Richards v Tendulkar - ODIs

[Cevno]

But then when Sachin face them he was a young lad ,finding his way in international cricket.?

 

[NYLove78]

The Amount of BS you have been spouting is just too much. I do not know if you lied or posted incorrect stats but onus is on you to post the links if you want people to buy the Bull**** you are selling. If you can't or don't then obviously people are going to believe whatever they want to.

I am not accusing you of telling lies or posting incorrect stats. What you have done is actually worse which is cherry picking the stats in order to spew your own hatred in this thread.

It is not hard to do that to any batsman, even if it is someone as Good/Great as IVAR. Here is a sample, with links (unlike you) .


Sachin (in matches Imran Played) :- 43.75 (SR 104.16)

IVAR (in matches Imran Played) :- 33.03 (SR 94.37)

Sachin (in Matches Wasim Played in Aus) :- 54.50 (SR 86.85)

IVAR (in Matches Wasim Played in Aus) :- 8.00 (SR 46.510

Sachin (In Matches Hadlee Played in NZ) :- 36.00 (SR 92.30)

IVAR (In Matches Hadleed Played in NZ) :- 19.25 (SR 89.53)

Below are the exact links for the stats I posted. Anybody can go and see for himself if any of the stats provided in my first post were wrong. For the convenience of the 'doubters' like Sanz I have the stats I had posted below the link that will lead you to the same stats on CI. NNNNNNNNNjoy.

Richards vs Lillee-Thomson in Australia
Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
8 535 153* 89.16 1

SRT vs McGrath-Warne in Australia
Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
1 3 3 3.00 0

SRT vs McGrath-Gillespie in Australia
Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
0 0 0 - 0

SRT vs McGrath in Australia
Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
4 34 18 8.50 0

Richards vs Imran-Nawaz in Pakistan
Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
2 119 83 59.50 0

Richards vs Imran-Akram in Pakistan
Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
9 389 80* 55.57 0

Richards vs Imran in Pakistan
Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
13 508 83 46.18 0

SRT vs Akram in Pakistan
Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
1 0 0 0.00 0

SRT vs Younis in Pakistan
Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
4 30 21 7.50 0

SRT vs Shoaib in Pakistan
Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
5 213 141 42.60 1

Richards vs Willis-Botham in England
Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
4 302 189* 151.00 1

Richards vs Hadlee in New Zealand
Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
3 133 119 133.00 1

SRT vs Ambrose in West Indies
Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
4 119 65* 39.66 0

SRT vs Donald in SA
Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
12 236 45 19.66 0

SRT vs Bond in NZ
Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
2 1 1 0.50 0

 

[Sir Alex]

Haha with that sample size, I might love to see the argument that AG Ganteaume was better than Don Bradman

 

[Sanz]

And YOU? YOU have posted the stats for SRT against a 37+ yo Imran Khan (b.1952) and a Richard Hadlee that was 39+ yo (b.1951) when he faced them. So the King has to face these guys at their strongest, fastest and best match after match, year upon year; and SRT catches them years past their best. And the two are same?

Yes Hadlee/Imran were Old, But Sachin was not at his prime either. He was a 16 year old when he faced Imran/Wasim/Waqar/Qadir, Yes Richards faced those guys at their peak, but so was he.

Once Again :- Here is how they Richards/Tendulkar Did against Imran

Richards Against Imran :- 33.03 (SR 94.47)
Tendulkar Against Imran :- 43.75 (SR 104.16)

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com


Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Tendulkar when at least one of Qadir/Imran/Wasim/Waqar playing :- 37.46
Richards when at least one of Qadir/Imran/Wasim/Waqar playing :- 32.30

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com

I can present many more manipulated stats but that's not I will do any more, Richards is my God and I am already feeling the guilt to have posted these things about him.

 

[JBH001]

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?

I've got no problem with his use of stats, I've seen worse on CC. What I didnt like was the deliberately inflammatory tone of his first post. If he had bothered to present his thoughts in better form, the chances of a decent discussion would have been higher (am saying this not having read the rest of the subsequent thread).

 

[Cruxdude]

I've got no problem with his use of stats, I've seen worse on CC. What I didnt like was the deliberately inflammatory tone of his first post. If he had bothered to present his thoughts in better form, the chances of a decent discussion would have been higher (am saying this not having read the rest of the subsequent thread).

This. He was provocative throughout the post and is also continuing to be so.

 

[vic_orthdox]

OK, NYLove78. We don't require the confrontational nature of that posting. People will take a lot more notice of you if the tone of your posts tries to present why Richards is better, and not denigrate who is being compared to.

