Cricket Betting Site Betway

View Poll Results: Who is the best ODI batsman of all time?

Voters
90. You may not vote on this poll
  • IVA Richards

    51 56.67%
  • SR Tendulkar

    39 43.33%
Page 11 of 53 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 790

Thread: Richards v Tendulkar - ODIs

  1. #151
    International Coach G.I.Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    13,059
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani View Post
    yeah, but there were more bowler friendly wickets in ODIs then than there are now... This is really a losing argument coz you are trying to simply belittle one man's career for another... I listed the reasons why I think Sachin is better without having to belittle Richards' achievements just now...

    And point is, how are the non-minnow averages for both when comparing? Genuine question, btw...
    I'm not belittling anyone at all. I'm just explaining why it necessarily isn't a case of 90 > 86, therefore Viv>Sachin. I don't get why any argument in favour of one person has to be construed as a bellitling of another.

    Comparison with peers isn't a definitive argument because any format always has a particular set of players who figure it out much earlier than the rest, thus distorting the picture. Good on them for doing so, but that doesn't necessarily put them ahead of a comparative player who played much later when the rest of the players had the blueprint worked out for them, thus narrowing the field between them and the great who came later. Therefore Richards having a comparatively higher SR or average or whatever over his peers than Tendulkar doesn't do it for me.

    My original point was that it isn't about the numbers at all, for various reasons including the above. ODI cricket simply hasn't been the same game over the years to lend itself to any sort of meaningful comparison between players from different eras. Richards > Tendulkar. Tendulkar > Richards. Whatever.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    If GI 'Best Poster On The Forum' Joe says it then it must be true.
    Athlai doesn't lie. And he doesn't do sarcasm either, so you know it's true!


    'You will look very silly said Mr Salteena with a dry laugh.
    Well so will you said Ethel in a snappy tone and she ran out of the room with a very superier run throwing out her legs behind and her arms swinging in rithum.
    Well said the owner of the house she has a most idiotick run.'


  2. #152
    Request Your Custom Title Now! honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    25,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Alex View Post
    Between 1998 and 2003, Tendulkar scored 6,851 runs (210 runs mroe than Richards) @ 52.7 and SR of 90

    The comparitive average and SR during the same period was 29.78 and 79

    During Richards' lifetime, his avg was 47 and SR 90
    Correspongin avg and SR were 28.38 and 72.

    And remember Tendulkar played in an era of ODI specialists as opposed to Richards era when they had Boycott, Lambetc who played.
    Try top order averages alone.. Overall averages never really change too much because the tailender factor is mostly the same...
    We miss you, Fardin. :(. RIP.
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox View Post
    In the end, I think it's so utterly, incomprehensibly boring. There is so much context behind each innings of cricket that dissecting statistics into these small samples is just worthless. No-one has ever been faced with the same situation in which they come out to bat as someone else. Ever.
    A cricket supporter forever

    Member of CW Red and AAAS - Appreciating only the best.


    Check out this awesome e-fed:

    PWE Efed

  3. #153
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    4,793
    Quote Originally Posted by Cevno View Post
    A good point that.

    I would assume Gavaskar would have contributed too ,to that low SR in the viv Era.

    I do not know why people assume that Viv played all his ODI's in 1970's and tendulkar played them all after 2004?
    Haha still the "difference" of 7 points in SR is more important to some guys than the 35 100s that seperate them.

  4. #154
    Hall of Fame Member Cevno's Avatar
    Simon Champion!
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    16,461
    [QUOTE=honestbharani;2159873]
    try a filter of 1000 runs + mate.. you will be surprised..

    Richards-

    Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

    Tendulkar-

    http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/...s;type=batting

    http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/...s;type=batting

    Done and What?

    Still do not see the massive difference some on here have been talking about to offset the longevity argument.
    Last edited by Cevno; 26-02-2010 at 03:57 AM.


  5. #155
    Cricket Spectator
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani View Post
    lol.. mate.. mostly agree about being dismissive of the claims of Sachin as the best but tbh, he started the thread.. Means he thinks they are close enough, but he just listed out why he thought Viv was better.


