Best against the best

[vcs]

Chanderpaul also probably deserves a mention here.. remember him keeping out a pretty reasonable England attack virtually singlehandedly on a few occasions.. this series in particular comes to mind.

 

[hang on]

i remember that he scored a few and there were some ordinary umpiring decisions that might have had something to do with his getting the man of the series award as a sort of recompense.

 

[Ikki]

The best batsman against australia at its peak was tendulkar. The best batsman against windies at their peak was gooch. Anantha narayanan has got the dates wrong, imo. He shuld stick to 80 (post nz series) to 94 (the aussie series) for windies, the period when they never lost. And 99 (post sri lanka) to 08 (india) for aussies, the period sandwiched by 16 wins on the trot at either end .

If you did that Tendulkar wouldn't even make the cut of 800 runs to be on the list in the first place. If you were to consider from that 99 date onwards, in any match where even 1 of Warne and McGrath played he still wouldn't have enough runs.

 

[sehwag fan]

In Adelaide test Tendulkar's wrong decision in 1st innings triggered a collapse
1st Test: Australia v India at Adelaide, Dec 10-14, 1999 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

And in Sydney test the umpire even decided to give lbw when the ball was no where going to hit the stump

3rd Test: Australia v India at Sydney, Jan 2-4, 2000 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Spark]

You know you've got problems when your argument is "he got bad decisions". Everyone does. He got some bad decisions in his favour too.

And I think you mean this

YouTube - Sachin Tendulkar LBW Glenn McGrath 1st test Adelaide 1999

Which doesn't look like a howler to me.

 

[sehwag fan]

If you did that Tendulkar wouldn't even make the cut of 800 runs to be on the list in the first place. If you were to consider from that 99 date onwards, in any match where even 1 of Warne and McGrath played he still wouldn't have enough runs.

Yeah because he played a grand total of 8 test.

And Australian attack was so good then why didn't they beat a full strength Indian side ever.

Had to depend on rain and injury.

Wheras India defeated a full strength Australia side with a club-level bowling attack.

 

[sehwag fan]

You know you've got problems when your argument is "he got bad decisions". Everyone does. He got some bad decisions in his favour too.

And I think you mean this

YouTube - Sachin Tendulkar LBW Glenn McGrath 1st test Adelaide 1999

Which doesn't look like a howler to me.

No.

In first innings. Ball never hit bat, It took pad and umpire gave caught langer .b warne.

Can't remember Martyn given out wrongly in 2004 tour. I am pretty sure if he was given out twice wrong in 2004 tour Australia would have lost even than that tour.

 

[Ikki]

Well, the fact that he played so few tests (of which we are aware) works against him. IMO you have to start the cut off date earlier from about 95.

hang on has mentioned that they've used adjusting factors which I don't think work that well in this case, if I've understood them correctly (I might not have because they're a bit confusing). If someone can clarify them a bit more it'd be nice.

 

[Migara]

Lara has been way better against SOME bowlers in form. He walloped Murali in SL, and scored 650+ runs in 6 innings. Vaas was no slouch either in that series taking 26 wickets (Mrali taking 24). Although Lara was lucky against Vaas few times, that was one ****ing awesome display of strokeplay. On otherhand, Tendulkar was majority of the time struggling against Murali in form. But strangely, Tendulkar did better against form Donald and Pollock than Lara IIRC.

 

[Spark]

So let's get this straight.

Any time India beats Australia, it's because India > Australia.

Any time Australia beats India, it's because of ****ty umpiring. Or because someone was injured. Or because of rain. But not, god forbid, Australia had the better team and played better cricket.

Because Martyn was the only batsman on that tour, to say nothing of Clarke's 400-odd runs. Or the excellence of McGrath and Gillespie. And so on and so forth. Nah, Tendulkar got injured, so it's automatically void. Should be wiped from the books.

Go find another forum to wreck.

 

[sehwag fan]

So let's get this straight.

Any time India beats Australia, it's because India > Australia.

Any time Australia beats India, it's because of ****ty umpiring. Or because someone was injured. Or because of rain. But not, god forbid, Australia had the better team and played better cricket.

Because Martyn was the only batsman on that tour, to say nothing of Clarke's 400-odd runs. Or the excellence of McGrath and Gillespie. And so on and so forth. Nah, Tendulkar got injured, so it's automatically void. Should be wiped from the books.

Go find another forum to wreck.

