Vivian Richards vs Sachin Tendulkar

[silentstriker]

Was certainly an all time great "he never played a christian shot in his life"

Christian shots are overrated . Plus, I believe he led the county averages runs for many years, and when reading old newspaper articles, most people seem to compare Trumper to Ranji and not the other way around.

 

[pasag]

Christian shots are overrated . Plus, I believe he led the county averages runs for many years, and when reading old newspaper articles, most people seem to compare Trumper to Ranji and not the other way around.

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=1448348&postcount=174

 

[subshakerz]

Viv Richards for me. The main reason why is that Viv struck me as a better batsman under pressure, and even if he scored a quick fifty or so, he was more likely to score if his team was in a spot of bother. That's not to say that Tendulkar was a poor player under pressure, its just that batsmen of comparable excellence like Viv and Lara were better in that category, which is why I rate them higher.

 

[Top_Cat]

Interestingly, Tendulkar averages an astonishing 63.55 in an Indian won Test, in comparison to Richards' 52.43 - Tendulkar's innings have proved more vital to his team's victory - of course, this may be due to Tendulkar's superior conversion rate of fifties to hundreds but it also underlines that Richards' biggest knocks did not necessarily demoralise an opponent into defeat.

Dodgy conclusion considering differing pitch conditions and that there are ten other batsmen around each player to influence a result. Doesn't logically follow for mine.

 

[Richard]

Although I am unaware of the standards and quantity of video analysis in the 1970s and 1980s, Tendulkar has been subject to more plans than any other batsman of the age, from off theory to outside leg stump by Ashley Giles.

Video analysis only became a really serious pastime, undertaken by everyone, in the John Buchanan age. He was the first to develop it to the level we now take for granted, and have taken for granted for a good 4 or 5 years now, in about 2000 or so. Duncan Fletcher copied him and had his own near enough exact imitation set-up by 2002.

Virtually nothing of the kind was done in the 1970s and 1980s. It's always worth remembering, though, that the very best batsmen often notice flaws before even bowlers and strategists do - certainly, Tendulkar always has. If video analysis could have helped bowlers bowl at Richards, it could also have helped him better himself.

However, I have watched clips of Sir Viv batting and it is quite amazing how he would batter the ball with a flourishing flow of the bat. He clearly had magnificent hand-eye coordination.

Indeed - no-one has ever disputed that Richards in full flow was quite a sight to behold, a sight the like of which is rarely seen. The point I feel too many over-emphasise, though is that "a good Richards innings was better than a good innings by <insert batsman>". When this isn't really terribly important when assessing how good a batsman is - how often they produce them is far more so.

 

[Manee]

It is a highly dodgy conclusion - it does not prove it. Rather it can act as a statistical theory.

Sorry.

 

[Richard]

Viv Richards for me. The main reason why is that Viv struck me as a better batsman under pressure, and even if he scored a quick fifty or so, he was more likely to score if his team was in a spot of bother. That's not to say that Tendulkar was a poor player under pressure, its just that batsmen of comparable excellence like Viv and Lara were better in that category, which is why I rate them higher.

For my money, a batsman of that calibre is under what for most people would be innumerable pressure every time they walk to the crease.

What made them - and so many besides - so good is that where pressure would have been felt in the extreme by mere mortals, they felt no such thing.

 

[bagapath]

i voted for viv. but it was purely a personal call. to choose one over the other on "facts and figures" is impossible. there is not much to choose between them in terms of stats.

i would say sachin's best years were from 1995 to 2001. richards' were from 76 to 84. They certainly played awesome knocks before and after these years too, but in my opinion these were the absolute peak years for these champions. and that is long enough to bestow greatness upon anyone in international sport. they were certainly no flash in the pan.

tendulkar faced some of the greatest bowlers in the history of the game - some more often than others - donald, pollock, mcgrath, warne, murali, ambrose, walsh, akram, waqar and akhthar.

but so did richards. he faced lillee, thomson, hadlee, kapil, willis, botham, imran, akram, bedi, chandrasekhar, prasanna and qadir.

both scored hundreds everywhere in either form of the game and did well in all cricket playing countries.

in tests sachin's average in this batting friendly era is 52 (leaving aside the minnows). it compares on par with viv's 50. and richards scored at a faster clip. a SR of 67 compared to sachin's 53 gives an indication of his reputation as the most destructful batter ever.

in ODIs, viv again scored at a faster rate and but with a better average. saching scored more runs and centuries, but in the opening position.

while richards was miles ahead of other greats of his era like gavaskar, chappell, miandad and border sachin had to run neck to neck with the equally great lara. waugh, inzamam, dravid and ponting were the guys immediately after them with ricky looking to join the ranks in the alst three years.

how do we split them?

well, i went for viv because i though he was better than sachin in shepherding the lower order. he somehow gave the confidence of being in control more than sachin, whose reputation for valiant knocks in losing causes dont help him in this poll at all.

small reason. may be statistically incorrect. but as i said, you cant settle this particular argument with numbers alone.

 

[Manee]

All statistical theories aside, in general, people have a prior motive in player comparisons from different generations. Overrall, people favour batsmen who played when they were a teenager with a few exceptions who are rooted to the theory that players of the past had superior ability to those now.