    And the others were not **** back then either.. You have got your opinion totally mixed up on that. Fact is, ODI cricket was very different back then and yet Viv achieved such feats, which would be considered as the best in the world even today, at a time when they were even more difficult to achieve, as shown by how many class acts DID NOT get anywhere close to what Sir Viv did.. The reason Bradman stood out is not just because he averaged that high, but because he averaged that high when NO ONE could even come close... The standing with respect to peers always is a good measure to rate players comparitively..
    1. With regards to your first paragraph, My post was mainly in response to another post by him suggesting another poster that Sir Viv is just better....accept and move on. Furthermore he backed it up with really ill formed logic. Why post a thread if you are going to be prejudiced and illogical?

    2. With regards to your second paragraph.....Scoring 1 run a ball remains as difficult today as it was when Cricket was first played. Because this is a simple game....you can't score more than 6 runs a ball. So to do it consistently like Sir Vivian and Sachin is a mean feat. Very mean! I'll give you that. But i'm not going to indulge in reminiscing and romancing the past....just because Sir Vivian did it back in the day!!! I'm being thoroughly objective here. The changed rules in one day cricket has encouraged others to be more explosive in their run scoring and push the envelope a bit (we tend to do that as a Society...funny that). But scoring a run a ball remains as difficult as it was back in the day, because you can only score a maximum of 6 runs a ball.....that has not changed. I'll give credit to Sir Vivian for being aggressive when it was not actually the norm. But he hasn't been any more aggressive than Sachin...if you get my point. So just because being daring is the norm these days (thanks to Sir Vivian, Jayasurya, Martin Crowe, Sachin, Sehwag, Gilli and the likes) does not mean that Sir Vivian could have been any more daring than he was without losing out on consistency.

    They are greats. Statistically very similar, but Sachin has done it over twice the number of games.....Statistical Significance and all that.

    I do love Sir Vivian more for the swagger with which he played the game back in the day. But this is a debate of who is better as a batsman, Sachin shades it for me.
    Last edited by punter2002; 26-02-2010 at 03:56 AM.

  6. #156
    Request Your Custom Title Now! honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    25,199
    Quote Originally Posted by G.I.Joe View Post
    I'm not belittling anyone at all. I'm just explaining why it necessarily isn't a case of 90 > 86, therefore Viv>Sachin. I don't get why any argument in favour of one person has to be construed as a bellitling of another.

    Comparison with peers isn't a definitive argument because any format always has a particular set of players who figure it out much earlier than the rest, thus distorting the picture. Good on them for doing so, but that doesn't necessarily put them ahead of a comparative player who played much later when the rest of the players had the blueprint worked out for them, thus narrowing the field between them and the great who came later. Therefore Richards having a comparatively higher SR or average or whatever over his peers than Tendulkar doesn't do it for me.

    My original point was that it isn't about the numbers at all, for various reasons including the above. ODI cricket simply hasn't been the same game over the years to lend itself to any sort of meaningful comparison between players from different eras. Richards > Tendulkar. Tendulkar > Richards. Whatever.
    Yes and that is my point overall... It is not about "figuring" it out.. You are making it seem as though the game is the same through all eras with that statement. Of course, there were players who "figured it out" enough to be successful at that era. Viv was just THAT much ahead of the rest..


    Cevno's misleading filtered stats aside, the fact is Richard was almost peerless in his era and brought to batting a sort of aura that was not seen before, at least in ODIs... Sachin is amazing in much the same manner although I would perhaps replace aura with rejection in the case of Sachin. Bowlers just seem to basically give up bowling to him in ODIs...

