• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Rank the 10,000 club

pardus

School Boy/Girl Captain
View attachment 25602

Stats suggest otherwise. Drop of more than 7 from overall average, and more than 5 for the era. Pakistani bowlers definietly had an effect on Tendulkar's batting on ODIs, and there is nothing to suggest that it wouldn't be in tests.
Donald's presence makes the biggest dent in Tendulkar's ODI stats. While his ODI average does dip in the presence of McGrath (especially outside Asia) or Akram, it is still not as severe.
Nevertheless it is tough to extrapolate from ODIs to Tests, things are so different. It's a completely different ball game.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I prefer people who are actually better bowlers than the ones that are not, but some prefer the latter. :laugh:
Ok fine. Since you and migara seem intent on turning this into Warne vs Murali, I'll just say that it's not definitive who the better bowler is and in the absence of that, you pick the better batsman and fielder, which was Warne.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
all points folks said about Ponting and Hussey too.. :laugh:
And this is false, particularly about Hussey. People said it was a remarkable purple patch but his early average wasn't reflective of his actual ability. People said that Ponting would be considered the second best Australian side Bradman and that it was too close to call between him, Lara and Tendulkar until they retired but if he kept going at the same rate he'd break run scoring records. He didn't and the other two pulled ahead of him late in their respective careers.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
So, to clarify, you are predicting that he will end on something like 2/3s of Sachins number of hundreds, and are using his number of hundreds (including those he hasnt even scored) to justify him being a better bat?

Sounds perfectly reasonable.
No, I'm suggesting that extremely conservative estimates put him in the top 10 century scorers of all time and that he's already ahead of a few other contenders and all time greats on that count.

And that's not even talking about the great bowling he's neutered, the ridiculous series he's had against England and India in their respective countries or the ridiculous knocks he's played. Frankly he's quite obviously the best test batsman I've seen and it's not even close.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Saqlain vs. Tendulkar and to a lesser extent Shoaib vs. Tendulkar were real battles. Wasim/Waqar never had much on Tendulkar in ODIs either.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
I'm onboard that Smith is on the right track to be 2nd best if he extends his current run or even a level lower than current form for another ~6 years. As of now it's quite debatable.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I'm onboard that Smith is on the right track to be 2nd best if he extends his current run or even a level lower than current form for another ~6 years. As of now it's quite debatable.
Except that wasn't even the argument. The argument was if he was in the first five batsmen picked for an ATXI.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
And this is false, particularly about Hussey. People said it was a remarkable purple patch but his early average wasn't reflective of his actual ability. People said that Ponting would be considered the second best Australian side Bradman and that it was too close to call between him, Lara and Tendulkar until they retired but if he kept going at the same rate he'd break run scoring records. He didn't and the other two pulled ahead of him late in their respective careers.

Mate, I was here... I have seen the threads. :laugh: I am not saying Smith will NOT be the second best by the time he retires but that is for the future to show us. I don't like to put current players in ATG discussions for a reason. The reason being the arguments put over on Ponting and Hussey and a few others like that.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Ok fine. Since you and migara seem intent on turning this into Warne vs Murali, I'll just say that it's not definitive who the better bowler is and in the absence of that, you pick the better batsman and fielder, which was Warne.
It depends on the rest of your side. FWIW, I have always put Warne juz coz most of the ATG batsmen seemed to find it easier to bowl some offies and I would have variety this way. But your wording makes it seem there is an obvious choice and there isn't, unless you are simply going for the better spinner, which by most objective metrics is Murali.
 

_00_deathscar

International Debutant
If Steve Smith averaged 30 for his next 50 innings (roughly taking him to 100 tests) his batting average would be 53.

So his output would have to be literally half his career output to date for 25+ tests for his batting average to drop to the same level as Ponting/Lara/Tendulkar.

He's averaging 63 over 73 tests and a ten year career. It's hardly a small sample size, and though it's unlikely that he's going to play 150+ tests it's hard to see him scoring less than 10000+ runs at an average over 55.
It's slicing, but there's a period from the early 90s to the early 00s in which Tendulkar played more tests than Smith (think it's about ~90 or so tests) and averaged nearly 63 (although career average was probably about 59 as per earlier - but that's because he spent his first 2-3 years a literal child in test cricket).

And we all know his overall average dipped at the end. It happens to the best of them...
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
Except that wasn't even the argument. The argument was if he was in the first five batsmen picked for an ATXI.
And I am saying there is a reason why you don't put current players in comparison to people who have finished their careers. And the Ponting/Hussey point stands.
 

