Who is better in Australia?

[DrWolverine]

The format is designed in a such a way that it is impossible to win a test single handedly by a batsman.

 

[DrWolverine]

Batsmen don't win games really much.

Rahul Dravid scored 233 but it was Ajit Agarkar’s 6 wicket haul that helped India win in Adelaide.

Sachin Tendulkar scored 241 but since no bowler took 5 or 6 wickets, India did not win the match but doesn’t mean his innings was any less compared to Dravid’s knock.

 

[subshakerz]

The format is designed in a such a way that it is impossible to win a test single handedly by a batsman.

By winning a game I think it means playing a disproportionately.decisive role. There are innings like that but invariably they are near ATG status at least.

Whereas a matchwinning bowler regularly has such impact with even a routine fifer in a win.

 

[DrWolverine]

A matchwinning bowler regularly has such impact with even a routine fifer in a win.

True.

This was asked in chatgpt
Centuries in Wins (Test Cricket):

1. Sachin Tendulkar – 20/51 → 39.2%
2. Ricky Ponting – 30/41 → 73.2%
3. Kumar Sangakkara – 20/38 → 52.6%
4. Jacques Kallis – 22/45 → 48.9%
5. Brian Lara – 17/34 → 50.0%

5-Wicket Hauls in Wins (Test Cricket):

1. Anil Kumble – 27/35 → 77.1%
2. Glenn McGrath – 22/29 → 75.9%
3. Muttiah Muralitharan – 40/66 → 60.6%
4. Dale Steyn – 22/26 → 84.6%
5. Curtly Ambrose – 14/22 → 63.6%

 

[capt_Luffy]

Disappointed. You're better than this.

Oh he definitely Isn't. @sayon basak is worse than this.

 

[Sliferxxxx]

since 1970, Sachin is also the second best touring Batsman in South Africa.

Steve Waugh

 

[Johan]

Rahul Dravid scored 233 but it was Ajit Agarkar’s 6 wicket haul that helped India win in Adelaide.

Sachin Tendulkar scored 241 but since no bowler took 5 or 6 wickets, India did not win the match but doesn’t mean his innings was any less compared to Dravid’s knock.

not really how it works.

Richard Hadlee took 15 wickets at the Gabba in 1985, but is a Kiwi victory really guaranteed if Martin Crowe and John Reid did not make 300 runs between them? I don't think so. In 1993, West Indies doesn't win the adeliade test if Richie Richardson doesn't stand up snd make 72 on that trechourous wicket where no one crossed 20-25? It's a team sport, for a reason

 

[Sliferxxxx]

To the question at hand, I'd give Sachin the edge in Australia but their isn't a huge gulf between the two despite their averages. Lara played strong attacks much more often. Overall vs Australia though, definitely Lara.

 

[capt_Luffy]

To the question at hand, I'd give Sachin the edge in Australia but their isn't a huge gulf between the two despite their averages. Lara played strong attacks much more often. Overall vs Australia though, definitely Lara.

1999 solos.

 

[DrWolverine]

not really how it works.

Richard Hadlee took 15 wickets at the Gabba in 1985, but is a Kiwi victory really guaranteed if Martin Crowe and John Reid did not make 300 runs between them? I don't think so. In 1993, West Indies doesn't win the adeliade test if Richie Richardson doesn't stand up snd make 72 on that trechourous wicket where no one crossed 20-25? It's a team sport, for a reason

Obviously it is a team sport but a bowler’s role is much bigger in test cricket.

 

[Johan]

Obviously it is a team sport but a bowler’s role is much bigger in test cricket.

not really true, if it were, then modern day South Africa would win a lot more than modern day England.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Rahul Dravid scored 233 but it was Ajit Agarkar’s 6 wicket haul that helped India win in Adelaide.

Sachin Tendulkar scored 241 but since no bowler took 5 or 6 wickets, India did not win the match but doesn’t mean his innings was any less compared to Dravid’s knock.

Tendulkar's 241 was in no way anywhere close to as good as Dravid's double, what a ridiculous thing to say. Tendulkar's innings was a decent hundred batting first on a road pitch. Dravid's was one where India had scoreboard pressure against them and were 80-4 trailing by almost 500. It's not only about whether you win the match, it's about the context of the innings.

 

[OverratedSanity]

To the question at hand, I'd give Sachin the edge in Australia but their isn't a huge gulf between the two despite their averages. Lara played strong attacks much more often. Overall vs Australia though, definitely Lara.

Lara crossed 50 four times in almost 30 innings after his first tour to Australia. He faced tougher attacks but his record is far too patchy for it to be anywhere close to Tendulkar's in Australia.

 

[Thala_0710]

not really true, if it were, then modern day South Africa would win a lot more than modern day England.

What is the modern day SA and Eng you're talking about? Coz SA are playing a WTC final whereas Eng are shitting themselves at the prospect of facing Bumrah

 

[Johan]

What is the modern day SA and Eng you're talking about? Coz SA are playing a WTC final whereas Eng are shitting themselves at the prospect of facing Bumrah

You guys just had your back blown away by some vicious backshots from Oceania, sit down and relax for a while.

 

[Thala_0710]

You guys just had your back blown away by some vicious backshots from Oceania, sit down and relax for a while.

We're not playing with 9 guys anymore though

 

[capt_Luffy]

You guys just had your back blown away by some vicious backshots from Oceania, sit down and relax for a while.

I wonder who we thrashed 4-1 just before that.....

 

[Johan]

We're not playing with 9 guys anymore though

You can get Jay Shah to change the rules and play 20 players, you'd still lose 0-5

 

[akilana]

Lara played stronger attacks more but averaged less than 40 against them in Aus with McGrath there.

Tendulkar played this ATG attack in 99 and did very well. And played a very good attack of Lee in worldclass form and Clarke and scored very well in 2007.

what's sachin average vs mcgrath? exactly!

 

[subshakerz]

what's sachin average vs mcgrath? exactly!

In Australia, Sachin averages more than Lara vs McGrath.