Match Winning Batsmen in Test Cricket

[H4G]

1. Tendulkar

He is great but India loses the match about 60 to 70 percent of the times he scores a hundred.For me, he is a great batsman for sure but not a match winner.

 

[Satyanash89]

He is great but India loses the match about 60 to 70 percent of the times he scores a hundred.For me, he is a great batsman for sure but not a match winner.

You do realize that he has scored 20 centuries in Indian victories, and only 11 in defeats right? The way people pull BS statistics out of nowhere is just astounding

 

[akilana]

The ability to win matches is directly proportional to how good a batsman one is. So when you ranked the batsmen in order of their greatness then you have a list of match winners.

Don
Sachin
The rest

 

[vic_orthdox]

You know that when Bell is making runs, you are in trouble as an opposition.

But, you don't feel that Bell making runs is the direct reason that you're in strife. There are things that have happened before that to lead to your demise.

 

[Гурин]

You know that when Bell is making runs, you are in trouble as an opposition.

But, you don't feel that Bell making runs is the direct reason that you're in strife. There are things that have happened before that to lead to your demise.

Mah. If you say so.

Funny game, cricket. You can singlehandedly win a game, but you can't singlehandedly lose a game* (if you lose, everybody else got hit for runs and everybody else got out). You get a duck? There's still plenty of bats around you, so no big deal unless they also fail.


*yes, not even Kamran Akmal. Pakistan couldn't chase 120, if memory serves me right.

 

[Coronis]

The ability to win matches is directly proportional to how good a batsman one is. So when you ranked the batsmen in order of their greatness then you have a list of match winners.

Don
Sachin
The rest

These threads are always good for a laugh

 

[kyear2]

What truely separates a good team from a great one is a brilliant bowling attack. The three greatest teams did have good batting lineups anchored by ATG #3's, but what made them the best were the bowling attacks featuring Lindwall and Miller, Mcgrath and Warne and Marshall and Holding/Garner. This South African team has similar similarity and potential and they will go as far Steyn and Philander takes them. Consistency and Philander's development will be key though.

 

[akilana]

These threads are always good for a laugh

If you tell me why you laghed then I will be able to point you in the right direction.

 

[Coronis]

If you tell me why you laghed then I will be able to point you in the right direction.

That you put Tendulkar clearly above the others as a match winner.

 

[NickDB]

For me having grown up supporting a team that has the ability to win everything, but seemed to choke way to often at the last minute, I have a slightly different way of viewing match winners.

It's fairly simple, whilst these batsmen were there the game wasn't lost yet so;

Smith
Kallis

and can now add Amla and AB to that.

And I know SA lost games with all 4 of them still there, it was just the feeling you had whilst watching them, with them at the crease all hope was not lost.

 

[H4G]

You do realize that he has scored 20 centuries in Indian victories, and only 11 in defeats right? The way people pull BS statistics out of nowhere is just astounding

Lets compare Tendulkar to some of the other bastmen of his time in matches when they scored 100s.

Tendulkar 20/51---------->39%
Inzamam 17/25 --------->68%
Ponting 30/41 ----------->73%

My point is still valid when batsmen who are considered inferior to him have contributed more in their teams victories than Tendulkar has.This is the reason I do respect his superiority as a batsman to others but for me he is not a match winning player & plays for personal milestones only hence would never make my greatest XIs.

 

[harsh.ag]

My point is still valid when batsmen who are considered inferior to him have contributed more in their teams victories than Tendulkar has.This is the reason I do respect his superiority as a batsman to others but for me he is not a match winning player & plays for personal milestones only hence would never make my greatest XIs.

I have never understood this sentiment. Yes, he really likes scoring hundreds, that is very obvious, but show me a batsman who doesn't like that the most. He has time and again said that he would rather exchange his runs for a victory for India. Oh, sorry, I forgot that's just part of the PR campaign.

 

[H4G]

I have never understood this sentiment. Yes, he really likes scoring hundreds, that is very obvious, but show me a batsman who doesn't like that the most. He has time and again said that he would rather exchange his runs for a victory for India. Oh, sorry, I forgot that's just part of the PR campaign.

I have nothing against Tendulkar, its just that I don't consider him a match winning batsman for fairly valid reasons explained in my previous posts in this thread.He might have said what you've posted but facts are quite contrary to that.

 

[Satyanash89]

Lets compare Tendulkar to some of the other batsmen of his time in matches when they scored 100s.

Tendulkar 20/51---------->39%
Inzamam 17/25 --------->68%
Ponting 30/41 ----------->73%

So? Viv has just 12/24 hundreds in victories, just 50%. Is that meaningless stat meant to convey that Inzamam was a greater match winner than Richards? Percentage stats are so meaningless and quite often misleading you know. Just consider this: Suppose Tendulkar hadn't played any of his amazing, counterattacking gems in tough conditions in the 1990s, like the 114 at Perth, 169 at Capetown, 155 at Bloefentein, 116 at Melbourne which ultimately went in vain and ended in an Indian defeat because in most cases he was one of the few batsmen who actually put up a fight. Remove all those amazing hundreds and Tendulkar's percentage of winning hundreds would increase substantially and he would be considered a match-winner by you...
All this shows is that the batsman is punished for playing brilliantly when the rest of his team struggled, instead of being recognized for his fighting qualities.
"Percentage of winning hundreds" is just another silly stat which tells us virtually nothing but twists the truth and makes it out into something else entirely

My point is still valid when batsmen who are considered inferior to him have contributed more in their teams victories than Tendulkar has.This is the reason I do respect his superiority as a batsman to others but for me he is not a match winning player & plays for personal milestones only hence would never make my greatest XIs.