 

[Richard]

i voted for viv. but it was purely a personal call. to choose one over the other on "facts and figures" is impossible. there is not much to choose between them in terms of stats.

i would say sachin's best years were from 1995 to 2001. richards' were from 76 to 84. They certainly played awesome knocks before and after these years too, but in my opinion these were the absolute peak years for these champions. and that is long enough to bestow greatness upon anyone in international sport. they were certainly no flash in the pan.

tendulkar faced some of the greatest bowlers in the history of the game - some more often than others - donald, pollock, mcgrath, warne, murali, ambrose, walsh, akram, waqar and akhthar.

but so did richards. he faced lillee, thomson, hadlee, kapil, willis, botham, imran, akram, bedi, chandrasekhar, prasanna and qadir.

both scored hundreds everywhere in either form of the game and did well in all cricket playing countries.

in tests sachin's average in this batting friendly era is 52 (leaving aside the minnows). it compares on par with viv's 50. and richards scored at a faster clip. a SR of 67 compared to sachin's 53 gives an indication of his reputation as the most destructful batter ever.

in ODIs, viv again scored at a faster rate and but with a better average. saching scored more runs and centuries, but in the opening position.

while richards was miles ahead of other greats of his era like gavaskar, chappell, miandad and border sachin had to run neck to neck with the equally great lara. waugh, inzamam, dravid and ponting were the guys immediately after them with ricky looking to join the ranks in the alst three years.

how do we split them?

well, i went for viv because i though he was better than sachin in shepherding the lower order. he somehow gave the confidence of being in control more than sachin, whose reputation for valiant knocks in losing causes dont help him in this poll at all.

small reason. may be statistically incorrect. but as i said, you cant settle this particular argument with numbers alone.

That's a very interesting reason. Not taken any great look at it, but you'd think that being principally number-three and -four batsmen the opportunities both had to shephard the tail would be minimal.

 

[irfan]

I will start off by commending Richard for starting a versus thread that actually has some merit and is worth debating and for picking an irrelevant third option that entices no one.

Voted for Sachin, simply because I think to be the better test match batsman you have to be able to adapt and change temperament depending on the match situation better than Viv. What I mean is that Sachin could grind out a 100, blitz a 100 or serenely stroke his way to a 100 whereas with Viv he just relied on his magnificent hand-eye and blitzed 100's. Whilst Viv is better in dominating an attack and intimidating bowlers, I don't think he is as good in changing gears as a Sachin. It's a very close contest, as Viv is an all-time legend but Sachin, just, for mine.

 

[Manee]

I also feel that Tendulkar should be commended for the mental strength which he displayed in England - where he cut out the pull shot due to the bouncer theory and took deliveries at 140kph on the body. Come to think of it, a lot of physical strength involved in that two.

 

[Richard]

I will start off by commending Richard for starting a versus thread that actually has some merit and is worth debating and for picking an irrelevant third option that entices no one.

Haha, yeah, picked Boycs very strategically knowing that with him potential votes were unlikely to be wasted the way they would've been if I'd gone for, say, Adam Gilchrist.

 

[silentstriker]

http://forum.cricketweb.net/showpost.php?p=1448348&postcount=174

That's excellent stuff, thanks! I'll upload a couple articles going the other way when I get home and find them.

 

[biased indian]

Sachin Tendulkar .

Nothing more to say..and it will be like this even if the other batsmen was bradman
really surprised the way vote stand now though 29-23 in favour of tendulkar
last six have voted for SRT

 

[Dasa]

SRT for me, but not by a significant amount at all. I don't really care to dissect the records of either player either - they're both among the best batsmen the game has ever produced and it's not really of much significance whether one is slightly better than the other.

 

[Sanz]

LOL, are you trying to suggest Shoaib Akhtar, Wasim Akram and Saqlain Mushtaq were not a formidable force?

As usual you have tried to spin my argument. Show me where I said that Saqi, & Akhtar were not a formidable force. Sachin Absoultrly hammered them in Multan.

And yes, whilst Ponting didn't get to face Waqar and Wasim as much as (which is only one less than Tendulkar), Tendulkar averaged 9 against the same "easybeats" Ponting scored runs off.

Yeah and Tendulkar was averaging 60+ against the easy beats Ponting struggled to cross 40.

Then, we have also the S.Africans, where there can be no question here that Tendulkar failed against and Ponting dominated.

Ponting played only 3 tests against the SAffies in the 90s that too at home, averaged <50, hardly the hammering that you talk about.

BTW, when Ponting actually kept to one position...

Yeah when nothing else works.

So he beat the 'great' attacks of the 90s just as well as Tendulkar did

No he didn't.

 

[Jono]

Even Bradman got out occasionally, which is directly correlating with what the above comparison actually says... which is nothing. I don't see your point Jono.

When Ponting has 7-8 years of scoring 46 runs on average (disregarding minnows), then we'll compare. Thus far, he's had no such poor form like Sachin's.

a) He never faced Warne and McGrath, and even Gillespie.
b) http://stats.cricinfo.com/australia...t_runs_career.html?class=1;id=199;type=decade

Read Sachin's stats in the 90s.
Read everyone else's stats.
Then watch him bat.

Sachin is a ****ing master.

 

[Engle]

Emulating a Richards is more difficult than a Tendulkar.
One could find more batsmen of Tendulkar's ilk than of Richards ilk.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Emulating a Richards is more difficult than a Tendulkar.
One could find more batsmen of Tendulkar's ilk than of Richards ilk.

People seem to have this idea that because Richard's was more unorthodox, it means that it is more difficult to bat like him. For me, batting like Tendulkar would just about be the most difficult thing that there is.