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
To be fair Tendulkar never achieved peak ICC rating points that Smith has. He has had the greatest peak of any batsman bar Bradman. That's hard to dispute. What that means for rating a batsman is a different matter.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
It depends on the rest of your side. FWIW, I have always put Warne juz coz most of the ATG batsmen seemed to find it easier to bowl some offies and I would have variety this way. But your wording makes it seem there is an obvious choice and there isn't, unless you are simply going for the better spinner, which by most objective metrics is Murali.
You may think you're being fair and even handed but you're actually showing your bias here. "Objective metrics" is so debatable. What does that even mean? Away average? Number of wickets against top 8 sides? Head to head results? All of these are objective metrics which favour Warne.

As I said earlier, I'm not even declaring Warne the better bowler and include him as the better package but to pretend that Murali is clearly better than Warne is simply nonsense.

I almost didn't include the bowling attack because it made no difference to the original point I was making, which is that Tendulkar isn't guaranteed a spot in the all time XI.
 

TheJediBrah

Request Your Custom Title Now!
You may think you're being fair and even handed but you're actually showing your bias here. "Objective metrics" is so debatable. What does that even mean? Away average? Number of wickets against top 8 sides? Head to head results? All of these are objective metrics which favour Warne.

As I said earlier, I'm not even declaring Warne the better bowler and include him as the better package but to pretend that Murali is clearly better than Warne is simply nonsense.

I almost didn't include the bowling attack because it made no difference to the original point I was making, which is that Tendulkar isn't guaranteed a spot in the all time XI.
I'm not buying into anything else stephen is saying but he's right about this. Saying that objective measures favour Murali is nonsense. We really want to go over all this again? The spinner that played 70% of his cricket in Asia, and a whopping 25 tests against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, is not winning by any objective measures because his career average is a few runs lower.

And I am saying there is a reason why you don't put current players in comparison to people who have finished their careers. And the Ponting/Hussey point stands.
Very fair. Wait til his career his over to rate him IMO. Still I wouldn't be jumping down anyone's throat if they do rate him as no. 2 of all time, it's perfectly reasonable.
 

trundler

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Any of Hutton, Lara, Hammond and especially Viv are not definitely better than Tendulkar.
 

_00_deathscar

International Debutant
To be fair Tendulkar never achieved peak ICC rating points that Smith has. He has had the greatest peak of any batsman bar Bradman. That's hard to dispute. What that means for rating a batsman is a different matter.
Of course, and it's a valid criticism of Sachin's which has been accepted, as are (and it's somewhat linked), a lack of monster series where he has completely and utterly dominated the opposition.

Which is why, again, a World XI team can't just be made of players who are dominant monsters. It needs a mixture - Sachin and Lara/Ponting would have worked really well together, especially Ponting in particular as he was a #3 as long as the top 2 don't have them coming in a 5/2 each game. Give them at least a decent platform and they'd have absolutely dominated.

Sachin is Joe Root, except at an ATG level. Put a few monsters around him.

Listing averages by bowlers (and not just that, going further to only account for peak periods of the bowlers) and picking specific series and the rest is utter hogwash though. If batsmen are subject to such scrutiny, have players who almost walk into World ATG XIs been subject to the same scrunity? What is Warne's average when Sachin and Lara were playing in the same test at their very respective peaks?

The issue is that, apart from Bradman (although some try) and at the moment Smith, if you look hard enough, you will inevitable find some holes in someone's resume. Let's not start running away with these crazy holes though.
Sachin's holes generally tend to be less apparent because he was quite consistent throughout and for an extended period of time, in varying conditions, at varying ages, and in various countries, so the extent that one has to go to to find holes starts becoming really, really silly.
 
Last edited:

ankitj

Hall of Fame Member
Love how Stephen (like Ikki) would take Warne over Murali for overall package but won't consider Hadlee or Imran over McGrath.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Love how Stephen (like Ikki) would take Warne over Murali for overall package but won't consider Hadlee or Imran over McGrath.
I did consider Hadlee strongly and almost picked him but McGrath was just too good to leave out.
 

stephen

Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Honestly you could throw a net over a dozen bowlers and they'd be good enough for an AT XI. Garner almost certainly is the best proven first change bowler in history and always gets left out of these discussions, despite his ridiculous record.
 

Top