Vivian Richards vs Sachin Tendulkar

[Richard]

it doesn't always convert to runs for any batsman, expect maybe the don...that's not a good enough reason to rate him down, he was a match winner for most of his career, the most feared presence at the crease for any bowler during that time...that basically says right there that his approach converted into runs when it counted...the windies had some exceptional batsmen in their lineups during his time and he didn't always need to make tons of runs...but with his approach, to score at an average of 50 overall during that time with his kind of strike rate and importantly batting in the top order is as exceptional as it comes...

The thing is, as I've pointed-out, Richards didn't score with an average of 50 - there were two brief periods when he scored with an average in the late-90s and early-80s. In these two short times he lived-up to "best since Bradman" tag, and lived-up to it how.

For most of the rest of his career, though, he was indeed constrained by the approach he'd chosen, and averaged just 41. Because of the fact he still played many match-winning knocks and the fact that a, for instance, 42 from him was probably worth a bit more due to the intimidation than a 42 from a, for instance, Dilip Vengsarkar, he was still a cut above most batsmen with a similar average, and indeed a cut above some with a slightly higher one.

And yes, I'm well aware that I didn't watch as-it-unfolded a single one of these knocks, inside a phenomenal period or a less-phenomenal one. I don't care, frankly. I've watched similar things and I've read about the Richards legend much, and I fully understand what it was that went-on when Richards batted. I just don't draw the same conclusions from it that most people - those who did and those who did not watch him - do.

Runs always count meanwhile - there's almost no such thing as "making runs when it counted". The more often you make them, the more often they count.

 

[Manee]

Just looking at the title...poor stuff not to have Sir Vivian Richards' full name in there

 

[Richard]

Tendulkar should eventually be Sir Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar too TBH.

 

[Anil]

The thing is, as I've pointed-out, Richards didn't score with an average of 50 - there were two brief periods when he scored with an average in the late-90s and early-80s. In these two short times he lived-up to "best since Bradman" tag, and lived-up to it how.

i specifically said 50 overall, in any case, you can split someone's career any number of different ways and come up with different numbers, no one can realistically average 50+ in every single permutation and combination, as such your argument doesn't mean a whole lot...you can argue forever that your splits make the most sense, all it means is that it makes the most sense to you, not to everyone else....

And yes, I'm well aware that I didn't watch as-it-unfolded a single one of these knocks, inside a phenomenal period or a less-phenomenal one. I don't care, frankly. I've watched similar things and I've read about the Richards legend much, and I fully understand what it was that went-on when Richards batted. I just don't draw the same conclusions from it that most people - those who did and those who did not watch him - do.

you might have watched similar things since but definitely not the same things...if you are talking about someone like gilchrist and comparing him to richards, with all due respect for his considerable cricketing abilities, he wasn't as good a top order player, he wasn't as technically sound and even he did not have the same intimidatory effect on the opposition that richards had...in short, he wasn't as good a player, period. i don't know of any other player who has come even that close since except for tendulkar for a period there in the late 90s when he was at his peak but even he and lara never quite dominated like that.... and no, reading and "understanding" is not the same as watching it unless it is an open-and-shut kind of situation...

Runs always count meanwhile - there's almost no such thing as "making runs when it counted". The more often you make them, the more often they count.

a batsman's job is to make runs but no one can do it all the time and no, when you have a greenidge, haynes and gomes(or richardson) rack up 200/300 runs before you even come in to bat, your runs don't count as much(or to put it differently, are not as needed) as when you come in at say 50 for 2...

 

[Anil]

Tendulkar should eventually be Sir Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar too TBH.

i sincerely hope he wouldn't be saddled with a stupid, meaningless and irrelevant title....

 

[Burgey]

Had Ponting been born in India, he'd been probably defected to ICL and playing as a useful lower order bat with a bit of medium pace bowling.

And as regards to Sachin's matchwinning centuries away from home, he is hardly to be blamed, as there are ten other players responsible for winnng matches. It's not Sachn alone who bas and wins test matches. Had India possessed bowlers of the calibre of McGrath or Warne, this comment wouldnt have come up and thats why I bwlieve this concept of "matchwnning" centuries is bull crap.

OMFG.

Dire.

For the sake of adding an equally meaningless post - "had Tendulkar been born in SA or Pakistan, he'd have defected to ICL and been etc. etc."

 

[Richard]

i specifically said 50 overall, in any case, you can split someone's career any number of different ways and come up with different numbers, no one can realistically average 50+ in every single permutation and combination, as such your argument doesn't mean a whole lot...you can argue forever that your splits make the most sense, all it means is that it makes the most sense to you, not to everyone else....

