Vivian Richards vs Sachin Tendulkar

[Richard]

A few days ago I'd have felt sure enough of what the outcome of a poll on this would be to not bother to undertake it. However, results in the Richards-vs-Chappell poll have convinced me to have a look. Still got some inkling on what the outcome would be likely to be, and am fairly sure it'd have been pretty different 5 years ago.

So vote away, CWers.

[silentstriker]

Almost voted for Boycott. I think I know which way this'll go, and yes, it would likely have been different in 2002. But that's cricket . In 2002, everyone including Steve Waugh, Ponting, Sobers, and most of the other greats were calling him best since Bradman. His last 3-4 years haven't been as good as his first 12, so his star has waned in people's eyes.

[andruid]

I feel Tendulkar's association with the money minting exploitation of cricket fandom by certain varying commercial interests tarnishes his greatness a tad. Still an Icon though but because of that my vote goes with Sir Viv.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by andruid

I feel Tendulkar's association with the money minting exploitation of cricket fandom by certain varying commercial interests tarnishes his greatness a tad.

Haha, what?

[PhoenixFire]

Tendulkar by a fair distance.

[Ikki]

Richards walks in. Not sure Tendulkar is even the best in his era.

[James_W]

Richards for me. I agree with the above post, I'm not even sure Sachin is the best of his era.

[PhoenixFire]

Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic

Richards walks in. Not sure Tendulkar is even the best in his era.

Truly can't believe how anybody can't deny that Tendulkar was the best in his era tbh, just boggles my mind.

[Engle]

Viv had an demoralizing affect on his opponents and an uplifting one on his teammates.
He could'nt care less about most number of centuries, runs. These were merely numbers for statiticians to digest.

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by PhoenixFire

Truly can't believe how anybody can't deny that Tendulkar was the best in his era tbh, just boggles my mind.

You've been reading too many of Richard's posts probably.

[PhoenixFire]

Originally Posted by KaZoH0lic

You've been reading too many of Richard's posts probably.

Oh dear, you poor person.

Actually I find that quite insulting, the fact that you think I'm not capable to make up my own decision about things like that. I pity you, I really do.

[Manee]

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...

[Ikki]

Originally Posted by PhoenixFire

Oh dear, you poor person.

Actually I find that quite insulting, the fact that you think I'm not capable to make up my own decision about things like that. I pity you, I really do.

You don't need to pity me son, pity yourself. For you to question someone's logic without having even heard it is rich. For you to call a reply to that insult an insult is even more rich.

[Sudeep]

Originally Posted by Engle

Viv had an demoralizing affect on his opponents and an uplifting one on his teammates.
He could'nt care less about most number of centuries, runs. These were merely numbers for statiticians to digest.

Wasn't there a time when Sachin had a demoralizing effect on his opponent bowlers? Ask Shane Warne.

"I'll be going to bed having nightmares of Sachin just running down the wicket and belting me back over the head for six."

[Manee]

Originally Posted by Engle

He could'nt care less about most number of centuries, runs. These were merely numbers for statiticians to digest.

It doesn't matter (to quote the Rock) how many runs he could have scored, the fact is that he did not fulfil his potential due to impatience or boredom - the often underestimated mental aspects of Test batting.