Vivian Richards vs Sachin Tendulkar

[Googenheim]

Mark my words. 20 years down the line, people are going to look back at their careers and the attacks they faced, and sensibly wonder what led to people rating Viv ahead of Tendulkar. For some people currently, swashbuckling Viv is their abiding memory, while the dominant Tendulkar of the 90s might not have existed at all. Its ridiculous that people are throwing in words like legacy when one of the players isn't even finished yet. Nothing like the passage of time to add gloss to a body of work.

 

[Engle]

Viv retired in 1991 and in 2000 was voted 5th in Wisden's Cricketers of the Century over exceptional batsmen like Sutcliffe, Hutton, Hammond, Weekes, Harvey. He did not need passage-of-time gloss to establish legacy.

 

[Sanz]

I, of course, never said Ponting was as good as Tendulkar in the 90s. I said his form at the turn of the century has been just as good as Tendulkar's in the 90s.

Ofcourse

He did as good if not better than Tendulkar. And now is doing better than Tendulkar regardless who he faces. The guy is averaging 64 for the past 8 years and people are still 'kinda' thinking about putting him on the same level, what a joke..

Bold Part is refeering to Ponting performance in the 90s..

 

[Sanz]

If you agree with what Burgey is saying then you're essentially agreeing with what I am saying. .

NO, No And NO. You have been posting biased crap.

 

[Ikki]

Bold Part is refeering to Ponting performance in the 90s..

In reference to his performance against the best attacks of the era...

You'd do well reading the sentence that precedes the one you quoted:

But the arguments put against Ponting that he didn't do as well in the 90s because he didn't face the best bowlers is tripe. He did as good if not better than Tendulkar.

Reading comprehension wasn't your strong suit in school I'm guessing .

NO, No And NO. You have been posting biased crap.

Considering the above misjudgment, I'll just assume you haven't been reading anything properly.

 

[Sanz]

In reference to his performance against the best attacks of the era...

You'd do well reading the sentence that precedes the one you quoted:

But the arguments put against Ponting that he didn't do as well in the 90s because he didn't face the best bowlers is tripe. He did as good if not better than Tendulkar.

Reading comprehension wasn't your strong suit in school I'm guessing .

And spinning, putting words in others mouth is your strongest forte, reading/writting aren't. I mean the statement

"he(Ponting) didn't do as well in the 90s because he didn't face the best bowlers is tripe ..."

doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, based on what your wrote, my reading comprehension skills do seem poor.

I hope someone can explain that to me.

Considering the above misjudgment, I'll just assume you haven't been reading anything properly.

Only if you could write properly.

 

[Ikki]

And spinning, putting words in others mouth is your strongest forte, reading/writting aren't. I mean the statement

"he(Ponting) didn't do as well in the 90s because he didn't face the best bowlers is tripe ..."

doesn't make any sense to me. Yes, based on what your wrote, my reading comprehension skills do seem poor.

How much clearer can one get? I mentioned in the very same post that I am NOT saying Ponting was better than Tendulkar in the 90s. So why would I in the very next sentence try to make it out as if he were? And furthermore, the surrounding posts of mine should lead a reasonable person to understand the context of which I was talking in - which was the better attacks of the time and how the aforementioned batsmen dealt with it.

I hope someone can explain that to me.

"But the arguments put against Ponting that he didn't do as well in the 90s because he didn't face the best bowlers is tripe. He did as good if not better than Tendulkar."

What did Ponting do as good if not better than Tendulkar? Maybe it relates to the sentence that precedes it: that Ponting also did well against the best bowlers in the 90s.

When in doubt, look for what was being said or argued. I am not Noam Chomsky, nor do I write at good hours where I am clear in my mind, but give me a break...

 

[Sanz]

"But the arguments put against Ponting that he didn't do as well in the 90s because he didn't face the best bowlers is tripe. He did as good if not better than Tendulkar."[/I]

Still showing your reading problem. can't read your own post or what ? Who would argue that ponting didn't do as well in the 90s because he didn't face the best bowlers ? If anything they would have argued 'Ponting did/didn't do well in the 90s because he diddn't/did face the best bowlers.'


Hope you have figured out the mistake in your post.

What did Ponting do as good if not better than Tendulkar? Maybe it relates to the sentence that precedes it: that Ponting also did well against the best bowlers in the 90s.

I dont know, what was it ? I dont think he did anything better than Tendulkar in the 90s.

When in doubt, look for what was being said or argued. I am not Noam Chomsky, nor do I write at good hours where I am clear in my mind, but give me a break...

Then dont questions others skills when you cant write things clear enough.