Give me a break. Whenever there is a talk of Sachin this guy IKKI brings his average vs Mcgrath despite knowing everything. Then i also did same here. Brought wrong umpiring decision.Works both ways.

 

[Blaze 18]

So let's get this straight.

Any time India beats Australia, it's because India > Australia.

Any time Australia beats India, it's because of ****ty umpiring. Or because someone was injured. Or because of rain. But not, god forbid, Australia had the better team and played better cricket.

Because Martyn was the only batsman on that tour, to say nothing of Clarke's 400-odd runs. Or the excellence of McGrath and Gillespie. And so on and so forth. Nah, Tendulkar got injured, so it's automatically void. Should be wiped from the books.

Go find another forum to wreck.

Mate, he is looking for reactions such as this one. You're playing into his hands.

 

[Spark]

Mate, he is looking for reactions such as this one. You're playing into his hands.

I'm tired. I should go to sleep.

 

[sehwag fan]

Lara has been way better against SOME bowlers in form. He walloped Murali in SL, and scored 650+ runs in 6 innings. Vaas was no slouch either in that series taking 26 wickets (Mrali taking 24). Although Lara was lucky against Vaas few times, that was one ****ing awesome display of strokeplay. On otherhand, Tendulkar was majority of the time struggling against Murali in form. But strangely, Tendulkar did better against form Donald and Pollock than Lara IIRC.

Tendulkar also did better against Ambrose and walsh. And lara also struggled against India.

And Tendulkar though never scored against Murali like lara never struggled.http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...late=results;type=batting;view=bowler_summary

Sorry checked, he did struggle a bit. But then what happened to Murali against Sehwag ? Sehwag was all over Murali whenever i saw them playing.

 

[vcs]

Well, the fact that he played so few tests (of which we are aware) works against him. IMO you have to start the cut off date earlier from about 95.

hang on has mentioned that they've used adjusting factors which I don't think work that well in this case, if I've understood them correctly (I might not have because they're a bit confusing). If someone can clarify them a bit more it'd be nice.

Anantha Narayanan's stats-mining articles are a perfect example of analysis-paralysis IMO. The stats articles that appear on the cricinfo magazine site (I think it's called 'The Numbers Game' or something) are much more instructive to read and draw conclusions from. Also the ones where they do a player's career highlights in numbers.

 

[hang on]

Tendulkar also did better against Ambrose and walsh. And lara also struggled against India.

And Tendulkar though never scored against Murali like lara never struggled.Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Sorry checked, he did struggle a bit. But then what happened to Murali against Sehwag ? Sehwag was all over Murali whenever i saw them playing.

kind of difficult for lara to do well against ambrose and walsh, to be fair!

 

[hang on]

But strangely, Tendulkar did better against form Donald and Pollock than Lara IIRC

a left handed compliment, if there ever was one!

 

[smash84]

No.I was watching How I Met Your Mother.

kind of difficult for lara to do well against ambrose and walsh, to be fair!

 

[bagapath]

If you did that Tendulkar wouldn't even make the cut of 800 runs to be on the list in the first place. If you were to consider from that 99 date onwards, in any match where even 1 of Warne and McGrath played he still wouldn't have enough runs.

We are talking about the period in which the australian cricket team was dominant. It doesn't matter whether warne/mcgrath played in all those tests or whether sachin crossed 800 runs. We are looking only at australia's reign at the top. In my opinion, the period I have defined here was when australia was the best team in the world. Let's agree/disagree on that first.

And once you fix that period, one can easily see that tendulkar was the best against them. That makes him the best performer against australia when australia was at the top.

We have had a separate discussion on who has performed the best against warne and mcgrath. This is not about that.

 

[Ikki]

If you are just discussing when Australia became what it became I would still say around 95. From 95 until the SL series you propose Australia won every series bar 4 (2 to India, 1 to SL (and those were away series FTR) and drawn 1 to WIndies in that incredible Lara series). I think starting at the end of 99 misses this.

I'll put it this way: Lara had a better series than Tendulkar ever had against our best in March of 99 yet you want to start counting from December of that same year. If I didn't know you better I'd say you were purposely fixing it so Lara couldn't be ahead of Tendulkar when the difference between their series is 9-10 months apart.

Even then though, Lara averaged 58 against Australia in 2005 with the whole attack present which is higher than any of Tendulkar's series against them. But still, his series in 99 averaging 91 is something else.