Vivian Richards vs Sachin Tendulkar

[BhupinderSingh]

Viv Richards,its a no contest IMO.

 

[BhupinderSingh]

1990-2008 top 5:

1. Brian Lara
2. Andy Flower
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Rahul Dravid

I've already stated many times the reason behind rating A.Flower so high,so I don't think it requires an explanation everytime I make a list.

 

[Ikki]

so you agree that there are more flat pitches around the world now right ?
The whole point being flat pitches have pretty much made sure that a good batsman is going to cash in on most avg attacks now days but in 90's even a avg bowler could hold his own against a good batsman because of the assistant provided by the pitch to bowler.

Why do you choose to completely ignore the parts of my post you have no response for, and then ask the same question? I just showed you, batsmen of this era, compared to batsmen of last era, only score 2 runs on average more than their predecessors. That means, whatever the difference, averaging 64 in this era means still a 60+ average, according to that, in the 90s. It's also a double-edged sword because Sachin only averages 46 in this easy era, when you take out B/Z, so he would be averaging even less than that by your criteria.

Let's get to the nitty gritty. If the difference is pitch and quality bowling, I just showed you, Ponting did well against 2/3 of the best bowling attacks in the 90s whilst Tendulkar did well against 2/4. Sachin isn't regarded as better than Ponting because be was able to beat the average-to-poor attacks of his time better, of course, so your point only goes so far into the question. And if beating average-to-poor attacks - which is what you seem to consider a lot of the attacks are nowadays - then Ponting is also adept at beating them up too.

lol love it how you continuely are willing to forget about Ponting's average of 13 against in India but being rather harsh on Sachin's record agianst SA. Its certainly not good but not as bad as you make it seem. Also reagarding Sachin's record against Pakistan.. its quite misleading because it looks because of his debut series as 16 year old boy... when he only averaged around high 30's agianst them.

get back to rest of the points later

Here is the reason why I am more crucial to Sachin's record than Ponting's: because it is worse. You see, most batsmen in the world have a certain team they are weak against, regardless where they play. Very few - right now none spring to mind except Ponting - have a weakness against ONE opponent in ONE location only but almost universally great everywhere else. Sachin doesn't have this, Sachin never had this.

Also, Sachin's record against Pakistan is not misleading because he did better in the 80s than he did in the 90s . So when you take that out, his overall average against Pakistan pre-90s is even less.

 

[R_D]

Sorry i didn't respond to all your points previously because i was going through them but suddenly had to go out for some important work so why i put a note in at the end.

But now i think its probably not worth the effort anyhow. There is no point as nor me or you likely to make each other see our points.

 

[Sanz]

Also, Sachin's record against Pakistan is not misleading because he did better in the 80s than he did in the 90s .

That's stupidity because of sheer ignorance and/or having a humongous bias against the man. Anyone who watched Sachin play in the 99 (and in 89) against Pakistan can tell that he was infintely better in the 99 series than he was in the 89 series. Not to forget the fact that the attack in the 99 series was 100 times better and the pitches were much more helpful to bowling.


Clearly you have not watched Tendulkar in the 90s or in the 80s at least not in the series being discussed. It is so apparent in every post you make.

 

[Ikki]

That's stupidity because of sheer ignorance and/or having a humongous bias against the man. Anyone who watched Sachin play in the 99 (and in 89) against Pakistan can tell that he was infintely better in the 99 series than he was in the 89 series. Not to forget the fact that the attack in the 99 series was 100 times better and the pitches were much more helpful to bowling.

Clearly you have not watched Tendulkar in the 90s or in the 80s at least not in the series being discussed. It is so apparent in every post you make.

It seems you have a serious reading comprehension problem.

I did not say Tendulkar was a better player, Pakistan was worse, he was younger, any of the above...I didn't make a value judgment. It was also a reply to a reply about his average. Read more before you reply.

I said his record was not better. His record is what I care about.

But let's get to your points: you just said that the 99 series was more difficult. The bowling line-up of Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis and Adul Qadir was not as good as Waqar, Wasim and Saqlain. Now, that's a debate in itself but one being 100 times better than the other is a joke. And here it is being claimed that I didn't watch Cricket enough.

