Rank the 10,000 club

[anil1405]

Lol
Sachin averaged 74 in 3 years period 1993-95
Dravid came in 1996

Where did majority of his runs come during this period?

 

[ankitj]

I don't think anyone helps anyone else get better output as far as test match batting goes.

 

[vcs]

That sort of also answers why Tendulkar can be and is legitimately rated higher than Kallis or Sangakkara who finished with better averages. But in his middle ~18 years Tendulkar averaged 59 which means on sheer output he has beat them all! With Sanga there is also the record in SENA countries which while good is not comparable to Tendulkar's.

Lara is a different comparison though. He had some dream knocks (every time you do a top 100 innings list he tends to get lot of entries) on which none of his contemporaries or even anyone in history (bar Bradman) can beat him. So if you give lot of weight to that, it's justified that he is regarded better.

Sangakkara suffered from lack of opportunities to play abroad

 

[Daemon]

Right Papp Finn Knight has entered. Only a matter of time before it becomes a **** show now.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Where did majority of his runs come during this period?

India, but he averaged 73 in SA, 81 in SL and 54 in NZ.

 

[ankitj]

PFK bats for Tendulkar and Wasim Akram like a typical subcontinent fan. Unusual on this board.

 

[Daemon]

PFK bats for Tendulkar and Wasim Akram like a typical subcontinent fan. Unusual on this board.

Can’t wait to read about how Kapil Dev > Sobers

 

[vcs]

Think he also argues that Lara was the best ODI bat in the '90s

I mean, his opinions aren't terrible, it's just the way he argues them

 

[Bolo.]

I think you need to look beyond his average at # 4. Both Tendulkar and Lara average over 50 against both Australia and England while Kallis averages under 45 against those Test nations.

You seem to be arguing that they are simply better bats than him. Nothing wrong with this opinion, although picking a limited number of opponents to illustrate your point isnt the best way to go about things.

They might be better bats but worse number 4s though. He was well suited to it. His numbers are seriously impressive. You might still consider them ahead, but there is no doubt it is very close between them- certainly not the difference between his bowling/fielding and theirs, particularly in a team that lacks ARs.

And there is no need to leave either of them out if you want them in particular. They would only improve by batting down the order. 5 is the easiest place to bat for everyone but the stodgy bats like Kallis. Sachin would thrive at 5, particularly given his weakness (relative to Kallis) when coming in after 2 quick wickets at 4.

Lara is great at marshalling the tail, a great player of spin, and can hit out. He could come in last of the bats.

Sorry man, it was you who came up with absurd (and rather fudged) numbers of Lara being inconsistent for 1/3rd of his career and Tendulkar being inconsistent for only 1/7th of his career. Those numbers are as false as they can get. , And for sure you included their entire career length when you came up with these numbers.

Lara had 1 long trough in the middle of his career (from Nov 1996 to Nov 2001). Tendulkar had 1 equally long trough (from Nov 2002 to Nov 2007) and 1 relatively short (2.5 years) but very deep trough at the end of his career.

Tough luck. Lara retired when he retired. He had an amazing last 4-5 years of his career. He really signed off on a high note. That's about it. It is what it is. In this comparison - it is absurd to penalize Lara for imaginary troughs if he had played on till he was 40.

If you are really being honest with your numbers - Tendulkar has to be penalized for lack of consistency in his final years (and some part of his initial years - taking 4+ years and nearly 30 Test matches to get his career Test average above 50 is not a short time), as well as his slump from Nov 2002 to Nov 2007
You can suit yourself but for me Tendulkar's slump from Nov 2002 to Nov 2007 was just as worse as Lara's slump from Nov 1996 to Nov 2001.

I didn't pick any dates. You and the poster you were replying to did. All I did was look at the numbers of tests played in the period and compare them to total number of tests to see how much of their careers it represented. For Sachin it was 29 (plus 4 bangers)/200. For Lara it was 40 something out of 133ish. Sachins slump is less significant relative to career both due to career number and actual games played (cos he was injured, which is a better excuse for being crap than Lara simply going off the boil).

