Wisden's Cricketers of the Century

[shankar]

erm...well get a fast bowler to get the ball about hip high out a foot outside off stump and Tendulkar is vunerable...especially when the ball is bowled by a left armer.

Sorry, but that's absurd. He's been playing for 15 years against so many good/great fast bowlers. If he had such an elementary weakness wouldn't one of these bowlers have exploited this? He got out a couple of times to Pedro collins a couple of times outside the off-stump before he'd even played 10 balls and people started peddling this theory that maybe he has a weakness against left-armers outside off-stump.

 

[ReallyCrazy]

erm...well get a fast bowler to get the ball about hip high out a foot outside off stump and Tendulkar is vunerable...especially when the ball is bowled by a left armer.

I can compare Richards to Tendulkar despite the fact they never played against each other etc....coz i saw Richards bat,and if you saw richards bat you wouldnt be able to deny that he was a level above Tendulkar.

Richards could make bowlers like Lillee,Thomson,Bedi,Snow,Willis,Underwood,Imran Khan,Botham,Hadlee,Akram,Qadir etc look average (and remember back then it was a tad more bowler friendly) in all types of conditions away and at home.

Tendulkar has tended to score his runs against weaker attacks, in fact I would go so far as to say he scored a test century vs a world class attack for the first time in 1997 (vs SA Donald and Pollock, that was his 15th century)...his next one was vs Akram, Waqar a couple of years later....so in his first 20 test centuries,he scored two hundreds vs really good attacks...suggests some sort of vunerablity to great bowling....a vunerabilty that Richards never showed.

Dont get me wrong Tendulkar is a great batsman, but he may have benefitted from the times he has played test cricket in.

ummm since you have been watching cricket for a long time, i thought you would know that Tendulkar has played cricket from 1989. He has faced Wasim and Waqar (though mostly in ODIs) and got the better of them. He has also faced Walsh, Ambrose and Bishop together. The first time I saw him take them apart was in the WC'96 and he didn't do too badly in the tour to the WI in 1997. Prior to that series, India toured SA and on one of the most difficult tracks to bat on, he scored a hundred against pollock and Donald, who was going through this purple patch.

We all know how he has got the better of shane warne time and again, whether in tests or ODIs. Warne went on record saying that he had nightmares of sachin hitting him for six (he doesn't hit that many sixes anymore ) He has done well against Damien Fleming who was another very good bowler. As for McGrath Vs Sachin, I will call it even. McGrath has got him a few times but I also remember sachin gettin on top a few times.

As for his "weakness", well every batter can be made to look weak at times. I remember single digit scores were the norm for Lara a few years ago and now he is back better than ever. I will say the same for Tendulkar. He will be back. He has the most number of international 100s and would have surpassed Allan Border's record already if India plays as many tests as Australia does. And your calling him a weak link?

Really who were the good bowlers of the '80s? The WI attack whom Richards never faced?

 

[Swervy]

ummm since you have been watching cricket for a long time, i thought you would know that Tendulkar has played cricket from 1989. He has faced Wasim and Waqar (though mostly in ODIs) and got the better of them. He has also faced Walsh, Ambrose and Bishop together. The first time I saw him take them apart was in the WC'96 and he didn't do too badly in the tour to the WI in 1997. Prior to that series, India toured SA and on one of the most difficult tracks to bat on, he scored a hundred against pollock and Donald, who was going through this purple patch.

We all know how he has got the better of shane warne time and again, whether in tests or ODIs. Warne went on record saying that he had nightmares of sachin hitting him for six (he doesn't hit that many sixes anymore ) He has done well against Damien Fleming who was another very good bowler. As for McGrath Vs Sachin, I will call it even. McGrath has got him a few times but I also remember sachin gettin on top a few times.

As for his "weakness", well every batter can be made to look weak at times. I remember single digit scores were the norm for Lara a few years ago and now he is back better than ever. I will say the same for Tendulkar. He will be back. He has the most number of international 100s and would have surpassed Allan Border's record already if India plays as many tests as Australia does. And your calling him a weak link?

Really who were the good bowlers of the '80s? The WI attack whom Richards never faced?

well I am basing much of what I say on Test cricket, which I beleive to be the format of the game which tests a players ability more than ODI's will ever do.(ODI cricket is heavily stacked in favour of the batsman)

Tendulkar never scored a century vs a WI team which could be remotely considered very strong (his first century vs WI was in 94,vs Walsh,Benjamin,Cummins,Hooper,Chanderpaul and adams, the last three had to bowl 70 of the 155 overs of the innings).Tendulkar faced Waqar and Wasim in 1998/99 in tests (both bowlers could be considered past their best) and his series scores were 0,136,6,29,0,9...

Around this time for a few years Tendulkar was certainly the best batsman in the world, but for the last 2 years or so he hasnt been anywhere near (Ponting,Dravid,Kallis,Lara,Vaughan,Hayden and maybe a few more have all done much better than Tendulkar in that period)

Lara went through a bad patch about 4 years ago, where it didnt look like he would score any runs...but look what was happening to his team, that wasa true low point for WI (vs England and Australia)..all the batting was resting on Lara, it was the one bad period of his career.

