Richards v Tendulkar - ODIs

[SJS]

If talking cricket in general, Viv Richards isn't even the best batsman with that last name.

The other richards is not even the best batsmen in his team

 

[Ikki]

Still You, The thread was never called "Donald Over Mcgrath" as you tried to claim here.

And if the point of your thread was " Donald was every bit as good as McGrath" then it means you are wrong in claiming that you started "Donald Over Mcgrath" . Donald over Mcgrath means you think Donald better than Mcgrath not as good as him. Neither your opening nor your closing in that thread suggests that.

So yes, you are the one who is being intellectually dishonest.

Well I do think Donald was better than McGrath - or at the least I don't consider it silly to argue. In fact, I said in that thread explicitly that up to the stage Donald retired he would have been considered the better bowler kinda easily. I conceded that McGrath's longevity will put him up for a lot of people but then argued that Donald had it all whereas McGrath didn't.

Anyway, I've argued it several times in other threads; so my point was I argued for a non-Aussie...does that make me unbiased as you seem to think such a gesture would? You think by voting Richards that doesn't make you biased which is simply poop. Ironically, I seem to pick McGrath over Donald myself in my all-time XIs when I find it irksome that his name gets less mention than the Wasims or Ambroses.

 

[R_D]

On the derailed thread topic, I dont know what zinzan (and uppercut) were hoping to achieve by mentioning voting patterns and bias and the like. Even if the observation is just what they say it is, merely an observation, it seems a rather redundant point to make. So I dont know what its all about. Too much poking sticks, intentional or otherwise, at Indian voters and Indian members on CW - been happening generally a bit too much of late too, IMO.

Agree with this....... this truly turned out to be one dire thread..... a lot of **** going on this forum lately.
Truly trash.... something i'd expect in the other cricket forums...

 

[bagapath]

Racists? Really?

No. Not actually. After four drinks one can only type crap. so forget it.

 

[honestbharani]

WOW!!!

How is that any worse than some of the stats we have posted here? As is being remarked in another thread, people need to take a chill pill when dealing with new posters.. If you got a point against what he posted, try to put it there.. Such remarks are basically stupid because he posted stats, which is what you and I and so many others have been doing here as well.... He posted some stats and he drew his conclusions from it... What is so bad about it?

 

[Cevno]

How is that any worse than some of the stats we have posted here? As is being remarked in another thread, people need to take a chill pill when dealing with new posters.. If you got a point against what he posted, try to put it there.. Such remarks are basically stupid because he posted stats, which is what you and I and so many others have been doing here as well.... He posted some stats and he drew his conclusions from it... What is so bad about it?

1)Read that post again and you will get to know why it was so different to what i and u have posted.He is assuming most things such as four greatest bowlers,pitches etc.. .without giving any proof.

2)He in his posts has a dig at Tendulkar,in fact that seems the point of his post by saying that he seserves to be 12th etc..And proclaims that biased Indian fans always engage in name calling.Does he give proof?

3)Then he engages is selecting of stats selectively ,which are in fact wrong at many places. He uses the incorrect stats to prove his point and even when he uses correct stats ,he uses selective stats .

4)He uses smilies in his thread due to samples of two or one match in most occasions,mockingly.So why could i do not do the same?
He also mockingly calls a group of fans biased,and questions whether such a thread should exist as it is a out of question discussion.

5)He also claims facts such as flat wickets,Steyn not a good bowler, Australia no having lee in 2009 ,nawaz being better than the recent pakistani attacks without any proofs.ETC...

6)As to why i did not ,respond to him by quoting his points and tearing it apart is because a)i and others in this thread have already proved them wrong in this thread and i do not think anyone here wants that repeated again and again ,and neither do i want to do so.

b)Some of the points he makes are so ridiculous that it does not even be deserve to be repsonded in anything other than..

c)He has posted only here after two years,so he is not going to respond to my post in any case.What would have happened would have that one of the points of my post would have been captured upon by someone like IKKI or streetwise etc.. and then would ahve started a debate on something which i have already debated in this thread and then would have to go on about again for 10 pages or so.And in this ,the Nylove guy would not show up.

d)he is claiming things putting up presumptions about SRT fans and Sachin,which responded to in kind could lead to nastiness.