As for the other dates you have since added, marking him down for the first few years has been addressed by others. The last couple of years of his career are more than fair game. Mark him down by all means. I do. But as arduously long as that period lasted, it is still a tiny proportion of his career.

 

[_00_deathscar]

There are many reasons to not elevate Sachin to a higher status or to say Lara was definitely better (there are some/quite a few things Lara definitely was better at).

But marking Sachin down for not averaging 50+ until his 30th test or whatever in comparison to Lara who did it by his 13th test, when Sachin debuted as a 16 year old is BS.

 

[anil1405]

India, but he averaged 73 in SA, 81 in SL and 54 in NZ.

That's a grand total of two test matches in South Africa and New Zealand combined during that period.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

Can’t wait to read about how Kapil Dev > Sobers

Nah.. this is CW only Imran and Miller gets that levels of pampering.

 

[Pap Finn Keighl]

That's a grand total of two test matches in South Africa and New Zealand combined during that period.

And He was just a Developing talent

 

[Burgey]

Sounds a bit like the only thing standing in the way of him being recognised as clearly the second best* bat ever is his longevity.

*third

 

[pardus]

I didn't pick any dates. You and the poster you were replying to did. All I did was look at the numbers of tests played in the period and compare them to total number of tests to see how much of their careers it represented. For Sachin it was 29 (plus 4 bangers)/200. For Lara it was 40 something out of 133ish. Sachins slump is less significant relative to career both due to career number and actual games played (cos he was injured, which is a better excuse for being crap than Lara simply going off the boil).

As for the other dates you have since added, marking him down for the first few years has been addressed by others. The last couple of years of his career are more than fair game. Mark him down by all means. I do. But as arduously long as that period lasted, it is still a tiny proportion of his career.

Lara's trough years = 5 years out of 15 = 33% of his career
Tendulkar's trough years = (5+2.5) = 7.5 years out of 24 = 31% of his career
Not a significant difference IMO.

 

[BoyBrumby]

yes Steve Waugh is top. In the 90s which was the hardest batting era In the last 50 years, Steve Waugh was number one. Steve Waugh is criminally underrated on here. But I expect nothing less these days. Just read the Stuart broad thread. It’s pathetic.

I have an awful lot of time for SRW; in fact in those hypothetical drunken discussions I have with cricket-following mates he's usually the man I opt for when the "Who would you want to face an over to save your life?" question is posed.

There was a time in the 1989 Ashes where I despaired of ever getting him out; think it took us to the third test.

However I don't have him higher in my list because he didn't quite tickle my aesthetic pleasure zone like some of the chaps I placed above him; he famously restricted his own game to become a grinder by choice.

Someone (might've been Warne) once said that if you saw one Waugh innings you'd seen them all. It's a throwaway line, but there is a kernel of truth in it.

EDIT: autocorrect changed "pleasure" to "please".

 

[TheJediBrah]

I will always rate Sachin ahead of Sangakkara and Kallis. Succeeded against better bowlers in tougher times. Also agree with others saying that Steve Waugh is underrated. He performed when it was needed most. I don't have an issue with equating him with Sachin, Lara and Ponting.

 

[honestbharani]

Think he also argues that Lara was the best ODI bat in the '90s

I mean, his opinions aren't terrible, it's just the way he argues them

Something very very familiar about someone who rates Akram, Sachin and bats for Lara in ODIs....

 

[harsh.ag]

.

 

[stephen]

Take a look at these two queries:

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Batting records | Test matches | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

I was interested to see the difference between how players over 35 fared in each country compared to the average. Players who are over 35 are probably relying more on experience than eye.

Pakistan, the UAE, India, the West Indies, New Zealand and England all see averages go up for the geriatrics. Australia, Sri Lanka and South Africa all see drops in average.

My original hypothesis was that quicker decks were harder to play on if you're older, while slower decks would favour experience. It is interesting then that the West Indies sees geriatrics do better while Sri Lanka favours youth.

Make of that what you will with regards to longevity arguments.