Greater impact Test cricketer: Sachin Tendulkar vs James Anderson

[shortpitched713]

Not who is better or more skilled, but which of the two do you think had a greater impact on results for their Test side? I have my own ideas, but want to see your reasoning and arguments for your choices.

Both specialists in their respective disciplines, and both professionals in tertiary skillset, for a player with their respective roles, but nothing worldbeating on the fielding end.

So it's a pretty straight contest between the batsman and bowler. And yes there is a difference in relative career trajectories, they both ended up being the pinnacles of prolificness for their respective specializations, with Anderson's benefit of England Test spam having him very close in final Tests played total.

 

[Coronis]

Win stats

Tendulkar 36% win rate
72 matches 113 innings 5946 @ 61.93 20 tons 24 fifties

Home
52 matches 82 innings 3929 @ 55.33 11 tons 20 fifties

Away
20 matches 31 innings 2017 @ 80.68 9 tons 4 fifties

Anderson 44% win rate
83 matches 165 innings 384 @ 19.55 21 5’fers 3 10’fers

Home
61 matches 121 innings 291 @ 18.91 18 5’fers 3 10’fers

Away
22 matches 44 innings @ 93 @ 21.93 3 5’fers

 

[Kirkut]

In test matches, it's usually the bowlers who have more impact than batsmen in results.

A side with strong bowling and weak batting will have very few draws with lots of wins and losses as compared to a side with mediocre bowling and solid batting lineup having relatively less wins and losses but plethora of draws.

Sachin's impact on results was far more pronounced in ODIs than in tests. But he did have a strong influence on the pedigree that the Indian batting was known for, specifically solidity.

 

[Thala_0710]

The shorter the format is, the more impact one great batsman can have on winning the match consistently. Also ODIs/T20Is have a cap for the max overs a bowler can bowl.
LOIs are just made for batters

 

[shortpitched713]

No one has made an argument for Sachin having a greater impact than Anderson in Tests, yet here the poll sits at 7-1 in Sachin's favor, lol.

To be clear, I think Sachin is a better batsman than Anderson is a bowler, and hence by some measure a "better" Test cricketer. But that is not the question I have asked in this thread.

 

[Johan]

Guess the "bowler way more impact" argument stops existing when convenient eh?

 

[DrWolverine]

Sachin Tendulkar.

I am not sure how a bowler who had an away average of 30 would have helped his team win.

 

[sayon basak]

No one has made an argument for Sachin having a greater impact than Anderson in Tests, yet here the poll sits at 7-1 in Sachin's favor, lol.

To be clear, I think Sachin is a better batsman than Anderson is a bowler, and hence by some measure a "better" Test cricketer. But that is not the question I have asked in this thread.

As it seems, most people do not subscribe to the "bowler=impact" notion, and tbh, don't personally think cricket is such a mindless sport.

 

[shortpitched713]

Why does the concept of a "great bowler having greater impact than even greater batsman" create an impression that cricket is in your words a "mindless sport"?

 

[shortpitched713]

Guess the "bowler way more impact" argument stops existing when convenient eh?

For myself, or for others?

 

[Johan]

Sachin Tendulkar.

I am not sure how a bowler who had an away average of 30 would have helped his team win.

Do you just not follow Cricket or

 

[sayon basak]

Why does the concept of a "great bowler having greater impact than even greater batsman" create an impression that cricket is in your words a "mindless sport"?

No analysis needed then. Every time, choose the bowler no matter who that is. Seems pretty mindless to me.

 

[sayon basak]

Do you just not follow Cricket or

Generally speaking, an away average of 30 is really good.

 

[ma1978]

Do you just not follow Cricket or

yet another thread where Johan supports an average English player

 

[Johan]

yet another thread where Johan supports an average English player

voted Tendulkar, use your brain before posting.

 

[akilana]

about equal. sachin just like kallis accumulated runs but hardly had any impact like a Viv or Lara.

 

[shortpitched713]

No analysis needed then. Every time, choose the bowler no matter who that is. Seems pretty mindless to me.

I chose these two because it was an interesting comparison. They played about as long as cricketers can, and while Tendulkar is better at his craft, he doesn't have a big longevity advantage like most great batsmen in history had in comparison to great bowlers. If we say Anderson brought more value than Tendulkar, then did Broad bring more value than Kallis? Or vice versa?

I think ultimately we just can't compare who is better when the comparison is simply two different crafts.

If I were to use this "value" metric to definitively say that Anderson is better than Tendulkar, than is that any more valid than saying that Messi is better than Wayne Gretzky because more people saw him win the World Cup than any event in Gretzky's career? Why is it any better using all time XIs, or relative positions on best batsmen/bowler ranking lists to determine which of two completely different kinds of cricketers are better? It's silliness, and I think the "value metric" highlights that pretty well, because it's no less valid than any of the others.

 

[shortpitched713]

Tl;dr:

If you're using words like "value" in attempting to make a meaningful comparison between great batsmen and bowlers you're missing the quantitative side of the game.

And if you're comparing them on a qualitative level, then you're missing the clear fact that's you're talking about two completely different skills.