Vivian Richards vs Sachin Tendulkar

[silentstriker]

More than one

Oops, meant to say 'at least one test'. I think they were involved in two series together right? I know he was there in Australia in 1930. Was that the only series?

 

[silentstriker]

00.00 best ever

And no don't mention Pakistan

I've been watching plenty of Lillee lately, and I'd have to put him in top five-six. But I can't go past Marshall, McGrath, and a couple other guys.

 

[archie mac]

Oops, meant to say 'at least one test'. I think they were involved in two series together right? I know he was there in Australia in 1930. Was that the only series?

Aust 1928/29 and England 1930

Hobbs at the end and Bradman at the start, I like that sort of thing

Grace at the end Trumper at the start, it is like passing on the mantle

 

[silentstriker]

Aust 1928/29 and England 1930

Hobbs at the end and Bradman at the start, I like that sort of thing

Grace at the end Trumper at the start, it is like passing on the mantle

I'm going to put on my biased Indian hat and say Ranji > Trumper. Though obviously Hobbs came along a bit later and was better than both.

 

[archie mac]

I'm going to put on my biased Indian hat and say Ranji > Trumper. Though obviously Hobbs came along a bit later and was better than both.

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

 

[pasag]

Viv for me, but it's not by a huge amount.

More interesting actually would be comparisons between the two as ODI players, although as has been pointed out in the past that's also pretty hard to do with all the changes in the game from its infancy till now.

 

[Slifer]

Tendulkar by a country mile (whatever that is). Far better average, playing the lion share of his career in the 1990s, in which talent of an equal or greater talent to that of the 1970s and 1980s (considering Richards did not play against West Indies) bowled. Pollock, Mcgrath, Waqar, Wasim, Ambrose, Walsh, Srinath - I could go on, but I won't.

The talk of Tendulkar's sharp Test decline is nothing more than rubbish, sprowted by a shocking 2003 and 2006. Furthermore, he came back with a strong 2007 and a very strong start to 2008, groin injury pending. It is nothing but hypocracy to discount Tendulkar's career based on two poor years and yet say that Richards' was better, even though his last three years bore just 978 runs at 36.22.

Don't worry all, I'm prepared to get torn to shreds by an angry Sir Viv fan...

Just because SRT faced some of the above bowlers doesnt mean he necessarily had a great record against them. If memory serves me correctly SRT averaged sumthing like the low 30s against the 2 Ws and mid 30s against RSA. Against the WI he was very good and great against the Aussies.

 

[Sanz]

Viv.

 

[Sanz]

Just because SRT faced some of the above bowlers doesnt mean he necessarily had a great record against them. If memory serves me correctly SRT averaged sumthing like the low 30s against the 2 Ws and mid 30s against RSA. Against the WI he was very good and great against the Aussies.

Sachin played only 4 tests against the 2 Ws from Pakistan and averaged 39.71. Needless to say that 2 of those tests were in his debut series in which he averaged 35.66 and the remaining two in 1999 where he averaged 42.75 and 2 Ws didn't have much success against him in 1999 and a spinner in the name of Saqlain who got him 3 out of 4 times and 4th time it was another spinner in the name of Mushtaq Ahmad. . If that is not a good record then I dont understand what is,

 

[Slifer]

Never said he didnt have success agaisnt them. The point of my contention was the fact that someone had the temerity to say that SRT was better than IVAR by a "country mile." Incidentally, i voted for SRT over Viv (in tests atleast).

 

[Sanz]

Ponting averages 64 since the turn of the century and when he held a stable position in the 90s he averaged 51. And in the 90s, he belted the two best bowling attacks Tendulkar failed to get above 40 with. There should be no more talk of Ponting being merely near them, in fact, it it's getting more to be the other way. For someone who values consistency as well as flair, then Ponting's record should be likened to your favourite McGrath's. Once his record in India rises to above 40 runs average, there is pretty much nothing that can be held against him. In fact, if Ponting keeps going the way he has been, I can very easily call him the best bar Bradman.
.