The point that Sanz was trying to make is not necessarily that Richards<Sachin based on those facts. More the point that the manipulation of facts into such small samples means that they can be misleading.

Sanz, your point of view often gets lost in the emotion of your posting style. With both moderator, and fellow poster, hats on, I ask that you try and separate the belligerent from the detail, because a lot of what you have to say is worthwhile, when you are more dispassionate within your posts. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be dispassionate about an issue, but that doesn't mean that you have to have such emotion flowing through your posts all the time. It can too often escalate an issue.

 

[Sanz]

Point well taken Vic. My apologies to Nylove78.

 

[honestbharani]

OK, NYLove78. We don't require the confrontational nature of that posting. People will take a lot more notice of you if the tone of your posts tries to present why Richards is better, and not denigrate who is being compared to.

The point that Sanz was trying to make is not necessarily that Richards<Sachin based on those facts. More the point that the manipulation of facts into such small samples means that they can be misleading.

Sanz, your point of view often gets lost in the emotion of your posting style. With both moderator, and fellow poster, hats on, I ask that you try and separate the belligerent from the detail, because a lot of what you have to say is worthwhile, when you are more dispassionate within your posts. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be dispassionate about an issue, but that doesn't mean that you have to have such emotion flowing through your posts all the time. It can too often escalate an issue.

I think that applies to NYLove as well.. Look, the McGrath stats and Donald stats kinda show that Tendulkar was not as dominating as we all think he was against the best.. But then again, the sample sizes are too small to make a real decision... Fact is, both of them are so good that cherry picking with stats is never going to be conclusive... The reasons I felt Sachin was better are listed earlier... Some of them are inherently biased towards Sachin. LIke the fact that he played for a weaker side than the King. I mean, it is obviously not Viv's fault that he played in a stronger team... It is just a reason I "think" Sachin is slightly better.


But, having read through the thread and the sort of respect he seems to command on the people who have watched him and how high they rate him ahead of his contemporaries, I am coming around to believing Viv is better, again though, by a pretty small margin, as is often the case between greats..

 

[L Trumper]

I think that applies to NYLove as well.. Look, the McGrath stats and Donald stats kinda show that Tendulkar was not as dominating as we all think he was against the best.. But then again, the sample sizes are too small to make a real decision... Fact is, both of them are so good that cherry picking with stats is never going to be conclusive... The reasons I felt Sachin was better are listed earlier... Some of them are inherently biased towards Sachin. LIke the fact that he played for a weaker side than the King. I mean, it is obviously not Viv's fault that he played in a stronger team... It is just a reason I "think" Sachin is slightly better.


But, having read through the thread and the sort of respect he seems to command on the people who have watched him and how high they rate him ahead of his contemporaries, I am coming around to believing Viv is better, again though, by a pretty small margin, as is often the case between greats..

This.

When comparing two great players its not about stat picking. The reasons why you like one more than the other should be based on things like entertaining neutrals, winning games almost singlehandedly, style of play etc etc. [Unless most of the people have some kind of wrong perception of the said player, there is no need to bring stats].

 

[Ikki]

Agree with him or not...HB is all class.

 

[JBH001]

I think that applies to NYLove as well.. Look, the McGrath stats and Donald stats kinda show that Tendulkar was not as dominating as we all think he was against the best.. But then again, the sample sizes are too small to make a real decision... Fact is, both of them are so good that cherry picking with stats is never going to be conclusive... The reasons I felt Sachin was better are listed earlier... Some of them are inherently biased towards Sachin. LIke the fact that he played for a weaker side than the King. I mean, it is obviously not Viv's fault that he played in a stronger team... It is just a reason I "think" Sachin is slightly better.

But, having read through the thread and the sort of respect he seems to command on the people who have watched him and how high they rate him ahead of his contemporaries, I am coming around to believing Viv is better, again though, by a pretty small margin, as is often the case between greats..

Fair enough, HB. Although I think you give too much credence to commentary regarding Viv, in this instance, and not enough to your own valuation of Tendulkar. Secondly, I think there is a little danger of a Tendulkar "not good against the best" meme building up over time through repetition. Great attacks in ODI games are not quantified in terms of just those bowlers who we traditionally think of when describing great attacks (i.e McGrath, Ambrose, Donald). In doing so we also forget the other great/very good ODI bowlers like Bracken and Lee and Gough etc or those ODI attacks which were more than the sum of their parts for 50 overs.

