Rank the 10,000 club

[stephen]

I said that the only area in which Tendulkar was definitively better than Lara was his longevity, because that's the only area where Tendulkar was definitively better than everyone. That's not to say that arguments can't be made for other areas of batsmanship where Tendulkar was better than Lara but that's the only area where Tendulkar absolutely has the edge.

But to me, Lara was better. He was more likely to turn a series on his batting. He was more likely to take a game away from his opponents with a display of genius. That's not to say Tendulkar didn't have those things too, only that Lara did them more often. Lara was to be feared, Tendulkar was merely to be admired.

Now both batsmen retired with similar averages, huge numbers of hundreds and over 10000 runs after long, illustrious careers. And the only thing which keeps Ponting out of this discussion was that he never had a late career purple patch like the other two, leaving our memories of him as being a batsman who averaged 40 for half a decade, instead of the batsman who ravaged all who came before him and averaged 70 for five or six years at the peak of his powers.

 

[sledger]

I think I'd go with:

1. Border
2. Waugh
3. Lara
4. Ponting
5. Cook
6. Kallis
7. Chanderpaul
8. Tendulkar
9. Sangakkara
10. Dravid
11. Younis
12. Jayawardene
13. Gavaskar

Get the feeling that a lot of people are putting Tendulkar so high because of longevity, which is pretty dumb when you think about it.

 

[sledger]

Tendulkar's "longevity" is a myth anyway. Spend the last few years of his career being crap. Horribly unedifying end. No dignity at all.

 

[Shady Slim]

I think I'd go with:

1. Border
2. Waugh
3. Lara
4. Ponting
5. Cook
6. Kallis
7. Chanderpaul
8. Tendulkar
9. Sangakkara
10. Dravid
11. Younis
12. Jayawardene
13. Gavaskar

Get the feeling that a lot of people are putting Tendulkar so high because of longevity, which is pretty dumb when you think about it.

i see you’ve ranked them by “least racist”, but imho you’re being a bit harsh on younis khan

 

[Bolo.]

From mid-Nov 2002 till mid-Nov 2007 (a period of full 5 years), Tendulkar averages in mid-40s only because of his performances against Bangladesh. Remove his matches against Bangladesh - which was an absolute minnow at the time - Tendulkar averages in mid-30s during this 5 year period, exactly like Lara did from 1996-2001. I think this was probably the time that Bharani was referring to (tennis elbow injury time). In these 5 years, Tendulkar scored only 3 hundreds in 33 matches (again ignoring his 3 hundreds in 4 matches against Bangladesh). Indian team never felt the pinch because Sehwag, Dravid & Laxman etc. were at their absolute peak.

The troughs represent about 1/3 and 1/7 (without Bangers) of their career matches respectively, and you are fudging stats (albeit in a relatively acceptable way) to equivocate them. They are not very similar when we are looking at consistency across career.

 

[sledger]

i see you’ve ranked them by “least racist”, but imho you’re being a bit harsh on younis khan

Yeah not gonna lie, Gavaskar's racism definitely contributed to his low standing

 

[trundler]

I think I'd go with:

1. Border
2. Waugh
3. Lara
4. Ponting
5. Cook
6. Kallis
7. Chanderpaul
8. Tendulkar
9. Sangakkara
10. Dravid
11. Younis
12. Jayawardene
13. Gavaskar

Get the feeling that a lot of people are putting Tendulkar so high because of longevity, which is pretty dumb when you think about it.

Cook's too low imo

 

[Burgey]

As batsmen:

Border

Lara
Tendulkar

Ponting
Dravid
Sanga
Waugh
Gavaskar
Kallis

Younis
Chanders
Cook
Mahela

As cricketers:

Border
Kallis

Ponting
Tendulkar
Sanga
Waugh
Lara

Mahela
Cook
Dravid
Gavaskar
Younis
Chanders


As humans:

Border

Dravid
Mahela
Lara
Ponting
Cook
Kallis
Younis

Waugh
Sanga
Chanders

Tendullkar








Gavaskar

Rankings within the various sub-groupings here are relatively close and maybe interchangeable within those groupings.

 

[pardus]

Yeah I'm happy to concede I was wrong because I don't have any horse in this race (other than Tendulkar only has longevity is a meme opinion that needs to die). I was merely commenting on how you could still be inconsistent even if you end up with similar figures to a more consistent player. Besides, Tendulkar already had a Lara-length career before tennis elbow anyway. The fact that he had a 2nd peak after that is astonishing.

