abmk

Tendulkar more valuable than Warne? Debatable? Not for me. India could afford to have a lesser batsman than Tendulkar - another Azhurradin - yet if they had Warne instead of Kumble they could have already reached #1 status. As a bowler he is more important than Tendulkar is as a batsman, as a player I don't think it's debatable at all.

But the fact remains is Sachin's record is very patchy against the best pacers. Whilst Steyn/Morkel are a very good line-up, comparing them to some of the great attacks of the 90s is disingenuous. Morkel has had, what, 1-2 years of good bowling? It is early days yet for him.

Warne was injured during before or after every series he has had against India except for his first one where he was merely a novice. Indian bowlers played him well but in 04 (something near his peak) he averaged 30 and struck at 60 and he missed a pitch where M.Clarke took 6/9 and even Hauritz did well. In between his first and last series against India he routinely had shoulder and finger problems that threatened to end his career all the way back in 02. India played him very well, but to suggest he would have been that poor regardless is, again, disingenuous. The irony is in that time he was injured he did worse against Eng, NZ and WI than he did against Ind.

Ponting averages 46 in matches against Donald, not barely 40. Ponting has a better, and more consistent, record against great pace bowlers. I don't see how that matters, though. Not even Ponting is complete (although probably closest to it amongst modern batsmen). You argue for bad decisions, yet I am sure there are plenty of times when Tendulkar got good decisions. And who knows whether he would have scored more? That is merely your assumption.

Tendulkar had lauded Warne, so had Lara, despite both having succeses against him. Warne doesn't have a complete record with no blotches, but it is still an extraordinary record. Especially considering he is a legspinner. There are only 3 other bowlers in cricket history that can even compare. In Tendulkar's own life-time there are about 4 other batsmen at LEAST that can compare to his record. That's why I think his achievements are often overstated, and when you consider people are actually comparing him to Bradman it's a disgrace.

I'm sure there are times in a career where there are bad decisions as well as good ones. There are times when things aren't fair - i.e. being injured almost every time you face a certain spin playing country . But Tendulkar's record, with consideration to most of the all-time great pacers of his time, has gaps. I wouldn't consider him complete in that respect. Ponting scored runs when Donald and Pollock played, so it isn't cashing runs if he has a slightly lesser record against Steyn. Cashing in runs is like averaging in the 30s when SA/Pak had an all-time great pace attack and then improving your average after those guys retire. Tendulkar is a very good player of pace, but against the top tier pacers his success was mixed.

Anyway, that wasn't the point I was interested in (a Tendulkar v X thread has all the points already on his success or lack of it against top attacks). I was trying to distinguish why Warne is a much rarer creature and more valuable cricketer than Tendulkar.

Steyn and Morkel aren't a great bowling partnership, let's be honest. Sachin's record against McWarne is average - against McGrath it's crap IIRC. In matches against the Ws he averages in the 30s and in matches against Pollock and Donald he averages in the 30s again. The only great attack of his time that he did do well against were the WIndies.

Hussain, Hadlee and anyone who compares Sachin to Bradman is an idiot, let's be honest. You asked why people rate Warne (or Murali for that matter) differently to someone like Sachin...it is because Sachin is a dime a dozen. There is an all-time great bat in pretty much every era (often more). We will probably see another 4-5 more Sachin-like batsmen before we die. We might not ever see another Warne.

ABMK - Read:
all of them before the England tour of India in 93. He had played enough special innings and had a pretty decent average till then . You could easily make a case that he was in the top 10 batsmen in the world at that time

Someone averaging in the mid 30s before 93? No, you couldn't make that argument. It's only with respect to his age (as many of those excerpts allude to) that he is seen in such a light. If he were 30 years old and doing so it would be somewhat unremarkable.

ABMK -
All I am saying is quality wise among the bowlers, warne stands out lesser when compared to Sachin in batsmen ( minus Bradman ) , his record is more incomplete and quite frankly, against the very best, he was found wanting many times

Me - Sachin was found wanting against many of the great pacers of his time. I wouldn't call him complete in that sense at all. I would agree with you that Warne has a hole in his record (like his record against India) but the things he did elsewhere enhance his record to the point that most people don't care. Just take a look at my signature. Warne is not only seen as the greatest spinner by many, but also the greatest bowler. And you can't compare directly. Many of those great pace bowlers didn't even rely on the pitch - they could swing the ball through the air. Spinners in general rely on the pitch. It is a credit to Warne/Murali that they succeed almost everywhere. That's why these guys are hailed so highly.

ABMK - yes, they are , its elementary cricket. By god, do I really have to elaborate on this ?
Read above ...Direct result of that ...

Me - I understand what you are saying now. But no, I wouldn't say it is a direct result of that. There are way too many spinners in the history of cricket to have been only 4 (Warne, Murali, Grimmet and O'Reilly) who are really comparable. Heck, there are about as many comparable batsmen-wk or wk in general and there are only 1 in each team.

Alreafy done it man, youtube told me I had no grounds to file a complaint. Warned me I could have legal action against ME!