Richards still King!

[smash84]

Yes Recent India/Eng ODI series are a proof that the ODIs these days are far more competitive. And this is between two top teams.

The argument you make here doesn't make any sense to me. It is like saying that it is easier to be the first one to invent something after that there is nothing left to do. Virender Sehwag changed the batting in Test matches after how many years of Test Cricket history ?

 

[hang on]

Yes Recent India/Eng ODI series are a proof that the ODIs these days are far more competitive. And this is between two top teams.

The argument you make here doesn't make any sense to me. It is like saying that it is easier to be the first one to invent something after that there is nothing left to do. Virender Sehwag changed the batting in Test matches after how many years of Test Cricket history ?

certainly not saying that there is nothing else to do. please do not put words into my mouth. take the example of wg grace. the first real modern batsman as cricket started modernising, in a manner of speaking. pretty much defined what it was to be batsman at that time, partly as a consequence of being very gifted but partly because he was essentially creating the art of modern batting. there will always be paradigm changes in a sport, but at the beginning of such a shift, those instigating the shift will have a natural advantage while it catches on or is taken seriously. once it becomes the norm and is refined and it evolves, it does become more competitive....until the next paradigm shift. sorry for this mishmash of badly digested kuhnian theory transposed to cricket this early in the AM!

 

[miscer]

Viv as a top order batsman 57.57(SR 86.88) , Tendulkar 47.74 (SR 87.76)
Viv as a Middle order batsman 42.98 (SR 92), Tendulkar 35.57 (SR 80)

oh come on I can show you equally impressive stats.
Tendulkar innings/100s : 9.2
Richards innings/100s : 15.2

-Fact that tendulkar started at 16 and didn't even have a hundred till his 70somethingth match. so actually his innings/100s since 100 no. 1 till now is closer to 7.8!

and didn't they play a lot of 60-over matches as well? anyway im not saying tendulkar is better. and richards>tendulkar is a valid rating but saying richards is undoubtably the best and is in another class and all that seems a little over the top.

 

[Burgey]

There's another thread in which openers of yore are getting credit for batting sans lids. Vic dereves some credit for that, though for some part of his career (towards the tail end) there were limitations.

 

[Sanz]

oh come on I can show you equally impressive stats.
Tendulkar innings/100s : 9.2
Richards innings/100s : 15.2

Tendulkar played 119 matches and didn't open, Innings/100 = 28, Richards' 15.2 is again miles ahead of Tendulkar.

If you compare the 50+ scores as a non opener. Tendulkar innings/50+ = 4.48, Richards is 2.98. Even if you include Tendulkar's entire career as an opener his inning/50+ score is > 3

-Fact that tendulkar started at 16 and didn't even have a hundred till his 70somethingth match. so actually his innings/100s since 100 no. 1 till now is closer to 7.8!

So you want to remove all the matches Tendulkar played in first 5 years to make his stat look good better than they actually are ?

and didn't they play a lot of 60-over matches as well? anyway im not saying tendulkar is better. and richards>tendulkar is a valid rating but saying richards is undoubtably the best and is in another class and all that seems a little over the top.

If you think it is over the top then it is your opinion which I consider laughable because Richards is easily the better ODI batsman in almost every sense except the longevity.

 

[robelinda]

Viv was not only the best ODI batsman in his era, but of all time. Sachin isn't even the best ODI batsman in his own team.

 

[timet]

My vote is also for Richards over Tendulkar. Richards would try to (and often did) tear an attack apart. This struck fear and intimidation in the opposition, and is what truly sets Richards apart.

 

[Ikki]

Viv a champion no doubt; but Tendulkar is also there, let's be fair. Dislike the words "easily better than" when you are talking about players this good/close.

 

[abmk]

Viv's peak is only a shade better ? Really what world do you live in ?

world of reality, unlike you !

Richards for the most part of his careers was averaging around mid 50s with a SR of 90+ in an era when an average of 40 with a 70+ SR was almost unheard of. Tendulkar has never gone close to 50 in ODIs and infact has massively struggled as a middle order batsman.

That's because Sachin had an average start to his career.

Viv's last 4 years were also mediocre.

Viv's average was boosted a bit by not-outs. ( that is a part of the reason for 50+ average till about say 87 or so )

Viv also struggled at no5 . His record at home in ODIs isn't anything special either . I could go on dissecting further in Viv's case or even Sachin's, but I don't think its that necessary. I don't find anything wrong in someone rating Viv over Sachin, but to say there is a world of difference ? I find it laughable

 

[abmk]

Viv was not only the best ODI batsman in his era, but of all time. Sachin isn't even the best ODI batsman in his own team.

err, what ???

 

[Furball]

err, what ???

Dhoni.

 

[abmk]

Dhoni.

He's got a long way to go ! The no of holes in his record are numerous !!

 

[Furball]

He's got a long way to go ! The no of holes in his record are numerous !!

Best ODI batsman around at the minute.

 

[smash84]

Dhoni is definitely a very very good ODI player. Not sure if he is in Tendulkar's league though. Very different roles

 

[abmk]

Best ODI batsman around at the minute.

probably, but he was struggling for quite a few ODIs before that knock in the WC finals. Besides, Sachin isn't playing many ODIs these days ....

 

[Burgey]

world of reality, unlike you !



That's because Sachin had an average start to his career.

Viv's last 4 years were also mediocre.

Viv's average was boosted a bit by not-outs. ( that is a part of the reason for 50+ average till about say 87 or so )

Viv also struggled at no5 . His record at home in ODIs isn't anything special either . I could go on dissecting further in Viv's case or even Sachin's, but I don't think its that necessary. I don't find anything wrong in someone rating Viv over Sachin, but to say there is a world of difference ? I find it laughable

Mate, if you bat in the top three and you're securing not outs, i really don't see how this should count against you compared with, say, a Bevan who batted down the order and was more likely to be left not out.

 

[centurymaker]

Mate, if you bat in the top three and you're securing not outs, i really don't see how this should count against you compared with, say, a Bevan who batted down the order and was more likely to be left not out.

TBF if you're a top order plyer and you end up unbeaten on say 88* then it's more likely that you wouldn't have scored more additional runs than someone like bevan finishing up on 25*

 

[Burgey]

TBF if you're a top order plyer and you end up unbeaten on say 88* then it's more likely that you wouldn't have scored more additional runs than someone like bevan finishing up on 25*

So then the point about "not outs" works for everyone and really shouldn't count against Richards in particular?

 

[centurymaker]

So then the point about "not outs" works for everyone and really shouldn't count against Richards in particular?

yeah i think so.

 

[GotSpin]

Thought this thread was going to be about Richard the poster. Pretty disappointing tbh