To me, it is not about having a horse in the race etc. It is more about being objective and accurate (irrespective of whether we have a horse in the race or not). As a fan of quality Test match fast bowling (Marshall/Imran/Akram/Ambrose/Donald/McGrath etc.), I admit I just happened to watch much more of players like Lara & Waugh than I did Tendulkar, simply because they came up against these fast bowlers much more often than Sachin did. Overall, I found Lara to be just as consistent as any other great batsman.
IMO "Lara-was-inconsistent-throughout-his-career" and "Lara-was-not-as-consistent-as-Tendulkar" memes are absurd too. They are lazy narratives. Lara was very consistent for around 10 years of his career. His pattern during his 5 year long dry period became his stuck-image.

The troughs represent about 1/3 and 1/7 (without Bangers) of their career matches respectively, and you are fudging stats (albeit in a relatively acceptable way) to equivocate them. They are not very similar when we are looking at consistency across career.

Not really, even though Tendulkar made his debut in November 1989 (and he was never dropped after that) which becomes the basis of his longevity, it wasn't until Jan 1994 (his 29th Test match) that his Test average went above 50 for the first time. So in a way, like Gary Sobers, Tendulkar really took some time to be consistent. Lara played his second Test in April 1992 against South Africa, and by Feb 1994 (just his 13th Test match) he was averaging above 50.

So, is the period from late-1989-to-early-1994 (4 full years) in Tendulkar's career when his Test average was never above 50 considered as a peak in your calculations of 1/7 and 1/3? And btw, same applies to last few years of Tendulkar's career as well. Both these are in addition to his slump from 2002 to 2007.

 

[England First]

1. Steve waugh
2. Ricky Ponting
3. Brian lara
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Rahul Dravid
6. Sunil Gavaskar
7. Allan border
8 Jacques kallis
9. Shiv chanderpaul
10. Kumar sangakara
11. Mahala jayawardene
12. Younis khan
13. Alistair cook

In this case it’s england last. Sorry cookie but I still don’t no how that technique got you in this 10,000 club. Root boycott pietersen gooch all better english batters and Stewart bell Vaughan grower are all better prime for prime.

yes Steve Waugh is top. In the 90s which was the hardest batting era In the last 50 years, Steve Waugh was number one. Steve Waugh is criminally underrated on here. But I expect nothing less these days. Just read the Stuart broad thread. It’s pathetic.

Ponting in at 2 because of his peak/prime years. Incredible.

lara is ahead of tendulkar for me but both went missing in many pressure moments. Unlike ponting and Waugh.

border is also underrated on this forum.

kallis is overrated. Big timechoker.

 

[trundler]

To me, it is not about having a horse in the race etc. It is more about being objective and accurate (irrespective of whether we have a horse in the race or not). As a fan of quality Test match fast bowling (Marshall/Imran/Akram/Ambrose/Donald/McGrath etc.), I admit I just happened to watch much more of players like Lara & Waugh than I did Tendulkar, simply because they came up against these fast bowlers much more often than Sachin did. Overall, I found Lara to be just as consistent as any other great batsman.
IMO "Lara-was-inconsistent-throughout-his-career" and "Lara-was-not-as-consistent-as-Tendulkar" memes are absurd too. They are lazy narratives. Lara was very consistent for around 10 years of his career. His pattern during his 5 year long dry period became his stuck-image.

Not really, even though Tendulkar made his debut in November 1989 (and he was never dropped after that) which becomes the basis of his longevity, it wasn't until Jan 1994 (his 29th Test match) that his Test average went above 50 for the first time. So in a way, like Gary Sobers, Tendulkar really took some time to be consistent. Lara played his second Test in April 1992 against South Africa, and by Feb 1994 (just his 13th Test match) he was averaging above 50.

So, is the period from late-1989-to-early-1994 (4 full years) in Tendulkar's career when his Test average was never above 50 considered as a peak in your calculations of 1/7 and 1/3? And btw, same applies to last few years of Tendulkar's career as well. Both these are in addition to his slump from 2002 to 2007.

He was a literal child at the time though.

To me, it is not about having a horse in the race etc. It is more about being objective and accurate (irrespective of whether we have a horse in the race or not). As a fan of quality Test match fast bowling (Marshall/Imran/Akram/Ambrose/Donald/McGrath etc.), I admit I just happened to watch much more of players like Lara & Waugh than I did Tendulkar, simply because they came up against these fast bowlers much more often than Sachin did. Overall, I found Lara to be just as consistent as any other great batsman.
IMO "Lara-was-inconsistent-throughout-his-career" and "Lara-was-not-as-consistent-as-Tendulkar" memes are absurd too. They are lazy narratives. Lara was very consistent for around 10 years of his career. His pattern during his 5 year long dry period became his stuck-image.