What isn't a debate is that Sachin failed against Pakistan pre-2000, regardless which attack it was, home and away.

 

[Sanz]

But let's get to your points: you just said that the 99 series was more difficult. The bowling line-up of Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis and Adul Qadir was not as good as Waqar, Wasim and Saqlain. Now, that's a debate in itself but one being 100 times better than the other is a joke. And here it is being claimed that I didn't watch Cricket enough.

Yes, the above quoted part from your post is a clear enough evidence that you didn't watch either of the series and your arguments are based on your imaginations, prejudices and random stats from statsguru..

In 1989 Imran and Qadir were past their prime and weren't close to 1/3 of the bowlers they used to be, Waqar was playing in his first sereis. Only real force was Akram. Even he was nowhere good as he was in the 90s.

Now compare that to attack of 99, where Pakistan had not one but two world class spinners in Saqlain and Mushtaq and 3 World class pacemen, Wasim, Waqar and Shoaib. And in that 3 test (2+1) series only time a pacer was able to dismiss him was Akhtar with a freak delivery which would have taken anyone out.

 

[Sanz]

What isn't a debate is that Sachin failed against Pakistan pre-2000, regardless which attack it was, home and away.

He didn't, according to those who watched him because he still scored the best knock of his career(one of the best knocks of my lifetime) against the same attack, against all odds on a 5th day pitch where all but one of his team mates failed to cross 10.

Even in 89, his performance was a reasonable success, considering one of his knocks saved India from losing the series. Only those people, who depend on stats for their knowledge of the game, would consider his performances in his debut series as a failure or not a successful one. His treatment of Abdul Qadir in the series as a 16 year old and then playing with bloody nose(after being hit by a Waqar Delivery) and saving the test (and the series) for India in his debut series is one of the high points of my life as a cricket fan and something that will never go away. And I can say the same for every fan who witnessed the series. His performance in that series was proof enough that the kid was destined for greatness.

But no, suddenly some self confessed smart alec comes from nowhere without any real knowledge of the performances, gets some stats from statsguru and decides that Tendulkar failed in 1989 seies and claims this as some sort of bogus FACT .

Yeah sure dude. try again. Better luck next time.

 

[Beleg]

as an aside, tendulkar's knock in the losing cause at madras is one of the best batting performances I have ever seen against some really consistently top-class bowling. really really blew me away and while I was esctatic when he holed it away to a saqlain delivery part of me couldn't help but feel for him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c599CGHlYUk

i can watch the cover drives against wasim 24/7/365 nd still not get bored

 

[silentstriker]

Yup, definitely his finest moment as a batsman.

 

[Sanz]

Take a look at the Video, see the interview with Tom Alter taken in early 89 and check how old he is. Still a school kid, went on to the toughest tour for an Indian cricketer then , facing the likes of Imran, Wasim, Waqar, Qadir etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5RSm1EXRJM&feature=related

It is bloody annoying when instead of posting, some people come here to every time they want to take a piss

 

[bagapath]

Ponting's record is more weird than anything else. He does excellently elsewhere in the sub-continent and smashes the same Indian bowlers at home. Whereas Tendulkar is universally sub-standard against the aforementioned.

no he is not
this is sachin's away record against the international standard teams.

v Australia 1991-2008 16 30 4 1522 241* 58.53 2549 59.70 6 5 3 171 6 view innings
v England 1990-2007 13 22 1 1302 193 62.00 2397 54.31 4 6 0 186 5 view innings
v New Zealand 1990-2002 8 13 1 498 113 41.50 908 54.84 1 3 1 60 3 view innings
v Pakistan 1989-2006 10 13 1 483 194* 40.25 964 50.10 1 2 0 58 0 view innings
v South Africa 1992-2007 12 22 1 835 169 39.76 1636 51.03 3 3 2 130 2 view innings
v Sri Lanka 1993-1999 6 8 2 670 143 111.66 1211 55.32 4 2 0 83 2 view innings
v West Indies 1997-2002 10 14 1 620 117 47.69 1313 47.22 1 5 3 82 1 view innings

if he averages marginally below 40 in one country (SA) and marginally above in one (Pak) you cant call it universally substandard.

