Sobers vs Tendulkar

[Bolo.]

Sachin. Longer career. Higher proportion of career played in a bowling era. Way lower % of games against the weak teams from his era. Less of a HTB, and somewhat more balanced home pitches. Whether or not this should count for anything in this comparison, he played in the professional era with higher standards and was tested against more opponents in more conditions.

If Sobers didn't bowl he would likely have ended up with a better record between debuting later and lower workload. Maybe this ends up debatable for me. But pretty hypothetical.

I'd have a hard job picking a 5 and 6 without at least 1 great slip. There isn't much value add in the slips if you already have a great and a good one.

 

[subshakerz]

Ok, so I can be clear. Captaincy which requires much closer inspection that batting, bowling and fielding can be judged from afar, but batting can't be unless you played against them.

Playing against them can help you answer the question of who was the most difficult to face in that era from a first hand perspective. You cant answer that question with as much authority if you don't play them.

And even though he played with Sobers he can't say that Sobers is the best batsman since Bradman, because he didn't play with Tendulkar, but can call Imran a good captain even though he didn't play against Taylor and the like.
You can't judge a batsman unless you played against them, what the hell.

Chappell can say that, but it doesn't hold weight really as much as him comparing batsmen he actually played against. How can he be as sure Tendulkar was easier to face? This should be obvious.

Chappell as a seasoned commentator and great captain is pretty qualified IMO to judge captains even from afar tho as it's relatively easier.

So full of **** sometimes.

You're so bitter, man. It oozes out of every post of yours. Lighten up dude

Oh, so what's the consensus?

Anyways, I'll try not to derail the thread further.

Imran, top ten cricketer.

 

[DrWolverine]

he played in the professional era with higher standards and was tested against more opponents in more conditions.

Literally my arguments for great players who played in the last 50 years against the greats of before eras.

 

[Prince EWS]

Very simple premise.

What if Sobers had never bowled a delivery in test cricket, but was just a middle order bat and slip specialist, with the exact same batting numbers (just adjusted that he made them batting at 3 and especially at 4), but probably has about 50 or so more catches.

And assuming that those who rate Sachin higher still will, and on the premise of the latest CW rankings of 2nd and 4th all time.

Who makes the AT team at 4?

I think the batting gap between Tendulkar and Sobers is a bit bigger than you do but in terms of the spirit of your question which is basically "would you consider a gun slip fielder who was a marginally worse bat if your cordon would be otherwise ****" - then yes I would. Voted accordingly.

 

[Bolo.]

Literally my arguments for great players who played in the last 50 years against the greats of before eras.

It's a bit against the spirit of discussion to not judge a player by the standards of their own times. Otherwise we are (just about) only looking at modern players. I struggle to ignore the issue completely though. I definitely default to modern players as a tiebreaker at a minimum.

 

[DrWolverine]

It's a bit against the spirit of discussion to not judge a player by the standards of their own times.

True. You can’t penalise a great sportsperson (Jack Hobbs for example) because they didn’t face the level of competition that modern greats faced.

I struggle to ignore the issue completely though. I definitely default to modern players as a tiebreaker at a minimum.

Same. Unless you are freakishly exceptional like Don Bradman, I am favouring the modern day greats over greats of the past.

 

[kyear2]

Sachin. Longer career. Higher proportion of career played in a bowling era. Way lower % of games against the weak teams from his era. Less of a HTB, and somewhat more balanced home pitches. Whether or not this should count for anything in this comparison, he played in the professional era with higher standards and was tested against more opponents in more conditions.

If Sobers didn't bowl he would likely have ended up with a better record between debuting later and lower workload. Maybe this ends up debatable for me. But pretty hypothetical.

I'd have a hard job picking a 5 and 6 without at least 1 great slip. There isn't much value add in the slips if you already have a great and a good one.

Sachin's home tracks were quite flat as well, but I digress.

The thought experiment is that he's the only one available, not that you can find another one to bat at 5.

Imagine that Gilly is at 6 and Imran at 7.

 

[kyear2]

Literally my arguments for great players who played in the last 50 years against the greats of before eras.