  7. #157
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    4,793
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani View Post
    Try top order averages alone.. Overall averages never really change too much because the tailender factor is mostly the same...
    Not big difference except SR, (but overall diff remain same) (Top order 1-7)

    Overall top 1-7

    Tendulkar lifetime - 30.96 @ 73
    Richards lifetime - 29.31@66
    Tendulkar 98-03 - 30.92 @ 73

    Tendulkar lifetime own figures - 45.15 @ 86
    Richards lifetime - 47 @ 90
    Tendulkar 98-03 - 53 @ 90

  8. #158
    Request Your Custom Title Now! honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    25,199
    [QUOTE=Cevno;2159883]
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani View Post
    hmm... 6 batters with SR of 70+ and only one anywhere near Viv in terms of matches played and runs scored...


    12 guys with SR of 70+ with more than 2 there and thereabouts to Sachin.. Two times is not significant?

  9. #159
    Hall of Fame Member Cevno's Avatar
    Simon Champion!
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    16,461
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani View Post


    EDIT: Juz figured out that u used the entire career of Richards for the first set and used 1993 to 2000 alone for Sachin.. Interesting manipulation, that...
    I ahve done both 1990's as a whole and 1993 to 2000's to tendulkar because he was very young from 1990 too 1993,when in fact the whole 1990's suits my argument better.

    What i have also done by using 1993 to 2000's is inluded almost the same no of ODI'S as Richards played in his WHOLE CAREER.

    Sir alex above used a interesting window too 1998 to 2003

  10. #160
    Request Your Custom Title Now! honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    25,199
    Quote Originally Posted by punter2002 View Post
    1. With regards to your first paragraph, My post was mainly in response to another post by him suggesting another poster that Sir Viv is just better....accept and move on. Furthermore he backed it up with really ill formed logic. Why post a thread if you are going to be prejudiced and illogical?

    2. With regards to your second paragraph.....Scoring 1 run a ball remains as difficult today as it was when Cricket was first played. Because this is a simple game....you can't score more than 6 runs a ball. So to do it consistently like Sir Vivian and Sachin is a mean feat. Very mean! I'll give you that. But i'm not going to indulge in reminiscing and romancing the past....just because Sir Vivian did it back in the day!!! I'm being thoroughly objective here. The changed rules in one day cricket has encouraged others to be more explosive in their run scoring and push the envelope a bit (we tend to do that as a Society...funny that). But scoring a run a ball remains as difficult as it was back in the day, because you can only score a maximum of 6 runs a ball.....that has not changed. I'll give credit to Sir Vivian for being aggressive when it was not actually the norm. But he hasn't been any more aggressive than Sachin...if you get my point. So just because being daring is the norm these days (thanks to Sir Vivian, Jayasurya, Martin Crowe, Sachin, Sehwag, Gilli and the likes) does not mean that Sir Vivian could have been any more daring than he was without losing out on consistency.

    They are greats. Statistically very similar, but Sachin has done it over twice the number of games.....Statistical Significance and all that.

    I do love Sir Vivian more for the swagger with which he played the game back in the day. But this is a debate of who is better as a batsman, Sachin shades it for me.
    I don't wanna spark a whole debate here because scoring run a ball or whatever is a direct result of the sort of fields, field restrictions and pitches you play on.. Yes, you can't score more than 6 runs a ball but we are not talking about 500-600 SRs here.. We are talking about 89 Vs 90 and definitely and obviously these things like pitches, and field restrictions have played a part..


    As to your opinion, I do happen to share the same view. I just don't think it is necessary to bring down how much ahead of the pack Viv was during his day...

  11. #161
    Request Your Custom Title Now! honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    25,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Cevno View Post
    I ahve done both 1990's as a whole and 1993 to 2000's to tendulkar because he was very young from 1990 too 1993,when in fact the whole 1990's suits my argument better.

    What i have also done by using 1993 to 2000's is inluded almost the same no of ODI'S as Richards played in his WHOLE CAREER.

    Sir alex above used a interesting window too 1998 to 2003
    yes.. try stats for that period... will be interestng too.