and this is ricky ponting's away record (minus the minnows)

v England 1997-2005 13 22 0 938 156 42.63 1488 63.03 3 3 1 115 8 view innings
v India 1996-2004 8 14 0 172 60 12.28 373 46.11 0 1 3 16 1 view innings
v New Zealand 2005-2005 3 5 2 293 105 97.66 403 72.70 1 1 0 38 8 view innings
v Pakistan 1998-1998 1 2 1 119 76* 119.00 235 50.63 0 1 0 9 0 view innings
v South Africa 2002-2006 6 11 1 657 116 65.70 1004 65.43 3 2 0 86 7 view innings
v Sri Lanka 1999-2004 6 10 1 451 105* 50.11 812 55.54 1 3 0 48 4 view innings
v West Indies 1999-2003 5 9 2 691 206 98.71 1451 47.62 4 0 0 71 4 view innings

sachin's SA record or Pak record or SL record is not very different from Ricky's England record. they are par in West indies. Ricky domiantes in Pak. Sachin has a similar record in Sri Lanka. Ricky sucks in India. Sachin doesnt have such an atrocious record anywhere.

Doing well against India in India is different from doing well against them in Australia.

Ricky has to set that part of record straight to be considered on par with Richards, Lara or tendulkar. He is still a half step behind them.

 

[Ikki]

You've misinterpreted what I've said about universally sub-standard.

I mean, regardless whether it is home or away, Tendulkar was poor against S.Africa/Pakistan. That means, no matter where, those sides almost always got the better of him.

I am talking about pre-2000s here, not overall, because post 2000 Ponting is too far ahead of Tendulkar and it is pre-2000 that Tendulkar is said to have earned the right to be better than Ponting.

Also, you proved my point, Sachin's SA, Pak, SL record is poor...that is 3 Test countries. Ponting is only poor in one country and against one opposition. What are you missing here? There are 9 test nations and you either play home and away. That's 18 'tests' to pass. Ponting passes 17/18 tests. Tendulkar, however, fails in a number of away places. Regardless, if he doesn't do as bad as Ponting in ONE place because overall his away record is inferior.

You're essentially equating one poor record of Ponting's for multiple poor records of Sachin. Doesn't make sense. When overall Ponting's record is better and individually it is better as well. In terms of completeness of record, Ponting is ahead, it's not much of an argument. If you wish to imply Sachin's superiority, it's best done another way because really, not sure too many people would choose a record with 3 poor away records against 1 very poor away record.

 

[Ikki]

Yes, the above quoted part from your post is a clear enough evidence that you didn't watch either of the series and your arguments are based on your imaginations, prejudices and random stats from statsguru..

In 1989 Imran and Qadir were past their prime and weren't close to 1/3 of the bowlers they used to be, Waqar was playing in his first sereis. Only real force was Akram. Even he was nowhere good as he was in the 90s.

Now compare that to attack of 99, where Pakistan had not one but two world class spinners in Saqlain and Mushtaq and 3 World class pacemen, Wasim, Waqar and Shoaib. And in that 3 test (2+1) series only time a pacer was able to dismiss him was Akhtar with a freak delivery which would have taken anyone out.

Imran was not Imran against the Windies in the 80s, but still good enough to contribute beside the other bowlers, same with Qadir, even if they were finishing up. Waqar and Wasim were blitzing it right from the start too. But this attack is 100 times worse than the one in 99? You're deluded. Mushtaq Ahmed a world-class spinner? A few rungs below Saqlain himself. And Akhtar never played against Tendulkar in 1999 where Tendulkar made his tonne. This is what I really dislike. You don't get the bowling attacks right nor their strengths.

 

[Ikki]

He didn't, according to those who watched him because he still scored the best knock of his career(one of the best knocks of my lifetime) against the same attack, against all odds on a 5th day pitch where all but one of his team mates failed to cross 10.