I know you try to be best here t o be "politically correct" both ways,but here u have picked a wrong post to defend or a wrong new poster to defend.

 

[honestbharani]

1)Read that post again and you will get to know why it was so different to what i and u have posted.He is assuming most things such as four greatest bowlers,pitches etc.. .without giving any proof.

2)He in his posts has a dig at Tendulkar,in fact that seems the point of his post by saying that he seserves to be 12th etc..And proclaims that biased Indian fans always engage in name calling.Does he give proof?

3)Then he engages is selecting of stats selectively ,which are in fact wrong at many places. He uses the incorrect stats to prove his point and even when he uses correct stats ,he uses selective stats .

4)He uses smilies in his thread due to samples of two or one match in most occasions,mockingly.So why could i do not do the same?
He also mockingly calls a group of fans biased,and questions whether such a thread should exist as it is a out of question discussion.

5)He also claims facts such as flat wickets,Steyn not a good bowler, Australia no having lee in 2009 ,nawaz being better than the recent pakistani attacks without any proofs.ETC...

6)As to why i did not ,respond to him by quoting his points and tearing it apart is because a)i and others in this thread have already proved them wrong in this thread and i do not think anyone here wants that repeated again and again ,and neither do i want to do so.

b)Some of the points he makes are so ridiculous that it does not even be deserve to be repsonded in anything other than..

c)He has posted only here after two years,so he is not going to respond to my post in any case.What would have happened would have that one of the points of my post would have been captured upon by someone like IKKI or streetwise etc.. and then would ahve started a debate on something which i have already debated in this thread and then would have to go on about again for 10 pages or so.And in this ,the Nylove guy would not show up.

d)he is claiming things putting up presumptions about SRT fans and Sachin,which responded to in kind could lead to nastiness.

I know you try to be best here t o be "politically correct" both ways,but here u have picked a wrong post to defend or a wrong new poster to defend.

I don't "try" to be anything, FYI.. I am what I am.. I just pointed out that, irrespective of how bad the post is (and I don't deny most of what he said was not right or at least not the right way to put across his views), there is merit in replying properly instead of throwing in a "you are not worthy of our time" reply... If the guy proves to be a poster of this ilk over a bit of time, then it is understandable. But as othes have pointed out in the stickied thread, the standard of cricket discussion tolerated in other message boards are far lower than ours and there is a need to try and be understanding or at least try and show them what is tolerated here through our posts than juz petty jibes. If this person turns out to be a regular poster who posts this kind of stuff, I can understand a reaction like that.. That's all..

 

[G.I.Joe]

Nah, I agree with Cevno. This is an entirely different case to being unwelcome to a noob. The guy admits to being a long time lurker, and goes on a diatribe in his one and only post. He got the welcome he deserved. He wasn't a noob, he wasn't close to being courteous.

 

[honestbharani]

Nah, I agree with Cevno. This is an entirely different case to being unwelcome to a noob. The guy admits to being a long time lurker, and goes on a diatribe in his one and only post. He got the welcome he deserved. He wasn't a noob, he wasn't close to being courteous.

well, I felt differently.. Guess we ll juz leave it at that then..

 

[vic_orthdox]

If correct, there is a lot of interesting information within that post, especially regarding Richards. Obviously there is a lot of cherry picking going on, but it says a lot about the player.

 

[G.I.Joe]

well, I felt differently.. Guess we ll juz leave it at that then..

No we won't. I demand 3 pages of multiquoting.

 

[honestbharani]

No we won't. I demand 3 pages of multiquoting.

I m trying to picture u as your avatar.. replacing Euphoria with 3 pages of Multi Quote..

