tendulkar not a match winner>>Imran

[Craig]

For me when Brain Lara is full flow he is better then Sachin Tendulkar and IMO he is the best batsman I have ever seen.

 

[Richard]

IMO, my favourite batsman to watch in full-flow has to be Aravinda, as you know, Craig.
But in terms of scoring consistency, it's impossible to argue with Tendulkar.

 

[Craig]

LE, having seen Barry Richard and Greame Pollock, who did you think was the better batsman?

 

[gibbsnsmith]

was that question so important that you had to post it twice?

id expect Graeme Pollock was better as ive seen clips of him...sheer brilliance

 

[royGilchrist]

I heard Imran once say that he felt Barry Richards was the second best batsmen in those days after Viv.

Would have been wonderful if that SA eleven had competed with WI and Aus of those days.

 

[luckyeddie]

LE, having seen Barry Richard and Greame Pollock, who did you think was the better batsman?

Well, blame Graeme Pollock for getting me interested in cricket in the first place - the first game I ever saw was a friendly between the 1965 South African tourists and Kent at the St Lawrence Ground - and he scored the most delightful undefeated double hundred on the first day.

Whereas Graeme Pollock remains my all-time favourite batsman to watch (with David Gower a distant second), I think that Richards MAY have been marginally better. Both were supremely elegant and could completely dominate any form of bowling when they were set.

 

[Anil]

Imran has taken back his words and said that what he said was taken out of context and he didn't mean to imply what has been implied......

 

[Richard]

Imran has taken back his words and said that what he said was taken out of context and he didn't mean to imply what has been implied......

Oh, well, he created some nice discussion on CW - we thank him.

 

[a10khan]

thats just bullcr*p. imran has nothing against sachin. he's gone on record saying he thinks sachin is very good. the bottomline, whether indians accept it or not is that sachin is not the match winner that some of his contemporaries are. dravid, steve waugh, inzamam have played more match winning innings then sachin.

and yeah he is definetely not viv richards.

 

[C_C]

the bottomline, whether indians accept it or not is that sachin is not the match winner that some of his contemporaries are. dravid, steve waugh, inzamam have played more match winning innings then sachin.

you realise this whole talk of matchwinning innings is poppycock in test cricket, as you dont win tests based on excellent batsmanship but rather on excellent bowling.
In the arena where batsmen ARE matchwinners- ODI cricket- Tendy is the best by far and he along with Richards are a lightyear ahead of the next best ?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

you realise this whole talk of matchwinning innings is poppycock in test cricket, as you dont win tests based on excellent batsmanship but rather on excellent bowling.
In the arena where batsmen ARE matchwinners- ODI cricket- Tendy is the best by far and he along with Richards are a lightyear ahead of the next best ?

While of course bowlers are the ones who take the 20 wickets necessary to win tests, to pretend there are never matchwinning innings is silly. Just because they don't win the game single-handedly, which nobody can do at all in cricket anyway, doesn't mean that a single innings can't have a MASSIVE impact on the outcome of a game. Take for example Laxman's 281, or Steve Waugh's 200 at Sabina Park in 1995, or Brian Lara's 153* in the fourth innings against Australia in 1999... clearly these innings single-handedly (or at least almost single-handedly) took their side from a precarious situation into a match-winning one, hence they were match-winnings innings.

While I think very highly of Tendulkar, it is certainly a valid criticism that he isn't the sort of player who is at his best when his team is in trouble like say Steve Waugh or Brian Lara is.

Also, I think Bevan might have something to say about your "lightyears ahead of the next best" claim.

 

[C_C]

bevan isnt in tendy's class as an ODI batsman. He has a higher average but isnt as consistent, doesnt convert anywhere as much and bats slower than Tendy.

While I think very highly of Tendulkar, it is certainly a valid criticism that he isn't the sort of player who is at his best when his team is in trouble like say Steve Waugh or Brian Lara is.

clearly you missed Tendy in the 90s.....his 136 against PAK was probably just a shade worse than Lara's 153 but better than 99% of innings either Lara or Steve played....and it highlights precisely why the concept of matchwinner is poppycock in test cricket when it comes to batmsmen.