Even in 89, his performance was a reasonable success, considering one of his knocks saved India from losing the series. Only those people, who depend on stats for their knowledge of the game, would consider his performances in his debut series as a failure or not a successful one. His treatment of Abdul Qadir in the series as a 16 year old and then playing with bloody nose(after being hit by a Waqar Delivery) and saving the test (and the series) for India in his debut series is one of the high points of my life as a cricket fan and something that will never go away. And I can say the same for every fan who witnessed the series. His performance in that series was proof enough that the kid was destined for greatness.

Tendulkar averages 33 against Pakistan pre-2000. In 7 tests he has a single century, yet for some reason you keep wishing to revise history and say he did well. Whether he did well in one instance isn't the point. Because even Matty Hayden in his pathetic 90s did so against the WIndies, then obviously, Hayden never struggled either?

But no, suddenly some self confessed smart alec comes from nowhere without any real knowledge of the performances, gets some stats from statsguru and decides that Tendulkar failed in 1989 seies and claims this as some sort of bogus FACT .

Yeah sure dude. try again. Better luck next time.

LOL, look at you trying to revise history. Yeh, averaging 35 against the Pakistanis at age 16 is a reasonable success. But in terms of his overall record, especially when he averages less than that against Pakistan overall, then it's not much improvement on that relative success, where 'he was a kid destined for success'. Here's where your argument falls to crap, you got the line-ups wrong, you're basing 'success' on one innings and you even misjudged his 'relative' success earlier. You come and accuse me for not having seen those games. Not sure one can do more damage to an argument they are debating FOR.

It's not even a debate, Tendulkar did sub-par against Pakistan pre-2000. Doing well in one innings is not indicative of being successful. That's why Cricket is such a numbers game, it depends how many times you are successful with regards to your failures. For all your twitching and "You didn't see him..." you're not going to change that. The funny thing is you're trying to give the advantage to Tendulkar in every instance. When he was ineffective overall, but scored a single century, he was great. When he was 16 he did relatively well, disregarding the fact at the same time you hold that the 89 bowling attack was 100 times worse than the 99 one, which would mean that isn't much of a relative success at all. Get your story right, then come back and convince me.

 

[Sanz]

Tendulkar averages 33 against Pakistan pre-2000. In 7 tests he has a single century, yet for some reason you keep wishing to revise history and say he did well. Whether he did well in one instance isn't the point. Because even Matty Hayden in his pathetic 90s did so against the WIndies, then obviously, Hayden never struggled either?

I dont need to revise history, I know he did reasonably well and had a pretty good success against Pakistan pacemen even as a 16 year old and then at his prime too. Comparing Matty Hayden's pre 2001 batting to Tendulkar's pre- 2000 performance against Pakistan
is a joke and only those who have not watched the man play against Pakistan in Pre 2000 can come to such conclusion. What is more ridiculous is such people continue to live in their fantasy world of Statsguru and try to read that as some sort of fact.

look at you trying to revise history. Yeh, averaging 35 against the Pakistanis at age 16 is a reasonable success. But in terms of his overall record, especially when he averages less than that against Pakistan overall, then it's not much improvement on that relative success, where 'he was a kid destined for success'. Here's where your argument falls to crap, you got the line-ups wrong, you're basing 'success' on one innings and you even misjudged his 'relative' success earlier. You come and accuse me for not having seen those games. Not sure one can do more damage to an argument they are debating FOR.

I dont need to revise history, it is not even History for me. What you are doing is posting crap as usual I have got my facts right. According to your ways Matty Hayden is a greater batsman than Viv Richards and Sunil Gavaskar, According to my ways, he isn't 1/10th if them. And No dont accuse you of not seen those games, I know that you have not watched them. Only an ignorant can make such statements about Tendulkar's batting against Pakistani pacemen.

It's not even a debate, Tendulkar did sub-par against Pakistan pre-2000. Doing well in one innings is not indicative of being successful. That's why Cricket is such a numbers game, it depends how many times you are successful with regards to your failures.

What a Ridiculously Hypocritical CRAP the above passage is. You bring all kinds of excuses for Warne's poor performance against India, Oh he was in his debut series, he was injured and blah blah blah and completely disregard all the stats that are available. And here you are talking about Cricket being a number Game.