Tendulkar recently in his last 19 innings has been dismissed 11 times in single figures (yes I know he also scored a 241* and a 194* in that, but Mr Reliable he hasnt been) and considering the success the Indian batting have had recently, I think it is reasonable to consider him a weak link at this moment (well as well as the opening spot not occupied by Sehwag)

Who were the great(or even just good bowlers) bowlers of the 80's (and 70's)(in no particular order) that Richards played against...oh just the small matter of Hadlee, Imran,Snow,McDermott, Botham,Willis,Lillee,Thomson,Alderman,Bedi,Dev,Rodney Hogg,Qadir,Underwood etc

Look as I say I do think Tendulkar is a great batsman, but I dont think he quite deserves this reputation of being unbeatable, coz he is as vunerable to good bowling as anyone can be when they have a 50+ batting average.

 

[marc71178]

hadlee is fast bowling as bradman is batting

I wouldn't say so.

Bradman is head and shoulders above any other batsman in history.

 

[Tom Halsey]

hadlee is fast bowling as bradman is batting

?!?!?

if Hadlee faced Bradman today, over a few innings, so some kind of average could be gained, I’m sure Bradman would have smashed him all over the place.

 

[twctopcat]

?!?!?

if Hadlee faced Bradman today, over a few innings, so some kind of average could be gained, I’m sure Bradman would have smashed him all over the place.

The term smashed was maybe a bit extreme, Bradman would probably play him at 3 an over. Bradman wasn't a Gilchrist and would admit he never had the greatest technique, it was his concentration that makes him superior to every other batsmen to have held a bat.

 

[a massive zebra]

The term smashed was maybe a bit extreme, Bradman would probably play him at 3 an over. Bradman wasn't a Gilchrist and would admit he never had the greatest technique, it was his concentration that makes him superior to every other batsmen to have held a bat.

Well he was not exactly a slow scorer. Made 309 in a day at headingly in 1930, and a 22 ball century in a minor match 2 years later.

 

[twctopcat]

Well he was not exactly a slow scorer. Made 309 in a day at headingly in 1930, and a 22 ball century in a minor match 2 years later.

But wouldn't have smashed Hadlee, if you see my point.

 

[cbuts]

i think hadlee would of been one bowler who may have hcallenged bradman - bradman may have dominated him but not to the extent he did other bowlers. hadlee is streets ahed of any other fast bowler

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

Gees I wonder how Bradman would went in ODI's

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

hadlee is streets ahed of any other fast bowler

Hadlee was good, but IMO he was not the best fast bowler.

 

[marc71178]

hadlee is streets ahed of any other fast bowler

You see that is where your argument falls down.

Hadlee's wicket count has a touch of the Murali's about it.

 

[Anil]

why is AA not at the top of this list? how can any list of the greatest ever be complete without AA?

 

[Ford_GTHO351]

Test Bowling Record
Hadlee: 86 Matches, 431 wickets@ 22.29, SR: 50.8, Economy: 2.63 rpo
Muralitharan: 89 Matches, 521 wickets@ 22.76, SR: 58.3, Economy: 2.33 rpo

ODI Bowling Record
Hadlee: 115 Matches, 158 wickets@ 21.56, SR: 39.1, Economy: 3.30 rpo
Muralitharan: 232 Matches, 360 wickets@ 22.08, SR: 34.9, Econ: 3.78 rpo

 

[Neil Pickup]

i think hadlee would of been one bowler who may have hcallenged bradman - bradman may have dominated him but not to the extent he did other bowlers. hadlee is streets ahed of any other fast bowler

Utter rubbish! Hadlee's wicket count is as high as it is because he had so little support from other Kiwi bowlers in that era (a la Murali today).

One of the greats? Yes. The greatest? Be off with you.

 

[Revelation]

I think that LAra most certainly deserved to be there. His 375 in 1994 as well as his 213 and 153* v Australia in 1999 were 3 of the best innings ever witnessed. Add the first class record of 501* within 6 weeks of the 375 and one really has to wonder. I would put him there in place of IVA Richards. I think Warne is there mainly because of balance, not filling the top 5 places with batsmen.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I think that three places - Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs - are fairly unarguable - but everybody you ask will give two different alternatives for the last two spots.

For me... hmm... on balance I'd agree with the Wisden list - with possibly Imran at six.

 

[a massive zebra]

I think that three places - Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs - are fairly unarguable - but everybody you ask will give two different alternatives for the last two spots.

For me... hmm... on balance I'd agree with the Wisden list - with possibly Imran at six.

Why is Hobbs position unarguable? Hammond was just as good a batsman and was aslo a great slip fielder and useful bowler.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Why is Hobbs position unarguable? Hammond was just as good a batsman and was aslo a great slip fielder and useful bowler.

OK - Two positions then!

My reasoning was sheer weight of runs, centuries and longevity,

 

[a massive zebra]

OK - Two positions then!

My reasoning was sheer weight of runs, centuries and longevity,

Hammond was not far behind in terms of weight of runs and centuries. At both first class and Test level he averaged more than Hobbs and had a better innings per century ratio. If you also add his slip fielding and bowling I think he should be ranked higher.

If you rank people purely on weight of runs and centuries then Tendulkar and Steve Waugh should be placed above Bradman.