Besides if you are discounting the Matches involving Ambrose for Age ,how about discounting the 4 matches he played against Wasim as a 16 yr old or the Matches he played against Donald in south Africa early in his career at the age of 18.
And as for Mcgrath, his record is seriously damaged by the series in 2004/2005 where he was playing injured and was rushed back too quickly into the fold to try and save India from a home loss.
Either you are selective or you are not.You can't really have the cake and eat it too.
Richards, and to a lesser extent Adam Gilchrist, were the only batsmen who did this with some degree of consistency. This is exactly why Imran worships Richards. Again, it is subjective. These are just my views. It is not necessary for you to agree.
Sachin scored a great hundred in 1992 vs SA with Donald, dont know why you want to discount that.
If I did exclude Sachin's first series against Akram (when he was 16), Sachin's average against Akram will go further down. That is exactly why I included it. Excluding that Sachin has scored 180 runs in 6 innings against Akram at an even lesser average of 30.
My entire point in making the post was not quoting selective names like McGrath/Donald/Akram and disparaging Sachin. Your hero worship of him is very clear (as to how you have taken the post).
If you want to include a geriatric Ambrose on dead pitches as a "lethal bowling attack", do it by all means. It doesn't change a thing.
I am looking for batsmen who were consistent against formidable pace attacks. Attacks that make you think "Jesus, how are we going to survive till the end of the day's play?". West Indian pace attack in the early 80s or the Aussie attack in mid 70s are some examples. From the stats, Sachin certainly doesn't cut it.
Ambrose was just above medium fast-ish pace by the 95 Eng tour, he had the bounce still but wasnt the force he was before. He never got hit around while he was getting older, and his record was still good, but he was menacing and quick from say 88-93. maybe i'd include the 94 series v Eng- they had no idea on occasions ( the mental 46 test!), but handled him easily most of the time, especially Thorpe and Stewart.
Consistency is what is generally valued. This is why you hear stats like "average against Australia" or "average against Australia in Australia" etc. as an index of greatness. The ultimate is consistent domination. It would be ridiculous to expect a batsman to succeed against great attacks every time. See, Richards failed in a couple of series against Pakistan. But he also had towering successes against them.
This is exactly why Sachin's lack of a single towering Test series AND modest career averages against McGrath/Donald/Akram can be held against him, especially if Richards career average against Australia/Pak is held against him. For example: when Lara scored all those runs (500+ runs at 90+ average) against McGrath in 1998-99 series, no other West Indian batsman averaged above 30 in that series! Lara scored about 45% of his Team's runs. That is an example of a truly spectacular performance against a great attack (McGrath took 30 wickets in those 4 Tests -- shows you the kind of form he was in, and what Lara was against -- and was superbly supported by Gillespie).
Against SA pacers, Sachin Tendulkar has had genuine weakness and it has shown over 12 or more innings. He has consistently been average in every series.
But to discredit him by using his numbers against Pak, against whom he hardly played and his debut series against them as a 17 year old still forms half his experience against them, is quite a bit tenuous.
Similarly the numbers against McGrath are fairly credible if you click on the link. You have a random one-off test from 95 where he averages 5, and the 2004/2005 series where he was possibly in the worst form of his life following the recovery from Tennis Elbow. So if you exclude that in more than 12 innings he averages 47+ not too shabby against one of the all time greats, and part of possibly one the greatest bowling attacks in Cricket history. He was also top scorer for India in 7 of those 12 innings. VVS Laxman topped him in a Sydney test, and then there is the epic Eden gardens test match with VVS and Dravid. So, it turns out he did very well against McGrath as a matter of fact.
He has weaknesses. No body is perfect. All this nit-picking and time wasting is silly....i'm not going to dive into Cricinfo stats page and waste my time to debate against a very tenuous and tedious point.
Last edited by kingjulian; 05-10-2010 at 07:18 PM.
That post is a load of nonsense to be honest.
You are making it seem as if facing Murali and Warne was a piece of cake vs the likes of Mcgrath and Ambrose.
I see you rate Richards but you are just making selective and strange points after points demeaning others without any real basis to show him in a good light.
Allan Donald on Sachin Tendulkar | Cricket Features | Twenty Years of Tendulkar | Cricinfo.com
He is No. 1 in my book - the best player I have ever had the privilege of bowling to. There's Steve Waugh and there's Brian Lara, who was wonderful in 1995, but Tendulkar is a class above, consistently special.
The truth says hi.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)