 

[NYLove78]

1)Read that post again and you will get to know why it was so different to what i and u have posted.He is assuming most things such as four greatest bowlers,pitches etc.. .without giving any proof.

2)He in his posts has a dig at Tendulkar,in fact that seems the point of his post by saying that he seserves to be 12th etc..And proclaims that biased Indian fans always engage in name calling.Does he give proof?

3)Then he engages is selecting of stats selectively ,which are in fact wrong at many places. He uses the incorrect stats to prove his point and even when he uses correct stats ,he uses selective stats .

4)He uses smilies in his thread due to samples of two or one match in most occasions,mockingly.So why could i do not do the same?
He also mockingly calls a group of fans biased,and questions whether such a thread should exist as it is a out of question discussion.

5)He also claims facts such as flat wickets,Steyn not a good bowler, Australia no having lee in 2009 ,nawaz being better than the recent pakistani attacks without any proofs.ETC...

6)As to why i did not ,respond to him by quoting his points and tearing it apart is because a)i and others in this thread have already proved them wrong in this thread and i do not think anyone here wants that repeated again and again ,and neither do i want to do so.

b)Some of the points he makes are so ridiculous that it does not even be deserve to be repsonded in anything other than..

c)He has posted only here after two years,so he is not going to respond to my post in any case.What would have happened would have that one of the points of my post would have been captured upon by someone like IKKI or streetwise etc.. and then would ahve started a debate on something which i have already debated in this thread and then would have to go on about again for 10 pages or so.And in this ,the Nylove guy would not show up.

d)he is claiming things putting up presumptions about SRT fans and Sachin,which responded to in kind could lead to nastiness.

I know you try to be best here t o be "politically correct" both ways,but here u have picked a wrong post to defend or a wrong new poster to defend.

1) MANY former players, watchers, journalists etc have Lillee, Hadlee, Imran and Marshall as their top 4 in their rankings of the greatest fast bowlers ever. You might want to see the likes of Fleming and Kasper (and their ilk - the kind that SRT banged in his so-called desert storm knocks) prolly ahead of those legends but who gives a **** about what you think? THAT is the fact whether you like it or not. And yes absence of protective gear, no restrictions on fast bowlers, pitches being more fast bowler friendly etc in the 70s and 80s need 'proof' from me. HA.

2) I said name-dropping. Again WHO the **** are you that I should give you proof? You guys keep ranting - 'one bil hopes', 'weak team', 'All of the great fast bowlers in RIchards era were in his team' (I love that), 'SRT faced only grrrrr8 bowlers' etc.

3) LIE. No selectivity. Some SRT supporter said that Pak had the best attacks in the 70s and 80s? NO. Aus did. And the SRT fan had the stats for vs Pak in Pak. I have the stats for the King in Aus when BOTH Lillee and Thommo were playing together. I have also put up the stats for the same. And YES Richards did it in an era of no protective gear, zero rules backing batsmen, more difficult pitches, shorter boundaries, inferior bats etc. And a LIE again - "stats selectively ,which are in fact wrong at many places. He uses the incorrect stats to prove his point" - which only shows me your true class and ilk. Are you saying that I am lying? GO TO CRICINFO AND DO THE EXACT FILTERS AND SEE FOR YOURSELF.

4) Yes hurts, does it not? Still smarting, right? As I said before - Forget conditions, smileys, remarks, diatribe etc etc etc. WHAT did SRT do vs the best Aus attacks of his era viz the King in his? Ditto for Pak. Ditto for the other great/excellent attacks/bowlers of their eras? JUST THE STATS. Plus The King had no Zim, Ban, Ken, Nam etc to bash up too. I have seen SRT fans dig up his record in Tests vs Aus in Aus as a 'proof' of his supposed superiority over Lara. Then what's wring with these stats? Oh I see it burst your bubble right.

