Sobers vs Tendulkar

[subshakerz]

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.

At the end of the day, Hobbs dominated a less professional game. The more professional the game becomes IMO, the harder it will be to be outright dominant for so long.

 

[Johan]

At the end of the day, Hobbs dominated a less professional game. The more professional the game becomes IMO, the harder it will be to be outright dominant for so long.

It's not just about dominance or being on the top though, Hobbs averaged 20 points higher than anyone in Aus/Eng/SA, literally averaged 1.5× the second best batter of the era (Trumper) while having infinitely harder home conditions, I can't see anyone bar Bradman representing that.

 

[Bolo.]

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.

Sachin's home conditions were also easy, but at least were pretty good for spin. It's why I said somewhat more balanced pitches.

Anyway, I think Pews put it nicely. With a junk cordon, I would sacrifice a bit of batting for an upgrade. With a stronger cordon, I might still sacrifice a smaller bit of batting for an upgrade. This example isn't the best way to illustrate the principle though- you are duct taping a whole bunch of hypotheticals together, and the answer is still going to be dependent on differing relative assessments of Sachin and Sobers.

 

[Line and Length]

Good to see we all agree that Sachin > Sobers

Really? ALL agree?

 

[kyear2]

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.

That I agree with as well, but it gets complicated.

I have him closer to Bradman than anyone else, and don't think it's anywhere close to that double / two batsman stuff, actually don't think there that much in it. Hence why I have him 4th all time in player ratings.

But for the way I list the best after Bradman guys, it's by strength of bowlers faced, and strength of bowlers faced and the inability to ever see him bat, he's 5th.

Know it doesn't make any sense, but there it is.

 

[Coronis]

Seems a very convoluted hypothetical situation to try and get people onboard with your slips r the goats theory.

In this case, I’d pick Tendulkar for his bowling, because Sobers can’t even bowl.

 

[Coronis]

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.

tbf he didn’t say the cordon was ****. Probably should’ve if he wanted a more unanimous vote to get people on his side.

 

[kyear2]

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

Take the L?

You are so incredibly full of yourself.

I don't remotely agree with most things you say.

Yes. Batting matters more. I am not sacrificing primary skill in an ATG XI middle order for tertiary benefits.

This in particular is one of the absolute worst takes you've ever had, and there's competition.

You're so preoccupied with creating labels that suits your agenda, that you ignore tenants of the game. Sometimes I wonder if you actually even watch it.

 

[Coronis]

Take the L?

You are so incredibly full of yourself.

I don't remotely agree with most things you say.


This in particular is one of the absolute worst takes you've ever had, and there's competition.

You're so preoccupied with creating labels that suits your agenda, that you ignore tenants of the game. Sometimes I wonder if you actually even watch it.

Honestly mate, its incredibly hypocritical to criticise anyone pushing an agenda given the content of this thread.

 

[kyear2]

Sachin's home conditions were also easy, but at least were pretty good for spin. It's why I said somewhat more balanced pitches.

Anyway, I think Pews put it nicely. With a junk cordon, I would sacrifice a bit of batting for an upgrade. With a stronger cordon, I might still sacrifice a smaller bit of batting for an upgrade. This example isn't the best way to illustrate the principle though- you are duct taping a whole bunch of hypotheticals together, and the answer is still going to be dependent on differing relative assessments of Sachin and Sobers.

Yeah, probably not the best way to illustrate the point. But figured it's better than a generic faceless one.

Do agree with the highlighted assessment though.

The entire scenario was just to see the level of sacrifice, figured this one would have been way closer than Kallis or Hammond, both top tier guys and all.

 

[subshakerz]

It's not just about dominance or being on the top though, Hobbs averaged 20 points higher than anyone in Aus/Eng/SA, literally averaged 1.5× the second best batter of the era (Trumper) while having infinitely harder home conditions, I can't see anyone bar Bradman representing that.

That's all well and good. Hobbs is still in my top ten cricketers for that reason.

But there will always be that question that he, like Bradman, had some sort of cheat code that a less professional era of the time had no way of identifying and counteracting.

And if nothing else, watch videos of him batting. It's so quaint an era seems like village cricket.

 

[Johan]

That's all well and good. Hobbs is still in my top ten cricketers for that reason.

But there will always be that question that he, like Bradman, had some sort of cheat code that a less professional era of the time had no way of identifying and counteracting.

And if nothing else, watch videos of him batting. It's so quaint an era seems like village cricket.

I don't think the cheatcode argument works when countless saw him over 22 years and nobody really found the counter, if there was one, surely word would've travelled.

well, it's with a heavy black and white filter with plain shirts and terrible quality, it would naturally seem quaint.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't think the cheatcode argument works when countless saw him over 22 years and nobody really found the counter, if there was one, surely word would've travelled.

well, it's with a heavy black and white filter with plain shirts and terrible quality, it would naturally seem quaint.

Being an outlier in that era can naturally mean he is that much better. Or that he managed to grasp certain things ahead of others as the gameplay was being formalised.

I think doubt is sufficient to put him down a notch.

 

[Johan]

Being an outlier in that era can naturally mean he is that much better. Or that he managed to grasp certain things ahead of others as the gameplay was being formalised.

I think doubt is sufficient to put him down a notch.

I don't really think Batsmenship other than power hitting has really changed since that era, and the latter is a complete gamble/risk anyway.

I don't really agree with putting doubt on golden era cricketers, WG era makes sense considering Ranji's explaination on WG's impact on batsmenship, after that? don't really see it.

 

[subshakerz]

I don't really think Batsmenship other than power hitting has really changed since that era, and the latter is a complete gamble/risk anyway.

I don't really agree with putting doubt on golden era cricketers, WG era makes sense considering Ranji's explaination on WG's impact on batsmenship, after that? don't really see it.

Yeah we can agree to disagree but I admit I do have a bias for post WSC cricketers who I feel are subject to more intense scrutiny of competition.

 

[Johan]

Yeah we can agree to disagree but I admit I do have a bias for post WSC cricketers who I feel are subject to more intense scrutiny of competition.

Understandable

 

[Fanboy375]

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.

Sobers career isn't short as he played for 20 years from 1954-1974.Except Ind (which had minnow level bowling attack) Sobers ave was 53 against rest of them.Also during his time batting was little difficult than 2000s era.

 

[Fanboy375]

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

He faced most of them during 90s

 

[subshakerz]

Sami etc

Bro you destroyed your argument here.

 

[h_hurricane]

Tendulkar for his captaincy.