Not really, even though Tendulkar made his debut in November 1989 (and he was never dropped after that) which becomes the basis of his longevity, it wasn't until Jan 1994 (his 29th Test match) that his Test average went above 50 for the first time. So in a way, like Gary Sobers, Tendulkar really took some time to be consistent. Lara played his second Test in April 1992 against South Africa, and by Feb 1994 (just his 13th Test match) he was averaging above 50.

So, is the period from late-1989-to-early-1994 (4 full years) in Tendulkar's career when his Test average was never above 50 considered as a peak in your calculations of 1/7 and 1/3? And btw, same applies to last few years of Tendulkar's career as well. Both these are in addition to his slump from 2002 to 2007.

The fact that a literal child was thrown up against Wasim, Waqar, Hadlee, Donald etc and he scored multiple centuries is still pretty impressive though isn't it? Numbers without context.

 

[Line and Length]

This is a list of true champions of the game. I find it difficult to compare openers, who take on and blunt a new ball attack, with fine stroke players who come in later, often under less difficult circumstances, and make substantial scores. If I had to compile the batting component of a team from these names it might look like:

1. Sunil Gavaskar
2. Alastair Cook
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Brian Lara
6. Alan Border

This exercise was made all the more difficult by the fact that, apart from 2 openers and Steve Waugh (who preferred 5 or 6) the list comprised players who were predominantly number 3 or 4 bats. The exception was Border who batted many innings anywhere between 3 and 6. A case could be made for opening with Kumar Sangakarra (in place of Cook). This would fill the wicketkeeper spot and Steve Waugh could be at 7 as an all-rounder. Jacques Kallis would be a far better all-rounder but having him at 7 would be questionable.

 

[trundler]

This is a list of true champions of the game. I find it difficult to compare openers, who take on and blunt a new ball attack, with fine stroke players who come in later, often under less difficult circumstances, and make substantial scores. If I had to compile the batting component of a team from these names it might look like:

1. Sunil Gavaskar
2. Alastair Cook
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Brian Lara
6. Alan Border

This exercise was made all the more difficult by the fact that, apart from 2 openers and Steve Waugh (who preferred 5 or 6) the list comprised players who were predominantly number 3 or 4 bats. The exception was Border who batted many innings anywhere between 3 and 6. A case could be made for opening with Kumar Sangakarra (in place of Cook). This would fill the wicketkeeper spot and Steve Waugh could be at 7 as an all-rounder. Jacques Kallis would be a far better all-rounder but having him at 7 would be questionable.

Agree with this. Waugh vs Border one of the comparisons I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts about.

 

[Bolo.]

I said that the only area in which Tendulkar was definitively better than Lara was his longevity, because that's the only area where Tendulkar was definitively better than everyone. That's not to say that arguments can't be made for other areas of batsmanship where Tendulkar was better than Lara but that's the only area where Tendulkar absolutely has the edge.

But to me, Lara was better. He was more likely to turn a series on his batting. He was more likely to take a game away from his opponents with a display of genius. That's not to say Tendulkar didn't have those things too, only that Lara did them more often. Lara was to be feared, Tendulkar was merely to be admired.

Now both batsmen retired with similar averages, huge numbers of hundreds and over 10000 runs after long, illustrious careers. And the only thing which keeps Ponting out of this discussion was that he never had a late career purple patch like the other two, leaving our memories of him as being a batsman who averaged 40 for half a decade, instead of the batsman who ravaged all who came before him and averaged 70 for five or six years at the peak of his powers.

Chop the first 4 and last 4 calendar years off of Sachins career (giving him typical ATG active years) and you end up with the highest run scorer in history, averaging 59, with 61(!) away, 45+ in every country, and 40+ against every opponent.

Sounds a bit like the only thing standing in the way of him being recognised as clearly the second best bat ever is his longevity.

Not that I am a fan of hacking careers into slices that suit a narrative, as was mentioned earlier in the thread you either need to recognise that his longevity gives him a huge boost, or look at how good he was over a more normal time period.

Not really, even though Tendulkar made his debut in November 1989 (and he was never dropped after that) which becomes the basis of his longevity, it wasn't until Jan 1994 (his 29th Test match) that his Test average went above 50 for the first time. So in a way, like Gary Sobers, Tendulkar really took some time to be consistent. Lara played his second Test in April 1992 against South Africa, and by Feb 1994 (just his 13th Test match) he was averaging above 50.