 

[Ikki]

Still showing your reading problem. can't read your own post or what ? Who would argue that ponting didn't do as well in the 90s because he didn't face the best bowlers ? If anything they would have argued 'Ponting did/didn't do well in the 90s because he diddn't/did face the best bowlers.'

What does that have to do with the writing? Somebody help this guy out.

And people DO say Ponting didn't face great attacks in the 90s, some also say he didn't do well. But strictly reading what I was saying - if you had read it properly - it could not possibly lead you to misconstrue that I said Ponting was as good as Tendulkar in the 90s...when in the sentence RIGHT BEFORE IT I acknowledge he wasn't. Use some common sense.

Hope you have figured out the mistake in your post.

I dont know, what was it ? I dont think he did anything better than Tendulkar in the 90s.

You mean except for his performances against S.Africa and Pakistan.

Then dont questions others skills when you cant write things clear enough.

Funny and sad at the same time.

 

[Goughy]

For me it is Richards, quite clearly.

There is an obvious difference in opinion so Ill not even list my reasons as noone could change my mind to Tendulkar and Im not trying to change anyone to Richards.

 

[funnygirl]

Mark my words. 20 years down the line, people are going to look back at their careers and the attacks they faced, and sensibly wonder what led to people rating Viv ahead of Tendulkar. For some people currently, swashbuckling Viv is their abiding memory, while the dominant Tendulkar of the 90s might not have existed at all. Its ridiculous that people are throwing in words like legacy when one of the players isn't even finished yet. Nothing like the passage of time to add gloss to a body of work.

I saw both of them ,it is not about swash bucking knock over poetry or anything .In theory R Dravid's batting is more correct in test match scenario then .Then he will be sidelined saying he is too slow .I never saw any batsmen in the world dominating some of the quickest bowlers like Viv did .That was beyond comparison ,a sight to behold in complete awe .I never saw tendulkar dominating(yes he did) but not as much as Viv.

I can't imagine SRT wearing a regular cap to face bowlers like Bob willis,Lillee or Thommo.

SRT is the very best.

And Viv is just out of the world,so unreal.

 

[Smudge]

I'm afraid we're going to have to discount your vote if that's the basis for it TBH.

"Your opinion is not valid. Please leave the thread."

 

[Googenheim]

I can't imagine SRT wearing a regular cap to face bowlers like Bob willis,Lillee or Thommo.

I can. Could be wrong, but I don't recall Tendulkar being hit on the helmet by Donald, Akhtar, Lee or Bond, despite his extremely short stature. I think he'd have done even better at avoiding bouncers without the helmet. Batsmen shouldn't be marked down for taking basic precautions like all of their contemporaries. Unlike some cricketers, Tendulkar actually is in a monogamous relationship with little kids to think of.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I can. Could be wrong, but I don't recall Tendulkar being hit on the helmet by Donald, Akhtar, Lee or Bond, despite his extremely short stature. I think he'd have done even better at avoiding bouncers without the helmet. Batsmen shouldn't be marked down for taking basic precautions like all of their contemporaries. Unlike some cricketers, Tendulkar actually is in a monogamous relationship with little kids to think of.

Tendulkar needed that extra protection for occasions when he attempted to duck under deliveries that were hitting the stumps.

 

[archie mac]

Mark my words. 20 years down the line, people are going to look back at their careers and the attacks they faced, and sensibly wonder what led to people rating Viv ahead of Tendulkar. For some people currently, swashbuckling Viv is their abiding memory, while the dominant Tendulkar of the 90s might not have existed at all. Its ridiculous that people are throwing in words like legacy when one of the players isn't even finished yet. Nothing like the passage of time to add gloss to a body of work.

Your kidding right? People tend to forget about batsman not remember them more

I would imagine the vote for Tendulkar would go down over the years not up

 

[Engle]

Unlike some cricketers, Tendulkar actually is in a monogamous relationship with little kids to think of.

Ok, so he is the nicer chap

 

[Migara]

Richards walks in. Not sure Tendulkar is even the best in his era.

Tendulkar > Ponting / Seve Waugh / Allan Border

 

[Ikki]

Tendulkar > Ponting / Seve Waugh / Allan Border

I'm not sure Tendulkar was that much better than Waugh and I certainly don't think it's conclusive with regards to Lara, let alone Ponting.

As far as the aforementioned batsmen and their legacy in the 90s, Waugh has, IMO, the best record of them all and certainly the most balanced.

 

[Migara]

I just dont buy this Tendulkar faced better bowlers than Richards arguement. You play in the era you play in. Richards played against some really great bowlers and murdered them.

I can't recall any good spinners murdered by him.

 

[Ikki]

I can't recall any good spinners murdered by him.

Chandrasekhar, Prasanna, Bedi, Mushtaq Mohammad, Adul Qadir... not good spinners?