For all your twitching and "You didn't see him..." you're not going to change that. The funny thing is you're trying to give the advantage to Tendulkar in every instance. When he was ineffective overall, but scored a single century, he was great. When he was 16 he did relatively well, disregarding the fact at the same time you hold that the 89 bowling attack was 100 times worse than the 99 one, which would mean that isn't much of a relative success at all. Get your story right, then come back and convince me.

Yes, it was worse than 99 one. but imagine a school kid facing Imran Khan, the legendry pace bowler, even if he was past his prime, Wasim Akram who looked like breaking Indian Captain's head (Srikanth's) with every delivery he bowled to him.

As for scoring one Century against Pakistan in the 90s, You are talking as if Ponting was scoring Centuries in every innings he played against Pakistan. How many tests did Tendulkar Play against Pak in the 90s ? 3, that is one less than Ponting.

Ponting :-

TEST 1 :- 76 Not Out, 43 lbw Ijaz Ahmad (No Wasim, Waqar)
TEST 2 :- 0 - LBW Akhtar
TEST 3 :- 0 - Bowled Waqar, 0 - LBW Akram
Test 4 :- 197 C Ijaz Bowl Mahmood

--------------------------------------
TEST 1 :- 0 C Malik B Saqlain, 136 C Wasim, B Saqlain
TEST 2 :- lbw Saqlain, 29 C Wasim B Mushtaq
TEST 3 :- 0 Bowled Akhtar, 9 Runout

====================================

So who is the batsman got out to Pakistani pacers more ? Let me Guess, Ponting ?
How many Centuries both the batsmen have ? 1 each
Whose Century came against better attack ? According to KazoH0lic, Ponting's, according rest of the world, Tendulkar.
Whose Century is considered an alltime Great inning ?

Really this is as much detail as I can post. You can continue with your ridiculously biased and uninformed crap. I have got better things to do.

 

[Burgey]

TBF, they were both pretty damn good innings. IIRC the wicket Ponting played his on was pretty quick. Different to the one Sachin played his on, but perhaps not heaps easier to bat on against an attack with Akram and Akhtar in it.
Edit: how come you guys aren't having this discussion in the Sachin v Ricky thread?

 

[Sanz]

TBF, they were both pretty damn good innings. IIRC the wicket Ponting played his on was pretty quick. Different to the one Sachin played his on, but perhaps not heaps worse.
Edit: how come you guys aren't having this discussion in the Sachin v Ricky thread?

Chennai pitch was pretty helpful for pacers esp on the 4th/5th day. Kolkata was as pace friendly pitch as I have seen anywhere else in the world. Only pitch that was not helpful to fast bowling was Delhi.

Besides Sydney pitch where Ponting scored 197 isn't really a pacer's delight by any means.

 

[Burgey]

Except he scored it in Perth.

 

[Ikki]

I dont need to revise history, I know he did reasonably well and had a pretty good success against Pakistan pacemen even as a 16 year old and then at his prime too. Comparing Matty Hayden's pre 2001 batting to Tendulkar's pre- 2000 performance against Pakistan
is a joke and only those who have not watched the man play against Pakistan in Pre 2000 can come to such conclusion. What is more ridiculous is such people continue to live in their fantasy world of Statsguru and try to read that as some sort of fact.

You are revising history, and it's quite a stretch indeed that after 10 years of experience, 7 tests against an opponent, someone averaging 33 is considered a success.

Your argument is just so silly it beggars belief. Matty Hayden has similar performance against the Windies that Sachin did against Pakistan in 99 yet Hayden is a failure and Sachin is a success. Hayden scored 177 runs in 5 innings against Tendulkar's 180 runs in 6 innings. I've watched Cricket since Tendulkar started playing. Your insulting "you haven't seen him bat" is just laughable and the rest of your diatribe is unsubstantiated non-sense.

I dont need to revise history, it is not even History for me. What you are doing is posting crap as usual I have got my facts right. According to your ways Matty Hayden is a greater batsman than Viv Richards and Sunil Gavaskar, According to my ways, he isn't 1/10th if them. And No dont accuse you of not seen those games, I know that you have not watched them. Only an ignorant can make such statements about Tendulkar's batting against Pakistani pacemen.