 

[a10khan]

^^ class is not as important then actually scoring runs. zaheer abbas was classy allright so was mark waugh. but in zaheer's time, javed was a more feared batsmen. in mark's time, brother steve was more feared. these guyz played when it mattered the most.

yes. no batter in world cricket has the same talent as sachin does. but it is also a fact then when the indian team was in crisis, dravid has been the one who has stood up to the challenge more often then sachin has. i dont understand y do indians get offended if someone picks dravid over sachin. is dravid any less of an indian??

 

[a10khan]

i am just talkin abt overall match winners, in both forms of the game. dont pick my words. u exactly know what i am talkin about. match winners, match turners... u get the picture...

the fact that so many people think that way about sachin is enough evidence that there is something missing with his handling of crisis situations. i would pick dravid. he's more composed.

 

[honestbharani]

I have always said that I rate Lara as the better test batter and Sachin as the better ODI batter between the two of them. And no, you cannot compare Sachin with Viv, because Viv didn't have to face his own guys (Sachin faces the Aussies ) and Sachin is not part of a dominating outfit. If Viv had been a part of a side like the current Windies side or if Sachin had been a part of the current Aussie outfit, it would have been possible to have this discussion. One may or may not have been better than the other. IT doesn't matter, really, they played in different eras and in different sides and both contributed greatly to their sides and to the game of cricket. Thank you.

 

[Richard]

in mark's time, brother steve was more feared.

Not in ODIs, no.
Stephen Waugh is one of the most overrated ODI players of all-time.
He was simply OK in ODIs, Mark Waugh was an all-time great.

 

[Richard]

bevan isnt in tendy's class as an ODI batsman.

No, he's not - he's quite a bit better.

 

[Richard]

While of course bowlers are the ones who take the 20 wickets necessary to win tests, to pretend there are never matchwinning innings is silly. Just because they don't win the game single-handedly, which nobody can do at all in cricket anyway, doesn't mean that a single innings can't have a MASSIVE impact on the outcome of a game. Take for example Laxman's 281, or Steve Waugh's 200 at Sabina Park in 1995, or Brian Lara's 153* in the fourth innings against Australia in 1999... clearly these innings single-handedly (or at least almost single-handedly) took their side from a precarious situation into a match-winning one, hence they were match-winnings innings.

No, they were match-turning innings.
Lara couldn't have won the match if the bowlers hadn't given him a target to chase down (and he wouldn't have won it anyway if Healy hadn't dropped him).
Similarly, Laxman (and Dravid - Laxman's certainly wasn't a virtuoso, he simply took the lead in the duet) couldn't have won the match if Harbhajan hadn't bowled Australia out.
Batsman can only play match-turning innings, not match-winning ones.

 

[Richard]

the bottomline, whether indians accept it or not is that sachin is not the match winner that some of his contemporaries are.

Would you like me to bring-up a list of Test-matches where Tendulkar has played an innings which has had a large part in India winning?
Try these

and yeah he is definetely not viv richards.

No, indeed - it seems he has more sense than Viv, and is prepared to go on being successful for longer.

 

[Jono]

I actually agree with Richard 100% in this thread (interesting to note how far back this thread was started, and the debate still rages on). Tendulkar has played many match-turning innings, but a match-winning innings rarely exists (if it exists at all). His example of Laxman at Eden Gardens is perfect. What if Harbhajan never bowled India to victory? Australia would have drawn the test, and it would have been 1-0 going into the third test, Australia would have held the Border-Gavaskar trophy.

Why isn't Harbhajan's bowling a match-winning performance? And if it is, you can't really have two match-winning performances in one game, can you? Match-turners is a much better description, and Tendulkar is DEFINITELY that.

http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/1997-98/AUS_IN_IND/AUS_IND_T1_06-10MAR1998.html

If that's not "match-winning" (since that's the term used) I don't know what is.