me.

My original point was that it isn't about the numbers at all, for various reasons including the above. ODI cricket simply hasn't been the same game over the years to lend itself to any sort of meaningful comparison between players from different eras. Richards > Tendulkar. Tendulkar > Richards. Whatever.

Yes and that is my point overall... It is not about "figuring" it out.. You are making it seem as though the game is the same through all eras with that statement. Of course, there were players who "figured it out" enough to be successful at that era. Viv was just THAT much ahead of the rest..


Cevno's misleading filtered stats aside, the fact is Richard was almost peerless in his era and brought to batting a sort of aura that was not seen before, at least in ODIs... Sachin is amazing in much the same manner although I would perhaps replace aura with rejection in the case of Sachin. Bowlers just seem to basically give up bowling to him in ODIs...

 

[Sir Alex]

Try top order averages alone.. Overall averages never really change too much because the tailender factor is mostly the same...

Not big difference except SR, (but overall diff remain same) (Top order 1-7)

Overall top 1-7

Tendulkar lifetime - 30.96 @ 73
Richards lifetime - 29.31@66
Tendulkar 98-03 - 30.92 @ 73

Tendulkar lifetime own figures - 45.15 @ 86
Richards lifetime - 47 @ 90
Tendulkar 98-03 - 53 @ 90

 

[honestbharani]

Richards-

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Tendulkar-

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Done and What?

Still do not see the massive difference some on here have been talking about to offset the longevity argument.

hmm... 6 batters with SR of 70+ and only one anywhere near Viv in terms of matches played and runs scored...


12 guys with SR of 70+ with more than 2 there and thereabouts to Sachin.. Two times is not significant?

 

[Cevno]

EDIT: Juz figured out that u used the entire career of Richards for the first set and used 1993 to 2000 alone for Sachin.. Interesting manipulation, that...

I ahve done both 1990's as a whole and 1993 to 2000's to tendulkar because he was very young from 1990 too 1993,when in fact the whole 1990's suits my argument better.

What i have also done by using 1993 to 2000's is inluded almost the same no of ODI'S as Richards played in his WHOLE CAREER.

Sir alex above used a interesting window too 1998 to 2003

 

[honestbharani]

1. With regards to your first paragraph, My post was mainly in response to another post by him suggesting another poster that Sir Viv is just better....accept and move on. Furthermore he backed it up with really ill formed logic. Why post a thread if you are going to be prejudiced and illogical?

2. With regards to your second paragraph.....Scoring 1 run a ball remains as difficult today as it was when Cricket was first played. Because this is a simple game....you can't score more than 6 runs a ball. So to do it consistently like Sir Vivian and Sachin is a mean feat. Very mean! I'll give you that. But i'm not going to indulge in reminiscing and romancing the past....just because Sir Vivian did it back in the day!!! I'm being thoroughly objective here. The changed rules in one day cricket has encouraged others to be more explosive in their run scoring and push the envelope a bit (we tend to do that as a Society...funny that). But scoring a run a ball remains as difficult as it was back in the day, because you can only score a maximum of 6 runs a ball.....that has not changed. I'll give credit to Sir Vivian for being aggressive when it was not actually the norm. But he hasn't been any more aggressive than Sachin...if you get my point. So just because being daring is the norm these days (thanks to Sir Vivian, Jayasurya, Martin Crowe, Sachin, Sehwag, Gilli and the likes) does not mean that Sir Vivian could have been any more daring than he was without losing out on consistency.

They are greats. Statistically very similar, but Sachin has done it over twice the number of games.....Statistical Significance and all that.

I do love Sir Vivian more for the swagger with which he played the game back in the day. But this is a debate of who is better as a batsman, Sachin shades it for me.

I don't wanna spark a whole debate here because scoring run a ball or whatever is a direct result of the sort of fields, field restrictions and pitches you play on.. Yes, you can't score more than 6 runs a ball but we are not talking about 500-600 SRs here.. We are talking about 89 Vs 90 and definitely and obviously these things like pitches, and field restrictions have played a part..


As to your opinion, I do happen to share the same view. I just don't think it is necessary to bring down how much ahead of the pack Viv was during his day...