• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Tendulkar vs Richards

Status
Not open for further replies.

Moderator

Banned (Duplicate account)
Who do you think is/was better? I think its Tendulkar because he's got a better record than Richards against every team and in every country in test cricket. In ODIs, he's scored over 13500 runs and has been the most successful batter.
 

Jarryd_S

Cricket Spectator
Moderator said:
You guys have to give reasons. I have stated why Tendulkar is better.
Viv Richards annihilated every attack, he was the master blaster. The best since Bradman. Don Bradman said that Sachin played like him, but the Indians took that as he was as good as Bradman. Sachings very good, but he's no Viv.
 

Moderator

Banned (Duplicate account)
Shahid Afridi annihilates every attack as well, its not just about annihilating, is it?

And surprisingly, there was a time until the end of the 90s that Sachin Tendulkar himself was very attacking. You could totally expect him to score a 100 with about 4 sixes during those times. Yes, he's toned down quite a bit and changed his game but if he's got a better record against every opposition, then those numbers cannot lie.
 

Jarryd_S

Cricket Spectator
Moderator said:
Shahid Afridi annihilates every attack as well, its not just about annihilating, is it?

And surprisingly, there was a time until the end of the 90s that Sachin Tendulkar himself was very attacking. You could totally expect him to score a 100 with about 4 sixes during those times. Yes, he's toned down quite a bit and changed his game but if he's got a better record against every opposition, then those numbers cannot lie.
Sachin has more runs than Bradman, do you say he's a better batsman?

Numbers don't tell the whole story.
 

Moderator

Banned (Duplicate account)
Jarryd_S said:
Sachin has more runs than Bradman, do you say he's a better batsman?

Numbers don't tell the whole story.
I agree numbers don't tell the whole story but if a player beats another player in every number that is analysed, then that tells a lot. Richards has not done better than Tendulkar against ANY team.
 

Jarryd_S

Cricket Spectator
Moderator said:
I agree numbers don't tell the whole story but if a player beats another player in every number that is analysed, then that tells a lot.
The last half of your sentence contradicts the first half! :blink:
 

Moderator

Banned (Duplicate account)
Jarryd_S said:
The last half of your sentence contradicts the first half! :blink:
This sentence proves you don't have much of a brain. If I have to be more clear and spell it out to you, here it goes: Sure, numbers do not tell the whole story. But they say a quite a lot of the story. For example, lets say player A has done better than player B against 10 other teams but lets say player B has done better than player A against 11 other teams. This is a case where numbers will not tell the whole story. There is quite a bit of analysis to be done.

But lets say player A has done better than player B against all 21 other teams. This scenario tells quite a bit about the relative performance of the two players. In this case, the numbers say a lot.

Have you got it yet? Or is it still challenging?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top