Ponting best after Bradman is just flat out Ridiculous. Ponting's avg. in the 90s was 44.5 Tendulkar's 58. Even more appalling is Ponting's no. of centuries only 6 in 33 tests (52 innings) i.e. a century every 8.6 innings where Tendulkar scored 22 in 109 innings, every 4.9 innings.

As for Ponting blasting the Pakistani attack that Tendulkar failed against. It is just plain ridiculously ignorant. Ponting didn't even face 2 Ws 1998 test in Pakistan and he was piss poor for the most part in the 1999 series, his scores were 0, 0, 0 and 197. Oh and in the only test He faced 2 Ws in the 90s, his average was a flattering ZERO.

RT Ponting b Waqar Younis 0
RT Ponting lbw b Wasim Akram 0

Last but not the least, Tendulkar's average against countries that Ponting failed to get above 40 were 81.25 Vs England, 63.64 Vs. NZ, 62.81 Vs. WI. And I am not even counting their records against each other. Ponting in 90s wouldn't have made my top 25 list, as simple as that. Tendulkar in the 2000s will make the top 5 list despite his slump between 2003-2006.

 

[Sanz]

Never said he didnt have success agaisnt them. The point of my contention was the fact that someone had the temerity to say that SRT was better than IVAR by a "country mile." Incidentally, i voted for SRT over Viv (in tests atleast).

Well I voted for Richards and I just ignored the reply that said Tendulkar by a country mile. That is just pure ignorance.

 

[_Ed_]

Viv easily for me.

 

[Burgey]

Ponting best after Bradman is just flat out Ridiculous ? Ponting's avg. in the 90s was 44.5 Tendulkar's 58. Even more appaling is Ponting's no. of centuries only 6 in 33 tests (52 innings) i.e. a century every 8.6 innings where Tendulkar scored 22 in 109 innings, every 4.9 innings.

As for Ponting blasting the Pakistani attack that Tendulkar failed against. It is just plain ridiculously ignorant. Ponting didn't even face 2 Ws 1998 test in Pakistan and he was piss poor for the most part in the 1999 series, his scores were 0, 0, 0 and 197. Oh and in the only test He faced 2 Ws in the 90s, his average was a flattering ZERO.

RT Ponting b Waqar Younis 0
RT Ponting lbw b Wasim Akram 0

True, however, Tendulkar's average in the past 7 years, in this supposedly meh decade, is 46 compared with 60 odd for Ponting.

I wouldn't say either is the best since Bradman, btw.

 

[Sanz]

True, however, Tendulkar's average in the past 7 years, in this supposedly meh decade, is 46 compared with 60 odd for Ponting.

Dont know how you came up with that figure. I did a quick look at their stats in the 21st century and Tendulkar is 53.71, Ponting is 64. That said, IMO Ponting's decline as a test batsman has begun. Let's see when he reaches Tendulkar's age and still be as good as him.

 

[aussie]

Ponting best after Bradman is just flat out Ridiculous. Ponting's avg. in the 90s was 44.5 Tendulkar's 58. Even more appalling is Ponting's no. of centuries only 6 in 33 tests (52 innings) i.e. a century every 8.6 innings where Tendulkar scored 22 in 109 innings, every 4.9 innings.

As for Ponting blasting the Pakistani attack that Tendulkar failed against. It is just plain ridiculously ignorant. Ponting didn't even face 2 Ws 1998 test in Pakistan and he was piss poor for the most part in the 1999 series, his scores were 0, 0, 0 and 197. Oh and in the only test He faced 2 Ws in the 90s, his average was a flattering ZERO.

RT Ponting b Waqar Younis 0
RT Ponting lbw b Wasim Akram 0

Last but not the least, Tendulkar's average against countries that Ponting failed to get above 40 were 81.25 Vs England, 63.64 Vs. NZ, 62.81 Vs. WI. And I am not even counting their records against each other. Ponting in 90s wouldn't have made my top 25 list, as simple as that. Tendulkar in the 2000s will make the top 5 list despite his slump between 2003-2006.

Although i agree i way over the top to suggest even if Ponting gets out of his current mini-slump and continues scoring runs againts the much improved attacks around the world that he can be considered the best batsman since Bradman.

