Aravinda De Silva is better than Sachin Tendulkar

[Precambrian]

The Island-Sports

The Indian cricket historian Ramachandra Guha has argued that Sunil Gavaskar was a superior batsman to Viv Richards. Though Viv Richards was much more destructive, he never had to face his own bowlers. Gavaskar not only faced Garner, Marshall and Holding, but he mastered them. He scored a scarcely believable 13 centuries against the feared West Indian bowlers. That is by far the highest number of centuries against the Windies, which was the leading attack of that era.

By the same token, Aravinda was a superior batsman to Brian Lara and Sachin Tendulkar. Not many are aware that Aravinda is the top century scorer against Pakistan, the leading team of his time. As the scorer of 8 centuries against Imran Khan, Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis and Abdul Qadir, Aravinda should be placed on a pedestal.

Funnily enough the author's name translates literally as "Useless".

 

[Precambrian]

ater in mid 1986, I caught my first glimpse of Aravinda close at hand. It was at the SSC nets in Colombo. Somebody was throwing the ball to him from a distance of 10 yards. The ball must have been coming to him at almost 100 mph. His reflexes were quick and devastating. He had all the time in the world for his shots. The SSC nets had to be cleared because the power of the shots was a threat to the onlookers!

 

[ret]

De Silva was brilliant and it wouldn't surprise me if some ppl rate him as the best .... in the end, it all boils down to what you give weight age to when evaluating players

If scoring most 100s against the best attacks of one times constitutes the best for him then so be it .... Amarnath and Crowe would not be far behind based on that criteria. Both of them have pretty good records against the WI

 

[HMas]

Sachin is a stats/records god...Aravinda won more matches for SL.

 

[Migara]

This writer is a joker. No one cares about him.

But he was one of the best players of fast and intimidating bowling of his era, let it be at his head or at his toes. He got more on his toes, as he played Pakistan more and WI didn't play a test until 1994 with SL. The very few short balls from Ambrose and Walsh in those matches, were dismissed from the presence, these two awesome bowlers were not prepared to test him furger on the pull and the hook.

 

[Migara]

His footwork was nimble against Shane Warne. Warne huffed and puffed, but went wicketless. It was his stroke play against McGrath pin-point accuracy that sealed the match.

Further proves this fellow is a joker. Aravinda did not play many atatcking shots off Warne. He played Warne very safe. It was gurusinghe and Ranatunga who butchered Warne. And the winning runs came off Ranatunga's bat off McGrath. The Island should be ashamed of this writer.

 

[Richard]

The idea that Aravinda was better than Tendulkar is obviously nonsensical, but make no mistake, he was a brilliant batsman and should've had a much, much higher average than he did. An average of 50 would not have flattered his natural ability.

Also on the Gavaskar-Richards notion I don't for a second think Gavaskar was better than Richards but there isn't, IMO, all that much in it. The Gavaskar-vs-West Indies thing has been discussed many times before - Gavaskar's record against excellent West Indian seamers is no more than good. No-one should think he was poor, because he outdid virtually all batsmen who faced West Indies' first-team between '73 and '86, but it's a complete and total myth that he scored hundreds galore against the four-prong pace attack when all four bowlers were top-notch. He made no scores of real note against any West Indies attack composed of four top-class seamers when a game was at stake (he made one 147* on the last day of a game that was already a foregone draw due to the loss of most of the first four days to rain), but he played many fine knocks against attacks which rendered more batsmen than not scoreless.

Strange because I always thought Ramachandra Guha was quite a good writer\historian.

 

[fredfertang]

Does not Mr Tiruchelvam have his tongue firmly planted in his cheek?

 

[steve132]

The idea that Aravinda was better than Tendulkar is obviously nonsensical, but make no mistake, he was a brilliant batsman and should've had a much, much higher average than he did. An average of 50 would not have flattered his natural ability.