He faced Lillee, Trueman, Snow, Lindwall, Underwood. There was no lack of quality.

 

[PlayerComparisons]

He faced Lillee, Trueman, Snow, Lindwall, Underwood. There was no lack of quality.

While Sachin played against Warne, Murali, McGrath, Gillespie, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, Imran, Donald, Steyn, Pollock, Hadlee, Anderson, Sami etc

 

[kyear2]

Playing against them can help you answer the question of who was the most difficult to face in that era from a first hand perspective. You cant answer that question with as much authority if you don't play them.


Chappell can say that, but it doesn't hold weight really as much as him comparing batsmen he actually played against. How can he be as sure Tendulkar was easier to face? This should be obvious.

Chappell as a seasoned commentator and great captain is pretty qualified IMO to judge captains even from afar tho as it's relatively easier.


You're so bitter, man. It oozes out of every post of yours. Lighten up dude


Imran, top ten cricketer.

If you can't read that and see how nonsensical that is, then you really are something special. You just want the best of both worlds.

And everytime someone calls you out on your bullshit, it's bitter. You constantly speak from both sides of your mouth.

 

[kyear2]

While Sachin played against Warne, Murali, McGrath, Gillespie, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Wasim, Waqar, Shoaib, Imran, Donald, Steyn, Pollock, Hadlee, Anderson etc

No one's denying Sachin's quality though. And I didn't come near to mentioning all of the great bowling Sobers faced. Didn't mention Davidson, the Quartet, Miller etc.

And least we forget the last 13 years of Sachin's career came in not the most challenging of eras.

In any event, the premise was never to argue who was better between the two, there have been multiple threads for that.

 

[Johan]

Sobers and Sachin are practically equal as bats, slip catching and general fielding would give Gary the edge.

 

[kyear2]

Literally my arguments for great players who played in the last 50 years against the greats of before eras.

So Graeme Smith and Hayden are better than Gavaskar?

 

[kyear2]

Sobers and Sachin are practically equal as bats.

Apparently in the last two years there's been a late career surge for Sachin.

The previous poll we did, Sobers was 3rd and Sachin 4th. Hobbs of course 2nd. Two years later and Sachin is in a class of his own.

 

[Johan]

Apparently in the last two years there's been a late career surge for Sachin.

The previous poll we did, Sobers was 3rd and Sachin 4th. Hobbs of course 2nd. Two years later and Sachin is in a class of his own.

I've noticed this, honestly just few noisy posters, one of the arguments did convince me to go back and look at Sachin's opposition just to find he did do a fair bit of minnow bashing, if anything playing more oppositions proved advantageous to Sachin in comparision to Sobers.

Regardless, I've always had Sachin and Sobers as equals.

 

[kyear2]

I've noticed this, honestly just few noisy posters, one of the arguments did convince me to go back and look at Sachin's opposition just to find he did do a fair bit of minnow bashing, if anything playing more oppositions proved advantageous to Sachin in comparision to Sobers.

Regardless, I've always had Sachin and Sobers as equals.

I have 4 guys as equals. Sachin, Sobers, Richards, Hobbs. All have their merits, and I also acknowledge that not everyone sees things the way I do.

But there are a couple active polls that are quite telling.

 

[Johan]

I have 4 guys as equals. Sachin, Sobers, Richards, Hobbs. All have their merits, and I also acknowledge that not everyone sees things the way I do.

But there are a couple active polls that are quite telling.

Personally I've Hobbs a little above the other three (might be country bias) due to his utter domination of the world on the Golden Age and have Richards/Sachin/Sobers as practical equals.

 

[subshakerz]

And everytime someone calls you out on your bullshit, it's bitter. You constantly speak from both sides of your mouth.

You are bitter. I never say that about anyone else. You need to learn to take the L and let go sometimes and just admit when you agree with someone.

Anyways, Sachin beats Sobers

 

[subshakerz]

Sachin is in a class of his own.

You're welcome.

Long live the Little Master!

 

[PlayerComparisons]

Good to see we all agree that Sachin > Sobers