So too is your comparsion of Ponting in the 90s to Tendulkar in the 90s since Ponting was has improved out of sight since then. That would be like comparing a young Michael Clarke now to Ponting.

 

[Sanz]

Although i agree i way over the top to suggest even if Ponting gets out of his current mini-slump and continues scoring runs againts the much improved attacks around the world that he can be considered the best batsman since Bradman.

Ponting is past his peak as a batsman and from what one has seen of him, Forget being second best to Sir Don, I dont think he will come anywhere close to being in the top 10 batsman of all time. Top 25 may be. The guy wasn't even the best batsman of his team for majority of his career.

So too is your comparsion of Ponting in the 90s to Tendulkar in the 90s since Ponting was has improved out of sight since then. That would be like comparing a young Michael Clarke now to Ponting.

Learn to read.

 

[DaRick]

Dont know how you came up with that figure. I did a quick look at their stats in the 21st century and Tendulkar is 53.71, Ponting is 64. That said, IMO Ponting's decline as a test batsman has begun. Let's see when he reaches Tendulkar's age and still be as good as him.

Decline? Or form slump? (I think Burgey may've attained those stats by omitting Zimbabwe/Bangladesh - Tendulkar's highest Test score is against Bangladesh, FWIW)

BTW, I think Tendulkar>Richards, as a Test batsman, although they are about equal as one-day batsmen. Tendulkar was - and still is - made to open against the new ball, against attacks better than India's, whereas Richards had blokes like Gordon Greenidge and Desmond Haynes in front of him - whilst Richards one-day average is a touch higher.

Both are/were adept at demoralising opposition attacks - just ask Shane Warne. Like I said earlier, in other threads, Richard's descendants still recall some of his innings with a degree of awe (for example, Adam Gilchrist discussing his 153* at the MCG in 1979 in his book about one-day cricket). Tendulkar, due to the fact that he is still playing, hasn't yet got to that stage (although he will).

The most significant clincher, I think, is that Bradman thought of the 90's Tendulkar as being very similar to him. I don't think he ever said that about Richards.

Sure, Tendulkar has struggled with injury and what-not, but, then again, so is Ponting at the moment (his back problems are clearly reducing his productivity, as much as bad form may be).

 

[aussie]

Ponting is past his peak as a batsman and from what one has seen of him,

Carefull yo, you may eat these words in the future.

Forget being second best to Sir Don, I dont think he will come anywhere close to being in the top 10 batsman of all time. Top 25 may be.

I'd say Bradman, Sobers, Richards, G Chappell, G Pollock, Gavaskar, Tendulkar, Lara, Waugh(at his best) have a strong case ahead of Ponting not sure about anyone else TBH.

The guy wasn't even the best batsman of his team for majority of his career.

For the first part (96-2001) of Ponting career up until he converted to number # 3 in the 2001 Ashes S Waugh was Australia's best batsman no question. But since the 2001 Ashes Ponting looking beyond stats has been Australia's best batsman just ahead of Hayden.

Learn to read.

So what where you suggesting with this quote then?:

"Ponting's avg. in the 90s was 44.5 Tendulkar's 58. Even more appalling is Ponting's no. of centuries only 6 in 33 tests (52 innings) i.e. a century every 8.6 innings where Tendulkar scored 22 in 109 innings, every 4.9 innings."

 

[DaRick]

Ponting is past his peak as a batsman and from what one has seen of him, Forget being second best to Sir Don, I dont think he will come anywhere close to being in the top 10 batsman of all time. Top 25 may be. The guy wasn't even the best batsman of his team for majority of his career.

You can't say that he is conclusively. You could've said the same thing in 2004, FFS (when he went a year without scoring 100). I will believe that he's peaked when:
1) He's no longer limited by injury
2) He's stopped scoring tons
Oddly enough, he's done neither of those...yet. It's just that his tons are surrounded by single-and-double figure scores.

BTW, creating doubt that he will even make the Top 25 all-time batsman list is underrating him. Name 25 batsmen who are better (or have been better) than him.