5) Oh the track at Gwalior was not flat? Was it a minefield, really? This article was released before the 'gr8' innings played by SRT - No total safe on this pitch, says Gwalior curator - Yahoo! Cricket. Flat track, small boundaries etc he has said it all. Prolly guys in my camp bribed him to say so know as we did that such a gr8 innings would be essayed there that day. And a LIE again. I never said Steyn was a bad bowler. I said he was the ONLY good bowler in that crap attack. And Steyn had a OFF-DAY too. The likes of Karthik, Pathan and Dhoni were clouting him around. SRT as always picked on the worst of the opposition. And I filtered Imran-Nawaz, Imran-Akram - both as good as any Pak attack ever, and Imran, arguably the greatest fast bowler ever from Pak and one of the best ever. Nawaz was the pioneer of reverse-swing and among the ten scariest bowlers ever in a listing. Am sure he was far better than those NZ and Nam bowlers that SRT bashed up and also any of the Aus guys from the H'bad match and the SA guys from Gwalior (Steyn might prove to be better at the end of his career)

6)

a) Ha. Proved the stats wrong. Go the Cricinfo and see for yourself whether they are right or wrong.

b) Ridiculous points like? .................. Anyway who cares for your opinion?

c ) Hahahaha ..................

d) ONLY FACTS AND FIGURES. And am telling you once more - forget conditions and opinions.

First SRT averages pathetically against the every significant attack/bowler of his era on the opposition turf except Ambrose in WI and Shoaib in Pak. Ambrose was 35 in '97 the ONLY time SRT faced him; And many SRT fans (I am not taking names and going to start a flame war) on CW keep ranting about the millennium conspiracy of flat tracks from 2000 to put down the likes of Ponting then I am sure that applies here.

Second, the stats that Richards has all truly KING-like. And we know who he made his 153* and 189 * against. Who will remember ANY of the bowlers of NZ, Zim and Aus (H'bad) that SRT beat up on? (Except Steyn who was hammered by Karthik and Pathan that day?)

My post was actually posting in kind. I have been watching SRT fans again and again point to this period (2000-2010) as 'very batsmen-friendly' etc. And I did some similar stats-filtering myself. Unfortunately it did not turn out to your liking.

I wish the guys I have formed a high opinion about over the period that I was a passive visitor here - guys like Archie Mac, Lucky Eddie, SJS, Social etc said something rather than such biased liars who accuse others to belong to their ilk.

 

[Migara]

NYLove78>. Why don't you include Abdul Qadir in to the picture and post the stats? Everybody universally accepts that Viv was not able to dominate spinners as he dominated the fast bowlers. And you have left the best spinner in the era doing that.

 

[NYLove78]

I don't "try" to be anything, FYI.. I am what I am.. I just pointed out that, irrespective of how bad the post is (and I don't deny most of what he said was not right or at least not the right way to put across his views), there is merit in replying properly instead of throwing in a "you are not worthy of our time" reply... If the guy proves to be a poster of this ilk over a bit of time, then it is understandable. But as othes have pointed out in the stickied thread, the standard of cricket discussion tolerated in other message boards are far lower than ours and there is a need to try and be understanding or at least try and show them what is tolerated here through our posts than juz petty jibes. If this person turns out to be a regular poster who posts this kind of stuff, I can understand a reaction like that.. That's all..

Please set aside the jibes, opinions, smileys and everything. Please tell me what the stats I have up there tell you. The SL guy (with Calvin from C&H as his avatar) was the one who said that Pak was the best attack in Richards' era and put up his and SRT's stats for them both in Pak. So why am I being picked on?

I did not use foul language, or lies or incorrect stats. Unless you are accusing me of the same. The figures there show a gap so vast between the two bats compared here. You can always go to CI and check if you feel I am lying. My intention was to expose this farce and I am pleased having done that. I have seen Lara, Ponting etc being slighted here using stats. Sometimes its the pitches getting flatter at 12 am on the first day of the new millennium. And sometimes its all the great bowlers of the 90s deciding to retire as the new century dawned.

