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 said:You guys have to give reasons. I have stated why Tendulkar is better.
Sachin has more runs than Bradman, do you say he's a better batsman?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.
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 said:Sachin has more runs than Bradman, do you say he's a better batsman?
Numbers don't tell the whole story.
The last half of your sentence contradicts the first half!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.
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.Jarryd_S said:The last half of your sentence contradicts the first half!