Rank the 10,000 club

[ankitj]

why I am not entirely sold on average of 60 for 18 years therefore second best batsman ever.

You are beating a straw man (so is Stephen). No one has said anything about Tendulkar being second best ever. Only reason I brought up 18 year, 59 average period is because Stephen said Tendulkar only has longevity in his favour. So my point is if you want to discount longevity, assess him as a batsman who averaged 59 not 53.xx.

 

[ankitj]

Bradman, Sobers, Hobbs, Smith are all definitively better IMO

Definitively or in your opinion?

 

[stephen]

If Steve Smith averaged 30 for his next 50 innings (roughly taking him to 100 tests) his batting average would be 53.

So his output would have to be literally half his career output to date for 25+ tests for his batting average to drop to the same level as Ponting/Lara/Tendulkar.

He's averaging 63 over 73 tests and a ten year career. It's hardly a small sample size, and though it's unlikely that he's going to play 150+ tests it's hard to see him scoring less than 10000+ runs at an average over 55.

 

[Daemon]

Smith’s a serial cheat though

 

[stephen]

Smith’s a serial cheat though

 

[ankitj]

it's hard to see him scoring less than 10000+ runs at an average over 55

And that alone makes him definitively better than Tendulkar or Lara or Ponting? Because Sangakkara and Kallis already achieved that.

 

[GoodAreasShane]

coughportelizabethcough

 

[pardus]

You are beating a straw man (so is Stephen). No one has said anything about Tendulkar being second best ever. Only reason I brought up 18 year, 59 average period is because Stephen said Tendulkar only has longevity in his favour. So my point is if you want to discount longevity, assess him as a batsman who averaged 59 not 53.xx.

Got it. Thank you. My reply was more for the other poster though. I was trying to clarify my point.
I just try to be as explicit as possible when it comes to critiquing Tendulkar.
I do feel it is a sensitive issue for many (I am not blaming them).
It has been a great thread and I didn't want it derailed because of unnecessary misunderstandings.

 

[honestbharani]

Hussey and Ponting and Sachin himself (and AB) had peaks that mirror Steve Smith. This is why you do not rank someone whose career is still going on. Go read any of the threads where so many were so sure that Ponting was the best since Bradman.


And Stephen saying few people are definitively better than Sachin is just BS anyways. Its an opinion (and personally, an obviously biased one) and the only definitive thing is Sachin is in the conversation for the second greatest batsman of all time alongside the folks he named and Lara and a few others.

 

[TheJediBrah]

And that alone makes him definitively better than Tendulkar or Lara or Ponting? Because Sangakkara and Kallis already achieved that.

Smith is pretty comfortably sitting ahead of all those guys atm. It would take an abysmal run from now on for him to drop below them. I would consider him no. 2 after Bradman but it's very hard to put Smith anywhere on the pantheon of great batsmen while his career is still in progress.

 

[Bolo.]

If Steve Smith averaged 30 for his next 50 innings (roughly taking him to 100 tests) his batting average would be 53.

So his output would have to be literally half his career output to date for 25+ tests for his batting average to drop to the same level as Ponting/Lara/Tendulkar.

He's averaging 63 over 73 tests and a ten year career. It's hardly a small sample size, and though it's unlikely that he's going to play 150+ tests it's hard to see him scoring less than 10000+ runs at an average over 55.

Calling a career that has been 6 years plus 6 tests a decade is a bit of a reach. He isnt a kiwi.

 

[h_hurricane]

Got it. Thank you. My reply was more for the other poster though. I was trying to clarify my point.
I just try to be as explicit as possible when it comes to critiquing Tendulkar.
I do feel it is a sensitive issue for many (I am not blaming them).
It has been a great thread and I didn't want it derailed because of unnecessary misunderstandings.

If you were talking about me, I am not a Tendulkar fan either. Have been a staunch critic in fact. Frequent posters here would testify that.

I do feel though that a certain prejudice exists here against Indian posters, as a couple of posts in this thread prove, something equating Indian = Tendulkar fan, which got me into this debate. Cheers anyway..

 

[Migara]

Was talking about only Sachin vs Wasim/Waqar, not India vs Pakistan in general. Yeah, India escaping massacres against Pakistan in 90s is a fair take, just like Pakistan escaping massacres against India in 2010s. We never know for sure though.

Stats suggest otherwise. Drop of more than 7 from overall average, and more than 5 for the era. Pakistani bowlers definietly had an effect on Tendulkar's batting on ODIs, and there is nothing to suggest that it wouldn't be in tests.

 

[Migara]

The cognitive dissonance of definitively ranking Smith ahead of Lara/Tendulkar/Viv because output>aesthetics and at the same time having Wasim ahead of Steyn/Hadlee/etc because aesthetics>output

Same for having Warne over Murali too.

 

[stephen]

He still has the same number of hundreds as Sobers and more than Chappell, Inzi, MoYo, Sehwag, Hammond, de Villiers and Barrington.

He needs a mere 8 centuries to get into the top 10 century scorers in history (which is less than 1/3 of the number he's already scored).

If he retires at 35 and scores 2 hundreds a year he will make that (and only 2 hundreds a year would be a huge downgrade on his output).

He's in the top 5 batsmen of all time at this point. He's eclipsed Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar already in my mind.

 

[stephen]

Same for having Warne over Murali too.

I prefer live worms over lures but some are successful with the latter.

 

[Bolo.]

He still has the same number of hundreds as Sobers and more than Chappell, Inzi, MoYo, Sehwag, Hammond, de Villiers and Barrington.

He needs a mere 8 centuries to get into the top 10 century scorers in history (which is less than 1/3 of the number he's already scored).

If he retires at 35 and scores 2 hundreds a year he will make that (and only 2 hundreds a year would be a huge downgrade on his output).

He's in the top 5 batsmen of all time at this point. He's eclipsed Ponting, Lara and Tendulkar already in my mind.

So, to clarify, you are predicting that he will end on something like 2/3s of Sachins number of hundreds, and are using his number of hundreds (including those he hasnt even scored) to justify him being a better bat?

Sounds perfectly reasonable.

 

[honestbharani]

all points folks said about Ponting and Hussey too..

 

[honestbharani]

I prefer live worms over lures but some are successful with the latter.

I prefer people who are actually better bowlers than the ones that are not, but some prefer the latter.

 

[h_hurricane]

View attachment 25602

Stats suggest otherwise. Drop of more than 7 from overall average, and more than 5 for the era. Pakistani bowlers definietly had an effect on Tendulkar's batting on ODIs, and there is nothing to suggest that it wouldn't be in tests.

Waqar averaged 27.32 in ODIs which Sachin played. Wasim averaged 27.75 likewise.

Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Bowling records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPNcricinfo.com

stats.espncricinfo.com

Nothing suggests that their averages wouldn't suffer against him and his average would suffer against them. Either way, statistic against an individual bowler is in't a particularly good one as it doesn't tell how they have fared head to head. From what I recall, Abdul Razzaq was better against Tendulkar than these two.