• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Richards v Tendulkar - ODIs

Who is the best ODI batsman of all time?


  • Total voters
    90

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
Not Tendulkar's fault he hasn't won a world cup. He was Man of The Series in 2003 and averages superb in World Cups. Again, stupid thing to say.
I didn't say it was his fault they didn't win. But clearly the team he found himself in were good enough to win it; it was not as if he was born playing for Zimbabwe.

I do know his average is not inflated purely because of not outs but not outs do play a huge role and it puts him in weak stead when compared with Richards and Tendulkar who average 45 plus.
No it doesn't, especially for ODIs. They play completely different roles so just looking at their overall averages to compare them is flawed.

Please add Dhoni too. I think Dhoni is better than Bevan.
I think Hussey is better than Dhoni and Bevan. But neither come close to the kind of knocks Bevan played, and in a tournament like the World Cup.

Haha, I knew as soon as I saw this thread title that it would have degenerated into Sachin vs. [Insert Australian Player].

Well done.
Leaving out arguably the greatest ODI player of all time (Bevan) would do that.
 
Last edited:

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
I didn't say it was his fault they didn't win. But clearly the team he found himself in were good enough to win it; it was not as if he was born playing for Zimbabwe.
It is a team game FFS. What could Tendulkar do after Australia make 350 in the first inning. Would you back Ponting to win the game for his country if the other team scores 350? Heh.

No it doesn't, especially for ODIs. They play completely different roles so just looking at their overall averages to compare them is flawed.
Bevan for me when you discount the not outs would range in the average of 40-43 and a rung below Richards and Tendulkar.
 

Sir Alex

Banned
Oh and btw,

Between Jan 1998 and Dec 2004, Tendulkar scored 7,663 runs @ 50.08, SR of 89.2 from 166 innings

In his entire career, Viv Richards scored 6,721 runs @ 47, SR of 90, from 167 innings.

Also note that Tendulkar's not outs were 16 which is about 9.6% times in this period, while Richards' was 14.4%....

QED.
 

Himannv

Cricketer Of The Year
I think Tendulkar is a fantastic player but I believe Viv is better. As for Bevan, he was a fantastic player as well but not better than Richards or Tendulkar. Cheers.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Richards SR of 90 Tendulkar's SR of 86 (89 in arguably his best period). When you think how different the ODI game is now to 20 years back, you have to give it to Richards Sir Alex. He was a path breaker.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Oh and btw,

Between Jan 1998 and Dec 2004, Tendulkar scored 7,663 runs @ 50.08, SR of 89.2 from 166 innings

In his entire career, Viv Richards scored 6,721 runs @ 47, SR of 90, from 167 innings.

Also note that Tendulkar's not outs were 16 which is about 9.6% times in this period, while Richards' was 14.4%....

QED.
I would really like to ask, how much of Richards Batting have you actually watched ?
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Hey Pratters, can you list out some of the criteria other than Stats (since it is obviously going to be an important factor) ?
 

Sir Alex

Banned
Richards SR of 90 Tendulkar's SR of 86 (89 in arguably his best period). When you think how different the ODI game is now to 20 years back, you have to give it to Richards Sir Alex. He was a path breaker.
On the contrary, Richards benefited from having the license to go for it as he had the benefits of a brilliant opening partnership and solid middle order, while Tendulkar was a one man army for most of this period.
 

Sir Alex

Banned
I would really like to ask, how much of Richards Batting have you actually watched ?
I was unfortunately a toddler when he retired so I cannot comment much on that. But I've caught him in tapes and he is awesome indeed to watch. But I miss your point.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
For me the two categories that Tendulkar owns Viv are the longevity and consistency.
 

jaideep

U19 12th Man
The averages may be a bit misleading because of not outs etc.. but one can compare the strike rates.viv richards is clearly better than tendulkar in this regard.

tendulkar str = 86.26 and the str rate of all batsman in all the matches in which tendulkar played is 75.96

richards str =90.2 and the corresponding figure is 64.58 for richards.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
On the contrary, Richards benefited from having the license to go for it as he had the benefits of a brilliant opening partnership and solid middle order, while Tendulkar was a one man army for most of this period.
Hahahahhaha :laugh: There were no first 15 over freedoms Tendulkar enjoyed for most of his over and now powerplays. You are struggling to search for an answer here. Just don't try.
 

Sir Alex

Banned
Your point of implying Richards was better just because he had a slightly better SR is just as laughable when you take into consideration the number of matches Tendulkar played, his consistency and his role in the Indian lineup.
 

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
On the contrary, Richards benefited from having the license to go for it as he had the benefits of a brilliant opening partnership and solid middle order, while Tendulkar was a one man army for most of this period.
I was unfortunately a toddler when he retired so I cannot comment much on that. But I've caught him in tapes and he is awesome indeed to watch. But I miss your point.
The point is If you have not watched the man play or the players from his era, you can never understand why he is rated so highly by those who watched him. The claim that you make in the first quote is laugahable considering that Tendulkar had in his team the likes of Ganguly, Dravid, Azhar, Sidhu, Jadeja, Yuvraj, Dhoni, Sehwag etc
 

G.I.Joe

International Coach
One can't just go by the raw numbers. They're totally different games, ODI cricket in the 80's and the 00's. It started out as a mini test match format, where you just tried to bowl out the opposition for less once within 60 overs, to a game where stifling the scoring and pegging down the batsman's SR is a widely accepted strategy. A naturally aggressive player would perform differently in both situations.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Stop it Sir Alex re S/R. Try and accept when you are wrong, hey. ODI cricket was like test match cricket is now and still Richards averaged ****ing 90. It is like Sehwag S/R in tests right now compared to others.. Get the pictures.
 
Last edited:

Sanz

Hall of Fame Member
Your point of implying Richards was better just because he had a slightly better SR is just as laughable when you take into consideration the number of matches Tendulkar played, his consistency and his role in the Indian lineup.
It is not slight when you factor in the eras.
 

Ikki

Hall of Fame Member
One can't just go by the raw numbers. They're totally different games, ODI cricket in the 80's and the 00's. It started out as a mini test match format, where you just tried to bowl out the opposition for less once within 60 overs, to a game where stifling the scoring and pegging down the batsman's SR is a widely accepted strategy. A naturally aggressive player would perform differently in both situations.
That's what makes Viv so legendary. His average and SR for even our time is amazing, let alone his.

It is a team game FFS. What could Tendulkar do after Australia make 350 in the first inning. Would you back Ponting to win the game for his country if the other team scores 350? Heh.
I don't know, possibly. He performed when it mattered in two finals and is a big part why we've won 3 world cups.

And again, you missed the point: his team was more than good enough to get to finals, he just hasn't won one. Therefore he wasn't that unlucky WRT his country of birth.

Bevan for me when you discount the not outs would range in the average of 40-43 and a rung below Richards and Tendulkar.
How did you come up with that number?
 
Last edited:

Top