No, again, you have a reading problem. I call Viv Richards the best since Bradman and I said he'd be averaging in the 60s in this era - Hayden only averages 53-55 now. How did you decipher that to mean the same? With Gavaskar, yes, I believe Hayden was just as good and easily in the same league.

Only an ignorant can get facts/stats/player-lineups wrong and then come and have the gall to say someone else didn't watch said matches. You have provided 0 evidence to back anything you've said - and some that you did are just plain laughable i.e. Tendulkar's average against Pakistan being a success, or just wrong: Akhtar playing in that line-up.

What a Ridiculously Hypocritical CRAP the above passage is. You bring all kinds of excuses for Warne's poor performance against India, Oh he was in his debut series, he was injured and blah blah blah and completely disregard all the stats that are available. And here you are talking about Cricket being a number Game.

It was Warne's debut series and he was crap. But that doesn't mean he didn't have trouble with India overall. Even I'd concede that - and I am his #1 fan . He was poor against India at home and away and in both forms of the game. What I contest with Warne, just to clear matters, is that he'd do much better than his records suggest if he played them in his prime while he was fit. Unfortunately, most of the games he played in that period against India were exactly when he was injured and out of form. That is not only established by looking at India, but by many of the other test nations at the same time he failed against.

Whereas with Sachin, we are talking about his peak and pre-injury. Overall, he has a poor record against Pakistan and S.Africa in the 90s - if he is kept to that standard that we're assuming here. So your points are non-sense and it's quite easy to see you can't counter the logic. Just throwing out "you are ignorant, if you saw Tendulkar you'd agree...". Give it a break, I can see through it.

Yes, it was worse than 99 one. but imagine a school kid facing Imran Khan, the legendry pace bowler, even if he was past his prime, Wasim Akram who looked like breaking Indian Captain's head (Srikanth's) with every delivery he bowled to him.

Wait, you just said Imran was poor in 89 and so was Qadir. Hello? Do you want to stop stepping on your shoe laces?

As for scoring one Century against Pakistan in the 90s, You are talking as if Ponting was scoring Centuries in every innings he played against Pakistan. How many tests did Tendulkar Play against Pak in the 90s ? 3, that is one less than Ponting.

Ponting :-

TEST 1 :- 76 Not Out, 43 lbw Ijaz Ahmad (No Wasim, Waqar)
TEST 2 :- 0 - LBW Akhtar
TEST 3 :- 0 - Bowled Waqar, 0 - LBW Akram
Test 4 :- 197 C Ijaz Bowl Mahmood

--------------------------------------
TEST 1 :- 0 C Malik B Saqlain, 136 C Wasim, B Saqlain
TEST 2 :- lbw Saqlain, 29 C Wasim B Mushtaq
TEST 3 :- 0 Bowled Akhtar, 9 Runout

====================================

So who is the batsman got out to Pakistani pacers more ? Let me Guess, Ponting ?
How many Centuries both the batsmen have ? 1 each
Whose Century came against better attack ? According to KazoH0lic, Ponting's, according rest of the world, Tendulkar.
Whose Century is considered an alltime Great inning ?

Really this is as much detail as I can post. You can continue with your ridiculously biased and uninformed crap. I have got better things to do.

LOL wait a second, I love you how you seem to ignore that Ponting's century is almost a double century and is 61 runs more than Tendulkar's - all Tendulkar's other runs combined doesn't equal 197 runs - just so you can tally "Ponting 1 century, Sachin 1 century".

And what is more funny, Ponting had 4 test matches, but 6 innings. Sachin has 3 test matches, but also 6 innings. See, you're bordering on the dishonest and low now.

Ponting's notable scores in the 6 innings:
- 76*
- 43
- 197

Tendulkar's notable scores in the 6 innings:
- 136
- 29

Even Ponting's 2nd/3rd highest scores are higher than the rest of Tendulkar's. If we count innings over 40 a success (since we consider an average above 40 standard), Ponting has 3/6 innings as success. 50%. Tendulkar has 1/6 innings as a success, 17%.

Now again, go read a bit more, recall some logic and do away with your dishonesty. We can debate this till next year, but let's be objective and honest.