  12. #162
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    4,793
    Quote Originally Posted by honestbharani View Post


    Cevno's misleading filtered stats aside, the fact is Richard was almost peerless in his era and brought to batting a sort of aura that was not seen before, at least in ODIs... Sachin is amazing in much the same manner although I would perhaps replace aura with rejection in the case of Sachin. Bowlers just seem to basically give up bowling to him in ODIs...
    Here is where opinions kick in (or as Uppercut said qualitative stats).. I personally have followed Tendulkar's career ever since 1995 or whereabouts, and I have never seen any batsman exuding such aura, trepidation etc as him between 1998 and 1999.. not even Jayasurya, not even Sehwag, not Afridi...

    Quantitiative stats show there isn't real purchase in the argument that Richards did something greater than his peers which Tendulkar did not emulate. In fact Tendulkar did. And did something more, scoring so many tons that it looks improbable for anyone to even get 10 within him.

  13. #163
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    4,793
    [QUOTE=honestbharani;2159888]
    Quote Originally Posted by Cevno View Post
    hmm... 6 batters with SR of 70+ and only one anywhere near Viv in terms of matches played and runs scored...


    12 guys with SR of 70+ with more than 2 there and thereabouts to Sachin.. Two times is not significant?
    15 ODI teamsduring Tendulkar's time vs 8 teams during Richard's time?

  14. #164
    Hall of Fame Member Cevno's Avatar
    Simon Champion!
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    India
    Posts
    16,461
    [QUOTE=honestbharani;2159888]
    Quote Originally Posted by Cevno View Post
    hmm... 6 batters with SR of 70+ and only one anywhere near Viv in terms of matches played and runs scored...


    12 guys with SR of 70+ with more than 2 there and thereabouts to Sachin.. Two times is not significant?
    And why do you use above 70 as a filter and not above 75 and besides if you see the whole 1990 chart as you said in your previous post ,only klusener comes close to SRT.

    What i do not see is the massive difference that some on here were talking about ,to offset the longevity argument.
    Now it has come down to small bickering about filters such as above 1000 runs and strike rates above 70 ,75 or 60?

    Where is the all the rest good batsmen having strike rates of 60 argument?
    While in the others case everyone having a strike rate of 90?

    And besides two more important points.

    1)There was far more density of ODI's in one of the two periods you are comparing,thus i guess we should have a filter of less that 1000.

    2)One period was of specialist ODI batsmen who in some cases did not play tests.While in the others case you had batsmen like Gavaskar ,Boycott etc... playing ODI's .

  15. #165
    Request Your Custom Title Now! honestbharani's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chennai
    Posts
    25,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Alex View Post
    Here is where opinions kick in (or as Uppercut said qualitative stats).. I personally have followed Tendulkar's career ever since 1995 or whereabouts, and I have never seen any batsman exuding such aura, trepidation etc as him between 1998 and 1999.. not even Jayasurya, not even Sehwag, not Afridi...

    Quantitiative stats show there isn't real purchase in the argument that Richards did something greater than his peers which Tendulkar did not emulate. In fact Tendulkar did. And did something more, scoring so many tons that it looks improbable for anyone to even get 10 within him.
    I juz now showed using Cevno's stats that Sachin has double the number of guys with 70+ SR and near his aggregate runs than Richards did... Isn't that achieving something?


    and BTW, precamb, you are talking about a time period you were not even watching cricket. I didn't either but that is where reading pieces and peer rating comes in... Not for nothing is he regarded as the best by so many. As a matter of fact, Srikkanth, who is a self confessed Sachin fanboy, has said Viv is the best he has seen so many times... I guess he is a big fan of Richards too but do you seriously think all these guys who rate Viv that high have no idea what they are talking about?


    And all this stuff about SRs being lesser back then are coming from them, mainly... You juz need to listen to any interview about Viv to understand what this is all about.

Page 11 of 53 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Best ODIs "Finisher"
    By Sir Alex in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 15-06-2019, 04:49 AM
  2. Replies: 92
    Last Post: 21-01-2011, 08:39 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-02-2010, 01:38 PM
  4. Tendulkar vs Kallis
    By usarav in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 28-11-2007, 09:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •