Sachin Tendulkar's 146 @ Cape Town v Michael Clarke's 151 @ Cape Town

[Viscount Tom]

His century at Nottingham was arguably the better of the two though, specially considering the conditions up there are better for bowling.

 

[Furball]

There's a good case for all of them. I think I'd go with the Nottingham ton, just.

 

[Sparkley]

Rahul's ton at Lord's is the best piece of batsmanship I've seen in a long, long time.He played each and every shot with alacrity, seemed to know exactly what the bowler was going to bowl.Outstrips both Michael's and Sachin's innings for mine.

 

[Satguru]

Think people are underestimating just how incredible Steyn's two spells were on that day. He bowled 60 balls in the two spells, 48 to tendulkar,and 12 balls to the others, in which he got Dhoni, got Pujara with one of the best balls ever bowled, cleaned up Harbhajan with a jaffa but the bail didnt fall off, and beat the bat around a gazillion times.

The fact that Tendulkar not only survived but also faced the majority of Steyn's spell shielding the others (admittedly SRT didnt do it consciously, the singles just werent available) makes it a really fabulous innings

 

[Viscount Tom]

1 batsman vs 2 bowlers, 3 if you count Kallis doesn't compare to Clarke's the pitch was no where near as deadly and the fact that Clarke did shield his partners consciously is another reason why it was the better knock.

One of the reasons that Tendulkar couldn't get the singles is that he and most of the Indian team aren't in the same league of fitness as the Aussies.

That said the Cricinfo awards have an ability to raise eyebrows above all else anyway, well all esle apart form the ball by ball commentary.

 

[Satguru]

1 batsman vs 2 bowlers, 3 if you count Kallis doesn't compare to Clarke's the pitch was no where near as deadly and the fact that Clarke did shield his partners consciously is another reason why it was the better knock.

One of the reasons that Tendulkar couldn't get the singles is that he and most of the Indian team aren't in the same league of fitness as the Aussies.

That said the Cricinfo awards have an ability to raise eyebrows above all else anyway, well all esle apart form the ball by ball commentary.

I never said SRT's knock was as good as Clarke's, was just pointing out why it was a top quality innings nonetheless

 

[Jono]

I agree with Satguru. Clarke's innings was definitely better than Sachin's, but I think saying Sachin's was another everyday century (or whatever was said earlier in the thread) is plain wrong. It was a great innings. Just that Clarke's was even better.

 

[Jacknife]

Clarke's really was a freak of a innings, I think that's what separates it, Sachin played a blinder that day but not quite as outstanding as the other.

 

[Jono]

Calling it a standard century is underestimating it, but having looked back at the thread only Manee called it that.

Was definitely not a standard century, Sachin was gaga about that innings of his in his recent interview.

 

[Furball]

Clarke's innings was unreal though. Got duffed up a bit by Steyn at the start then just started smacking everyone around as if he'd wandered into the middle of a club game by mistake.

It was as if Smith for some reason opted to sub off his best bowlers for random guys out the crowd. Everyone else that batted in the first two days had an absolutely torrid time of it.

 

[Jono]

Definitely, was a considerably better innings. But Sachin's was still a great innings as well, not a "standard century" or "decent knock" or whatever. Was his best since Chennai 2008 vs. England imo.

 

[ankitj]

If anything it's pro-Tendulkar bias, but without seeing the rationale and acutal listings it's hard to say.

Most definitely wasn't the best innings by the margin of points that it was though.

Yeah very much that. There is a tendency sometimes to remember good knocks from great players better than similar or even better knocks from lesser players. Probably the reason is that good knocks from average players (like Azhar Mahmood's hundred in Durban) can be seen as cases of the batsman being enormously lucky (not necessarily in terms of chances gone begging but having one great day in the field). Else why wouldn't Azhar Mahmood play many such knocks? May be that's the sub-conscious bias, but when a cold statistical yardstick is used, Azhar Mahmood's knock gets ranked higher than any that Viv Richards has played!

 

[Spark]

Yeah I very much agree with that. I think pro-great bias is a very, very real thing - just even in reading the rationales that were given, and it's probably not accurate in examining how good an individual innings were. The difference between a good and great player is how many, not the quality of a given individual knock.

 

[Jono]

Yeah I also agree with that. The story of "Steyn" (best bowler in the world) vs "Tendulkar" (who at the time was, along with Sanga, pretty much the best batsman in the world) is a better narrative, which can lead to the lesser knock being voted higher.

 

[Sparkley]

Wrong thread perhaps but I don't see Kumar the way a lot of others do. He only recently scored his first 100's in Eng and RSA and has a modest record outside the subcontinent and in India. I'm not sure there's a lot that separates him from Virender, Mahela, Inzamam and Younis but I guess I'm in the minority.

 

[Shri]

As long as you look good(textbook) when you fail, you are world class.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Wrong thread perhaps but I don't see Kumar the way a lot of others do. He only recently scored his first 100's in Eng and RSA and has a modest record outside the subcontinent and in India. I'm not sure there's a lot that separates him from Virender, Mahela, Inzamam and Younis but I guess I'm in the minority.

You're not the only one. I don't know when exactly he entered hallowed territory (Sachin/Ponting/Kallis/Lara) but it always amuses that one who has hardly achieved anything of note in several key countries is rated so highly by so many.

 

[Ikki]

As long as you look good(textbook) when you fail, you are world class.

Haha, not that I have anything against Kumar, but the above is on point.

 

[Jacknife]

Wrong thread perhaps but I don't see Kumar the way a lot of others do. He only recently scored his first 100's in Eng and RSA and has a modest record outside the subcontinent and in India. I'm not sure there's a lot that separates him from Virender, Mahela, Inzamam and Younis but I guess I'm in the minority.

Hmmm sort of agree, in England he had 5 poor innings before he finally got that ton, looked all at sea before that last innings. Still only averages 30 here and 35 in SA and I'm surprised to see he only averages 36 in India tbh. He's an absolute monster at home mind.

 

[miscer]

Wrong thread perhaps but I don't see Kumar the way a lot of others do. He only recently scored his first 100's in Eng and RSA and has a modest record outside the subcontinent and in India. I'm not sure there's a lot that separates him from Virender, Mahela, Inzamam and Younis but I guess I'm in the minority.

He's definitely better than jayawardene (and after these last few series' even sehwag) but I agree for the most part.