Ah, this again? Look, cricketers are individuals first and foremost. I don't care what anyone says, EVERY CRICKETER has always wanted to do well FOR HIMSELF in addition to doing well for the team, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. They're athletes striving for personal excellence and trying to prove themselves to be the best in the world. Tendulkar, just like every other batsman, must have started off his career dreaming of scoring 10000 runs and scoring 35 centuries. I think Rahul Dravid explained it perfectly when he was asked how he felt after being named man of the series when India were whitewashed 4-0 in England. He said something along the lines of "being disapppointed that the team lost, but at the same time there was a degree of personal satisfaction that came with scoring those three hundreds". Not that same old cliched "My runs meant nothing because we lost"... They DO mean something to the guy that scores them even if he himself won't admit it, because it means he did his job as a professional.

To say that Tendulkar somehow puts himself above the team because he plays for records is just flat-out ridiculous. My other favorite batsman Brian Lara played for records too... which is why he was able to break so many of them. Same with Tendulkar... they set themselves personal goals, while also not forgetting they were doing it for the team's cause.
The phrase "playing for records" somehow has been equated with being selfish and not caring about the team. Everyone does play for records and strives to achieve them. Unfortunately the few who do get to the summit like Lara and Tendulkar are painted as being "selfish" because they were the only ones good enough to get there

 

[Lillian Thomson]

So we have Ponting who played in a great side with a great bowling attack who won a high percentage of matches and Tendulkar who played in a lesser side with a less penetrative bowling attack - and Ponting has a higher percentage of wins when scoring centuries. Funny that.

 

[H4G]

So we have Ponting who played in a great side with a great bowling attack who won a high percentage of matches and Tendulkar who played in a lesser side with a less penetrative bowling attack - and Ponting has a higher percentage of wins when scoring centuries. Funny that.

What are you talking about? India have had the best spin attack for last 4 or 5 decades,during Tendulkar's time India also have had support of quality pacers like Kapil,Srinath,Prasad,Zaheer etc.

 

[H4G]

So? Viv has just 12/24 hundreds in victories, just 50%. Is that meaningless stat meant to convey that Inzamam was a greater match winner than Richards? Percentage stats are so meaningless and quite often misleading you know. Just consider this: Suppose Tendulkar hadn't played any of his amazing, counterattacking gems in tough conditions in the 1990s, like the 114 at Perth, 169 at Capetown, 155 at Bloefentein, 116 at Melbourne which ultimately went in vain and ended in an Indian defeat because in most cases he was one of the few batsmen who actually put up a fight. Remove all those amazing hundreds and Tendulkar's percentage of winning hundreds would increase substantially and he would be considered a match-winner by you...
All this shows is that the batsman is punished for playing brilliantly when the rest of his team struggled, instead of being recognized for his fighting qualities.
"Percentage of winning hundreds" is just another silly stat which tells us virtually nothing but twists the truth and makes it out into something else entirely




Ah, this again? Look, cricketers are individuals first and foremost. I don't care what anyone says, EVERY CRICKETER has always wanted to do well FOR HIMSELF in addition to doing well for the team, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. They're athletes striving for personal excellence and trying to prove themselves to be the best in the world. Tendulkar, just like every other batsman, must have started off his career dreaming of scoring 10000 runs and scoring 35 centuries. I think Rahul Dravid explained it perfectly when he was asked how he felt after being named man of the series when India were whitewashed 4-0 in England. He said something along the lines of "being disapppointed that the team lost, but at the same time there was a degree of personal satisfaction that came with scoring those three hundreds". Not that same old cliched "My runs meant nothing because we lost"... They DO mean something to the guy that scores them even if he himself won't admit it, because it means he did his job as a professional.

To say that Tendulkar somehow puts himself above the team because he plays for records is just flat-out ridiculous. My other favorite batsman Brian Lara played for records too... which is why he was able to break so many of them. Same with Tendulkar... they set themselves personal goals, while also not forgetting they were doing it for the team's cause.
The phrase "playing for records" somehow has been equated with being selfish and not caring about the team. Everyone does play for records and strives to achieve them. Unfortunately the few who do get to the summit like Lara and Tendulkar are painted as being "selfish" because they were the only ones good enough to get there

I agree with what you said "Everyone does play for records and strives to achieve them." but I feel some players put themselves above team & don't care whether the team loses or wins-----Their purpose is just to achieve some milestones only,for example Gavaskar was known to be one such player during his career & I see Tendulkar as being nothing different to him but thats just my personal opinion.

 

[fredfertang]

What are you talking about? India have had the best spin attack for last 4 or 5 decades,during Tendulkar's time India also have had support of quality pacers like Kapil,Srinath,Prasad,Zaheer etc.

It's pretty obvious he's talking about the unfortunately lengthy period over which Australia were consistently the most successful side in the game -

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I'm not sure whether you're an idiot or a troll, but you're good at one and not the other.

 

[fredfertang]

I'm not sure whether you're an idiot or a troll, but you're good at one and not the other.

I'm more of an idiot than a troll, not sure about H4G though