Also on the Gavaskar-Richards notion I don't for a second think Gavaskar was better than Richards but there isn't, IMO, all that much in it. The Gavaskar-vs-West Indies thing has been discussed many times before - Gavaskar's record against excellent West Indian seamers is no more than good. No-one should think he was poor, because he outdid virtually all batsmen who faced West Indies' first-team between '73 and '86, but it's a complete and total myth that he scored hundreds galore against the four-prong pace attack when all four bowlers were top-notch. He made no scores of real note against any West Indies attack composed of four top-class seamers when a game was at stake (he made one 147* on the last day of a game that was already a foregone draw due to the loss of most of the first four days to rain), but he played many fine knocks against attacks which rendered more batsmen than not scoreless.

Strange because I always thought Ramachandra Guha was quite a good writer\historian.

You're right on both counts.I've always felt that Gavaskar's record against the West Indian fast bowlers was somewhat overstated. Not entirely so, since he was a great batsman, but by far his most productive series against W.I. occurred in 1971 (before Roberts, Holding, Garner and co. made their debuts) and in 1978-79, when the best bowlers were away playing Packer cricket.

 

[Tapioca]

He made no scores of real note against any West Indies attack composed of four top-class seamers when a game was at stake (he made one 147* on the last day of a game that was already a foregone draw due to the loss of most of the first four days to rain),

The 121 and 90 in 1983-84 were arguably the greatest attacking innings played against that bunch of West Indian fast bowlers.

 

[Richard]

Indeed they might well have been - but one of the bowlers was Winston Davis. Ergo, the attack was three excellent seamers (Marshall, Holding, Daniel) and one moderate one. Not the four top-notch seamers that were seen '79/80-'83 and again in '84/85 and '86.

As I say - don't anyone get the idea I'm saying Gavaskar was hopeless against West Indies. The part of the story that goes he played West Indies' great fast bowlers better than anyone else is pretty much 100% true. The part that is not true, though, is that he scored a load of centuries against attacks such as Roberts-Holding-Garner-Croft or Marshall-Holding-Garner-Walsh and averaged 65 against them. Against attacks such as Roberts-Holder-Boyce-Julien, Marshall-Holding-Daniel and Roberts-Holding he did well, very well indeed in fact. These knocks were composed of some of the best West Indian seam bowlers ever and in some cases, excellent support acts. But they weren't against attacks composed of four absolutely top-class pace bowlers. Such attacks were only abundant for perhaps a couple of years consecutively then odd other isolated occasions. West Indies' pace dynasty composed of a hell of a lot of quality but there were mediocre fill-ins on more occasions than not as well.

 

[bagapath]

aravinda was a champion batsman. comparing him with sachin is probably going to put him in bad light. he doesnt deserve it. he was awesome in what he did. i dont have the compulsion to compare him with sachin and deny myself the pleasure of enjoying both of them equally.

 

[weldone]

but it's a complete and total myth that he scored hundreds galore against the four-prong pace attack when all four bowlers were top-notch.

True...But it is also true that he scored hundreds galore against the West Indies attack which got 2 or 3 of the fast bowling giants (not 4 most of the times, agreed) which is no mean feat in itself...

 

[Lambu]

True...But it is also true that he scored hundreds galore against the West Indies attack which got 2 or 3 of the fast bowling giants (not 4 most of the times, agreed) which is no mean feat in itself...

And that would feat in itself would still be head and shoulders aboive what the rest of the batsmen could come up with.

 

[Richard]

True...But it is also true that he scored hundreds galore against the West Indies attack which got 2 or 3 of the fast bowling giants (not 4 most of the times, agreed) which is no mean feat in itself...

Which is pretty much what I tried to convey in the rest of the post.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Favourite story of Aravinda

 

[bagapath]

is the link working for others? not for me...

 

[Ikki]

is the link working for others? not for me...

Try... this.

 

[bagapath]

Try... this.

thanks... brilliant!!

 

[haroon510]

i consider Arvinda more lik Inzi.. very underrated yet not as good as lara or sachin but both of them were the back bone of their team when they were playing or when they were at their peak.. they may have won more matches for thier team than probably lara and Sachin.. but overrall.. i can't compare both of them to batsman like sachin and lara..

the idea of Gavakser being better than Richards.. sound bogies..it sounds worse than comparing Dravid and Kallis to lara and Sachin...