Richards v Tendulkar - ODIs

[Ikki]

Ikki can never be accused of having a bias toward Australia.

Sanz, however...

 

[punter2002]

ikki,

Stop stirring ****. People can post any number of stats to support the argument, yet you are never going to change your mind.

I have learnt to enjoy the man's batting for 20 years, and there is no point belittling it. He was by no means a failure against McGrath as you seem to be insinuating. Just google McGrath's interview on Tendulkar and read the first couple of links. You can see what the man himself thought about Sachin.

In fact since you are such a lazy thunder****...let me do it for you

http://tinyurl.com/y9444h6

Tendulkar 100: Glenn McGrath interview

 

[Ikki]

Stop shouting, I actually think it's very close and would not be surprised if Tendulkar was voted above Richards. But there is more than plenty there for Richards too. Statistically, they're hard to split; it's just that comparatively Richards was just that much better than everyone else when the game wasn't geared to his style.

But zinzan had a point I feel and anyone putting on the fake tears as if there was no possible truth to it is being disingenuous I feel.

As for Tendulkar's record against McGrath...I think you're in the wrong thread. My point was re Tests, and his record in matches involving McGrath is poor. Although his record against McGrath in ODIs isn't flash either. Not poor, but not great: in 23 matches, average of 36, SR of 91.

As for your links...wow, so you mean in a compilation of features presented to praise Tendulkar, McGrath praised Tendulkar? Really!?

 

[punter2002]

I think I can live with most of what you have said above...

Also McGrath is one of the all time greats. What sort of a great would he be, if he had no success against a great batsman? He had received and landed some sucker punches, and was a great duel, back in the day one that would have me excited before a game....its certainly not one sided, tests or ODI.

man hug?

 

[Ikki]

If you're gay that's your problem .

Nah we're good .

 

[shankar]

As for Tendulkar's record against McGrath...I think you're in the wrong thread. My point was re Tests, and his record in matches involving McGrath is poor.

Looking at it series-wise, Tendulkar averages 46 in the '99 one where he was Man of the series; 50.06 in '01 - instrumental to India's series win. Obviously these two series were obvous successes. The one series which affects his numbers is the 2004 one where he was brought into the team for the third test despite his elbow injury not having recovered as a desperate move to save the series. He looked completely out of touch and averaged 17 in 4 innings getting out to Mcgrath once. Is it reasonable to look at this overall and say hence that he was "poor" against McGrath? This sort of usage is what brings a bad name to statistics in cricket.

 

[Ikki]

Compounded with the fact that McGrath took his wicket 6 times in 9 matches...and McGrath had injury problems of his own. Yeh, I'd say he was poor at worst and mediocre at best against McGrath, overall. Successes, failures, and overall not an impressive record. Sounds like most other batsmen against McGrath.

But anyways, that's Tests. Let's not derail the thread here.

 

[Sir Alex]

Compounded with the fact that McGrath took his wicket 6 times in 9 matches...Yeh, I'd say he was poor at worst and mediocre at best against McGrath, overall.

But anyways, that's Tests. Let's not derail the thread here.

Tendulkar vs McGrath was 1-1 in test series' in favor of Tendulkar (1999 being inconclusive but still Tendulkar can be proud)

Tendulkar vs McGrath in ODIs is beautifully even. Tendulkar dominated in 6 matches while in the rest 6, McGrath dominated.

 

[shankar]

Compounded with the fact that McGrath took his wicket 6 times in 9 matches...Yeh, I'd say he was poor at worst and mediocre at best against McGrath, overall.

But anyways, that's Tests. Let's not derail the thread here.

6 times in 18 innings given that there are usually 3 good bowlers in an attack is just par for the course - Don't know what that figure's supposed to prove. The bottomline is that the one series in which Tendulkar didn't perform was the one where he was carrying an injury.

 

[Ikki]

6 times in 18 innings given that there are usually 3 good bowlers in an attack is just par for the course - Don't know what that figure's supposed to prove. The bottomline is that the one series in which Tendulkar didn't perform was the one where he was carrying an injury.

Yet McGrath carried injuries and didn't get to play full series either. And Tendulkar's injury was notorious for playing up when he was playing long enough, he didn't play long enough in 2004 . Well against McGrath. Magically, he scored 241* when McGrath wasn't there. Quick healer that Tendulkar.

Tendulkar vs McGrath was 1-1 in test series' in favor of Tendulkar (1999 being inconclusive but still Tendulkar can be proud)

Tendulkar vs McGrath in ODIs is beautifully even. Tendulkar dominated in 6 matches while in the rest 6, McGrath dominated.

Tendulkar might play 6 innings against McGrath, score 60, 60, 60, 10, 10 and 10. That's 3-3...but an average of 35. So...nope.

 

[Sir Alex]

Yet McGrath carried injuries and didn't get to play full series either. And Tendulkar's injury was notorious for playing up when he was playing long enough, he didn't play long enough in 2004 . Well against McGrath. Magically, he scored 241* when McGrath wasn't there. Quick healer that Tendulkar.



Tendulkar might play 6 innings against McGrath, score 60, 60, 60, 10, 10 and 10. That's 3-3...but an average of 35. So...nope.