Exactly - they make sense to me, and I try to persuade others to see it that way too, because it makes sense to me and I hope it might to them. If someone else shows me another split of Richards' career I'll look at it (have already had a couple incidentally) and decide whether I think it makes more or less sense.

you might have watched similar things since but definitely not the same things...if you are talking about someone like gilchrist and comparing him to richards, with all due respect for his considerable cricketing abilities, he wasn't as good a top order player, he wasn't as technically sound and even he did not have the same intimidatory effect on the opposition that richards had...in short, he wasn't as good a player, period. i don't know of any other player who has come even that close since except for tendulkar for a period there in the late 90s when he was at his peak but even he and lara never quite dominated like that.... and no, reading and "understanding" is not the same as watching it unless it is an open-and-shut kind of situation...

It is. I understand fully why some people rate Richards so highly. I do not agree with the methodology, however.

While Gilchrist - and one or two others - may not be batsmen of the calibre of Richards, they have similar reasons for being rated very highly. And these reasons help to understand the reasons for rating Richards similarly.

a batsman's job is to make runs but no one can do it all the time and no, when you have a greenidge, haynes and gomes(or richardson) rack up 200/300 runs before you even come in to bat, your runs don't count as much(or to put it differently, are not as needed) as when you come in at say 50 for 2...

Of course not - but the fact remains that making runs > not making runs. If you make runs in both types of situations, you are a better player than if you only tend to make them in one of such.

 

[Anil]

Exactly - they make sense to me, and I try to persuade others to see it that way too, because it makes sense to me and I hope it might to them. If someone else shows me another split of Richards' career I'll look at it (have already had a couple incidentally) and decide whether I think it makes more or less sense.

well you aren't very persuasive then...

It is. I understand fully why some people rate Richards so highly. I do not agree with the methodology, however.

While Gilchrist - and one or two others - may not be batsmen of the calibre of Richards, they have similar reasons for being rated very highly. And these reasons help to understand the reasons for rating Richards similarly.

maybe, it still isn't as good as watching him live and then judging him...

Of course not - but the fact remains that making runs > not making runs. If you make runs in both types of situations, you are a better player than if you only tend to make them in one of such.

..and viv has scored well in all kinds of situations...

 

[Top_Cat]

While Gilchrist - and one or two others - may not be batsmen of the calibre of Richards, they have similar reasons for being rated very highly. And these reasons help to understand the reasons for rating Richards similarly.

Don't take this the wrong way but comparing the reasons for why Gilly is rated highly with why Richards was is an indicator that you never saw Richards live or at least very little (obviously not your fault considering you would barely have been out of nappies). Gilchrist and Richards as batsmen were absolutely poles apart. Don't believe the hype that Richards was little more than a hard-hitter, he was a pure batsman who played well within the bounds of orthodoxy if the situation suited it. What you don't see in highlights are things like his deft touches and rock-solid defence. Richards is rated highly because he was able to redefine orthodoxy but also play within it too.

 

[honestbharani]

Had Ponting been born in India, he'd been probably defected to ICL and playing as a useful lower order bat with a bit of medium pace bowling.

And as regards to Sachin's matchwinning centuries away from home, he is hardly to be blamed, as there are ten other players responsible for winnng matches. It's not Sachn alone who bas and wins test matches. Had India possessed bowlers of the calibre of McGrath or Warne, this comment wouldnt have come up and thats why I bwlieve this concept of "matchwnning" centuries is bull crap.

hahahaha... lets not get carried away here....

 

[honestbharani]

I wasn't attempting to suggest that Tendulkar neccessarily carried India more than Lara carried West Indies from 2001/02 onwards (and occasionally between 1997 and 2001 too). Merely that it'd be nonsense to suggest Tendulkar never carried India, as he did so many times, and that when Lara had to carry West Indies he changed his gameplan quite significantly compared to what it had been 1992-1996.

I agree then... Sachin has of course carried India number of times.....

 

[Richard]

Don't take this the wrong way but comparing the reasons for why Gilly is rated highly with why Richards was is an indicator that you never saw Richards live or at least very little (obviously not your fault considering you would barely have been out of nappies). Gilchrist and Richards as batsmen were absolutely poles apart. Don't believe the hype that Richards was little more than a hard-hitter, he was a pure batsman who played well within the bounds of orthodoxy if the situation suited it. What you don't see in highlights are things like his deft touches and rock-solid defence. Richards is rated highly because he was able to redefine orthodoxy but also play within it too.

I'm perfectly well aware that Richards was far more than a hard-hitter, I've seen many highlights-packages all of which show his defensive skill and deft touch very obviously. You seem of times to think I'm a bit more simplistic than I am.

Thing is, though, Gilchrist was exactly the same - you cannot possibly be anywhere near as good as those two were by being a one-dimensional batsman. Gilchrist was technically good (not perfect, especially against spin, but good) too, and he certainly had the capability to knock the ball around when necessary.

 

[Richard]

maybe, it still isn't as good as watching him live and then judging him...

No, but if that was all anyone did then cricket history would gradually disappear as generations moved-on. There's no fun, IMO, in taking interest only in what has happened during your time.

..and viv has scored well in all kinds of situations...

Of course he did. But others did so to, and to a better extent.