Johan
Hall of Fame Member
Tendulkar is comfortably better than Ponting on peer rep, therefore later is not an ATG.Smith is comfortably better than Root on peer rep.
Tendulkar is comfortably better than Ponting on peer rep, therefore later is not an ATG.Smith is comfortably better than Root on peer rep.
Tbf this is Narayana. Dude was arguing that Kohli was better than Sachin.Averages 40 and has an ATG ton. It's perfectly fine. The SA one though is like so funny..... Especially given Sachin has arguments to be the best touring batsman in SA.
Now , i am trying to become a mature cricket fan.Tbf this is Narayana. Dude was arguing that Kohli was better than Sachin.
See my signatureBrook has shown himself to be the complete package already. Excellent temperament, great technique, fantastic SR and already proven in different conditions. He has the makings of the first ATG from England since Botham.
Jaiswal is super talented but still somewhat hasty and rough around the edges like early Kohli.
Tendulkar was more of a 90s cricketer, Ponting a 2000s cricketer, and Pontings peer rating in the 2000s was ahead of any bat.Tendulkar is comfortably better than Ponting on peer rep, therefore later is not an ATG.
and then it fell off greatly to the point it's all Lara and Sachin. Regardless, Root doesn't have any peer rep issues and has always been rated very highly.Tendulkar was more of a 90s cricketer, Ponting a 2000s cricketer, and Pontings peer rating in the 2000s was ahead of any bat.
Didn't even just get it to above 40, got it to 46.5Ok but he got it over 40 with a near ATG tour against peak Steyn. That erases all doubts.
What does peer rating have anything to do with modern 21st century cricketers that we saw? Ask a bunch of peers, most of them will rate Kohli over Smith/Root.Tendulkar was more of a 90s cricketer, Ponting a 2000s cricketer, and Pontings peer rating in the 2000s was ahead of any bat.
The more you play, the more the chance of your average going down actually.Because no other batter is lucky enough to play 6-7 tours to increase his average above 40.
Um, no, Ponting by retirement was comfortably seen as an all-time great.and then it fell off greatly to the point it's all Lara and Sachin. Regardless, Root doesn't have any peer rep issues and has always been rated very highly.
Which peers are you talking about?What does peer rating have anything to do with modern 21st century cricketers that we saw? Ask a bunch of peers, most of them will rate Kohli over Smith/Root.
gotta count those.The more you play actually, the more the chance of your average going down actually.
Before his last tours there, Sachin was averaging in 58.5 in Aus and 62+ in Eng.
ftfyPoor in Australia is good and all but peer reputation is such a ridiculously bad argument for any players man
I don't know why we shouldn't count the collective assessment of those who actually faced the players in question. Even you agreed it has some value.ftfy
Nah he had the advantage of playing half as many countries. It's close but Tendulkar for me.now that Coronis and Subs are both here, I just want to say, the best overseas Batsman since 1970 is IVA Richards, not SR Tendulkar.
too much ATG work away from home. Viv for me.Nah he had the advantage of playing half as many countries. It's close but Tendulkar for me.
I don't know why we shouldn't count the collective assessment of those who actually faced the players in question. Even you agreed it has some value.
Rare occasion of me agreeing with PC.Maybe it can be a tie breaker
I would say Smith personally. Some others worth mentioning. Border, Smith, Waugh.now that Coronis and Subs are both here, I just want to say, the best overseas Batsman since 1970 is IVA Richards, not SR Tendulkar.
not a bad pick.I would say Smith personally. Some others worth mentioning. Border, Smith, Waugh.