Then why the heck he missed the first two tests of 2004 series??

Are you twisted in your head? We are referring to the 2004 home series. Almost a year after the 2003-04 Australian series.

 

[Ikki]

Then why the heck he missed the first two tests of 2004 series??

Not sure? I don't recall McGrath's injuries other than his ankle bothering him in 03/04, which is when IIRC he missed out playing against India in Australia. He wasn't fit often against India. IIRC Tendulkar faced him only in 9 tests of the 29 he played against Australia. Of course he was yet to debut for some of those Tests.

Are you twisted in your head? We are referring to the 2004 home series. Almost a year after the 2003-04 Australian series.

That's funny, people argue that he had an elbow problem since 2003, plays Australia without McGrath and scores massive in January 04...then later in October goes to pieces again when McGrath is playing.

Anyway, if you reply, reply in the Tests thread. We've hi-jacked this thread.

 

[Cruxdude]

He was talking about Sachin missing the first two tests because of injury. Ohh yeah they were faked to protect him from McGrath.

 

[Sir Alex]

edit

 

[shankar]

Yet McGrath carried injuries and didn't get to play full series either. And Tendulkar's injury was notorious for playing up when he was playing long enough, he didn't play long enough in 2004 .

That's the back injury. The tennis elbow was where he consistently struggled to play certain shots.

 

[Sanz]

Sanz, however...

Check the poll first.

 

[Sanz]

But zinzan had a point I feel and anyone putting on the fake tears as if there was no possible truth to it is being disingenuous I feel

zinzan will have a point when he himself is not biased . From what one has seen he is one of the most biased member here.

No poll in the world will be without some sort of bias, so to single out this one is simply stirring the pot.

 

[Ikki]

Check the poll first.

So not voting for Tendulkar doesn't make you biased? Well I made a thread for Donald over McGrath. I guess I'm not either.

zinzan will have a point when he himself is not biased . From what one has seen he is one of the most biased member here.

No poll in the world will be without some sort of bias, so to single out this one is simply stirring the pot.

No, everyone is biased, that's not the point. The point is as Indians pretty much worship Tendulkar very few are going to vote against him if he is in the statistical ball-park. Richards on the other hand doesn't have many of his countrymen here and most of the people that voted for him are neutrals. Naturally, if there were more West Indies fans here they'd vote for their hero too. Although since they have so many awesome cricketers they're not necessarily stuck on worshipping one.

 

[Sanz]

So not voting for Tendulkar doesn't make you biased?

No Patriotic bias, not in this case at least. I rarely vote on a nationalistic Bias and If I did I accept being biased.

Well I made a thread for Donald over McGrath. I guess I'm not either.

First of all that is in your own words "Intellectually Dishonest", You started the thread "Glen Mcgrath Vs. Allan Donald" and not "Donald over Mcgrath". And you closing arguments in that thread were " but objectively speaking, they were pretty much level. For me, Donald was no less dominant and no more dominated than McGrath was. "

"Donald should not be far behind for even McGrath doesn't have a record as complete - country to country, home and away."

Hardly the claim you made in this thread.

No, everyone is biased, that's not the point. The point is as Indians pretty much worship Tendulkar very few are going to vote against him if he is in the statistical ball-park. Richards on the other hand doesn't have many of his countrymen here and most of the people that voted for him are neutrals. Naturally, if there were more West Indies fans here they'd vote for their hero too. Although since they have so many awesome cricketers they're not necessarily stuck on worshipping one.

This coming from someone who worships Warne and Ponting. Where is the irony meter when you need one.

Either ways, your point is proven wrong here because many of us have picked Richards over Tendulkar when we could have all picked Tendulkar easily.

 

[Ikki]

First of all that is in your own words "Intellectually Dishonest", You started the thread "Glen Mcgrath Vs. Allan Donald" and not "Donald over Mcgrath". And you closing arguments in that thread were " but objectively speaking, they were pretty much level. For me, Donald was no less dominant and no more dominated than McGrath was. "

"Donald should not be far behind for even McGrath doesn't have a record as complete - country to country, home and away."

Hardly the claim you made in this thread.



This coming from someone who worships Warne and Ponting. Where is the irony meter when you need one.

Either ways, your point is proven wrong here because many of us have picked Richards over Tendulkar when we could have all picked Tendulkar easily.

From my post that started the thread:

So, just a short analysis, nothing in-depth but I just thought I'd raise the question and have people look over it again. IMO, Donald's record is more complete than McGrath's overall - and while comparable, I'd say Australia were harder to face than S.Africa (in terms of Donald v Australia and McGrath v S.Africa). Not only in a home and away basis, but overall having a better combined strike-rate and average.

In pondering why McGrath is almost automatically deemed better than Donald, I would say a lot of it has to do with longevity. People marvel that McGrath bowled for so long, kept such a high standard, especially as pitches flattened out. I think that has to do with their type of bowling, but I really don't have much doubt about Donald also succeeding had half of his career been in the 00's. I am not sure about others; hence the thread. Or maybe there are other considerations?

Now who is being dishonest? Seriously, you're not all there. The whole point of that thread was to say that Donald was every bit as good as McGrath and that I thought people overrated McGrath and created myths for him when their records were strikingly similar.