So, is the period from late-1989-to-early-1994 (4 full years) in Tendulkar's career when his Test average was never above 50 considered as a peak in your calculations of 1/7 and 1/3? And btw, same applies to last few years of Tendulkar's career as well. Both these are in addition to his slump from 2002 to 2007.

Im replying to your specific point, which does not consider this, so clearly I havent.

Having 3 troughs is more consistent than one big one. See two bats who go:
100, 100, 100, 0, 0, 0 vs
100, 0, 100, 0, 100, 0

This said, I'm not sure it matters if a bat has one trough or 3. I do think it matters that the troughs came at different ages though- Lara would have had 3 as well if active for the same number of years, including his notably worse middle one.

 

[Bolo.]

This is a list of true champions of the game. I find it difficult to compare openers, who take on and blunt a new ball attack, with fine stroke players who come in later, often under less difficult circumstances, and make substantial scores. If I had to compile the batting component of a team from these names it might look like:

1. Sunil Gavaskar
2. Alastair Cook
3. Ricky Ponting
4. Sachin Tendulkar
5. Brian Lara
6. Alan Border

This exercise was made all the more difficult by the fact that, apart from 2 openers and Steve Waugh (who preferred 5 or 6) the list comprised players who were predominantly number 3 or 4 bats. The exception was Border who batted many innings anywhere between 3 and 6. A case could be made for opening with Kumar Sangakarra (in place of Cook). This would fill the wicketkeeper spot and Steve Waugh could be at 7 as an all-rounder. Jacques Kallis would be a far better all-rounder but having him at 7 would be questionable.

Why would you consider batting Kallis at 7? He has 9000 runs at 62 batting at 4. Sachin is next on the averages with 54. A number of the players would probably benefit from being shifted down a spot, unlike Kallis, who I wouldnt want below 5. If he is playing, he bats 4.

And him playing is a no brainer. Only him and Sunny really fill in the holes in ways others cant. Play those two, plus the weakest of the 10000 club (assuming no Chanders/Jayawardene), and I would give them a distinct edge over the best of the 10000 club.

 

[Line and Length]

Why would you consider batting Kallis at 7? He has 9000 runs at 62 batting at 4. Sachin is next on the averages with 54. A number of the players would probably benefit from being shifted down a spot, unlike Kallis, who I wouldnt want below 5. If he is playing, he bats 4.

And him playing is a no brainer. Only him and Sunny really fill in the holes in ways others cant. Play those two, plus the weakest of the 10000 club (assuming no Chanders/Jayawardene), and I would give them a distinct edge over the best of the 10000 club.

I think you need to look beyond his average at # 4. Both Tendulkar and Lara average over 50 against both Australia and England while Kallis averages under 45 against those Test nations.

 

[Flem274*]

i forgot only matches against australia and england count

 

[anil1405]

Sachin averaged 52.58 between 1989-1996 with 9 centuries and 13 half centuries before Dravid made his debut.

Well if averages are the criteria then you should look at the yearly batting average of Sachin before Dravid arrived and after Dravid arrived.

The bigger picture (keeping averages aside) is that Dravid had done all the dirty work (and scored some runs too) to help Sachin flourish. I wouldn't trust Sachin to score as many runs as he did had he come in more often inside the first 10-15 overs of the innings.

 

[OverratedSanity]

.

Not really, even though Tendulkar made his debut in November 1989 (and he was never dropped after that) which becomes the basis of his longevity, it wasn't until Jan 1994 (his 29th Test match) that his Test average went above 50 for the first time. So in a way, like Gary Sobers, Tendulkar really took some time to be consistent. Lara played his second Test in April 1992 against South Africa, and by Feb 1994 (just his 13th Test match) he was averaging above 50.

So, is the period from late-1989-to-early-1994 (4 full years) in Tendulkar's career when his Test average was never above 50 considered as a peak in your calculations of 1/7 and 1/3? And btw, same applies to last few years of Tendulkar's career as well. Both these are in addition to his slump from 2002 to 2007.

Even in 89-94 he was managing a hundred in every series he played. The only ones he didn't were the first two series where he was 16 and a couple of of one off tests. Overall in his teenage years he averaged 44 without any massive series/scores like Lara did but almost always made a significant score in every series. The consistency argument between Tendulkar and Lara has always been higher highs and more massive 500+ run series for Lara and reliable hundred in most every series for Tendulkar. I don't see how that's a myth.

 

[Daemon]

Tendulkar had to do it all under so much pressure. I know it’s a meme but that counts for a bit too imo.

The Last Stand gives some nice insight into how public pressure can **** you up.