 

[NYLove78]

If correct, there is a lot of interesting information within that post, especially regarding Richards. Obviously there is a lot of cherry picking going on, but it says a lot about the player.

Please. Why incorrect? Maybe I should have posted the link for each of these filters. But I did not know that some here ( I don't mean you ) would accuse me of lying.

 

[Migara]

Please set aside the jibes, opinions, smileys and everything. Please tell me what the stats I have up there tell you. The SL guy (with Calvin from C&H as his avatar) was the one who said that Pak was the best attack in Richards' era and put up his and SRT's stats for them both in Pak. So why am I being picked on?

I have a user-name. You can use it without using general terms. Although I put up the stat, I have no where stated that Richards was inferior due to that very fact. I am not a fan of doing against the best team is the sole measure of greatness rant. (In that case Mushtaq Mohammed is the best all rounder ever). But your stats are too much picky. You have not included how Viv has done against good spinners compared to SRT

 

[honestbharani]

Please set aside the jibes, opinions, smileys and everything. Please tell me what the stats I have up there tell you. The SL guy (with Calvin from C&H as his avatar) was the one who said that Pak was the best attack in Richards' era and put up his and SRT's stats for them both in Pak. So why am I being picked on?

I did not use foul language, or lies or incorrect stats. Unless you are accusing me of the same. The figures there show a gap so vast between the two bats compared here. You can always go to CI and check if you feel I am lying. My intention was to expose this farce and I am pleased having done that. I have seen Lara, Ponting etc being slighted here using stats. Sometimes its the pitches getting flatter at 12 am on the first day of the new millennium. And sometimes its all the great bowlers of the 90s deciding to retire as the new century dawned.

Mate, regardless of how you may or may not rate Sachin, posting stuff such as "fan boys" and "it hurts" and all that.. Even if you feel the other party is needlessly making it personal, you can always use the report post feature.. And FWIW, it is possible that Sachin fans will get wound up when they see inflammatory statements about their hero just as you would get worked up if someone posted similar stuff about Richards (I assume), regardless of whether it is backed up factually or not... These are two great players and it won't hurt to show some respect to the other guy from either side....


And regarding your stats, I echo what Jack said in that those are very interesting numbers... But it is definitely a very small sample size for both men to be compared on, don't you think? I personally felt Sachin was better by a small margin but I am coming around to accepting that Viv was better but can't we just keep the arguments civil and about the players and cricket alone?

 

[Dasa]

Yeah, SRT clearly the worst batsman of the last 20 years.

 

[NYLove78]

I have a user-name. You can use it without using general terms. Although I put up the stat, I have no where stated that Richards was inferior due to that very fact. I am not a fan of doing against the best team is the sole measure of greatness rant. (In that case Mushtaq Mohammed is the best all rounder ever). But your stats are too much picky. You have not included how Viv has done against good spinners compared to SRT

Excuse me? Aren't we discussing ODIs

Yes. I apologize if I have to - I remembered your being from Colombo and your avatar but not your name - and was too worked up by the two posters before. Btw I am Indian ( from the South - from the state famous as G-O-C) So no offense - either at any conceivable group/community level or personal - I just could not spell your name.

Well I looked only for fast bowlers. Not the spinners. Maybe I should have. I was also trying to drive home the point that bowlers had no restrictions on them in an era of hardly any protective gear as in Richards' case. That was very different from SRT's era when protective gear and restrictions on fast bowlers made the batsmen's work a lot easier.

So? Is there any stipulation that such stats be used only in Tests and not in ODIs? I am sure you have seen that argument being used against Lara, Ponting etc. Are you telling me pitches were flat from 2000 Jan 01st 12:00:00 am onwards for only Tests and not ODIs?

Cricket Web - Features: Standardised ODI Batting Performances will tell you how averages and strike-rates were significantly higher in the 90s - particularly from after '92 - compared to the 70s and 80s.