Even taking the traditionally great names into account, SRT only falls short against SA. And even this if including those games where he does not open. For example, his average as opener against SA attacks containing either of Pollock or Donald is 33 with a SR of 73 (while his average in all main batting positions is 26 with a SR of 68). Incidentally he played in 5 ODI games as an opener facing both Donald and Pollock and averaged 28 with a SR of 90.

Also, his average against attacks containing McGrath and/or Warne is 45 with a SR of 95. His average against attacks containing the both of them is 50 with a SR of 102, and his average against McGrath alone is 37 with a SR of 91. These statistics are as an opener, by the way.

Make of that what you will, but dont fall for the "fail against the best" nonsense that seems to be rearing its ugly head (although you do seem to be talking about not as dominating against the best as we think - which is subjective). If that were the case, HE would not be rated so highly by his contemporaries and expert observers.

Edit/ If, however, the argument is that Richards was better against the best of his time, that is another argument entirely, and one that holds more water, IMO.

 

[honestbharani]

Fair enough, HB. Although I think you give too much credence to commentary regarding Viv, in this instance, and not enough to your own valuation of Tendulkar. Secondly, I think there is a little danger of a Tendulkar "not good against the best" meme building up over time through repetition. Great attacks in ODI games are not quantified in terms of just those bowlers who we traditionally think of when describing great attacks (i.e McGrath, Ambrose, Donald). In doing so we also forget the other great/very good ODI bowlers like Bracken and Lee and Gough etc or those ODI attacks which were more than the sum of their parts for 50 overs.

Even taking the traditionally great names into account, SRT only falls short against SA. And even this if including those games where he does not open. For example, his average as opener against SA attacks containing either of Pollock or Donald is 33 with a SR of 73 (while his average in all main batting positions is 26 with a SR of 68). Incidentally he played in 5 ODI games as an opener facing both Donald and Pollock and averaged 28 with a SR of 90.

Also, his average against attacks containing McGrath and/or Warne is 45 with a SR of 95. His average against attacks containing the both of them is 50 with a SR of 102, and his average against McGrath alone is 37 with a SR of 91. These statistics are as an opener, by the way.

Make of that what you will, but dont fall for the "fail against the best" nonsense that seems to be rearing its ugly head (although you do seem to be talking about not as dominating against the best as we think - which is subjective). If that were the case, HE would not be rated so highly by his contemporaries and expert observers.

Edit/ If, however, the argument is that Richards was better against the best of his time, that is another argument entirely, and one that holds more water, IMO.

I feel that is the case, JBH.. I don't think Sachin is any less of a player than what he actually is or at least, what I have thought of him to be so far... He is EASILY the best ODI top order player I have seen.. But Richards just seems so far ahead of his contemporaries then... And so highly regarded by such great players.. That is what has made me rethink my position on this.

But as I said earlier, I didn't think Sachin was "easily" better when I voted in this thread.. I thought it was mightly close but juz gave the vote to Sachin based on the reasons I had listed earlier and I still think it is mighty close, but I am seeing why so many think Richards to be better...

 

[honestbharani]

Agree with him or not...HB is all class.

Thanks mate... It is amazing how much we argue with each other most of the time and yet we get along just fine..

 

[NYLove78]

OK, NYLove78. We don't require the confrontational nature of that posting. People will take a lot more notice of you if the tone of your posts tries to present why Richards is better, and not denigrate who is being compared to.

Vic, my motive was not to denigrate SRT, but to indeed highlight what I believe is imo Richards' vast superiority. I did not intend to put down SRT than rather I admit taunt some of the very biased SRT fans here. Over the last couple of years when I was a passive onlooker many and I say MANY here propagated worse stats against Lara, Ponting, Gilchrist etc to advocate SRT's supposed superiority.

I still maintain I did no cherry-picking. I picked out the stronger teams of both eras, and included the statistics for the respective performances for both against those teams on the opposition turf, and THAT when the best bowlers were playing. This is without going into obvious but definitely debatable (at least to some here) issues like the absence of protective gear, as also of the numerous restrictions on the bowlers, more difficult pitches which were more like the test pitches then where even 200 in 50 overs was a good total, and superior fast bowling etc which makes Richards' average and strike-rate imo at least 20 to 30 p.c higher if juxtaposed in the background of the 90s/00s.

Also I noticed nobody in over 30 pages of debating bothered about these stats (or the difference in conditions across the two eras wrt ODIs) here wherein some of these same posters were quick to bring forth in the Lara vs SRT debates the stats for the two of them in Aus and SA in tests in the 90s where SRT averaged a little better (iirc) on the opposition turf. That was on the premise that the tracks got super-flat at the exact dawn of the new year/decade/century/millennium. In reality I believe that was a culmination of a decade-long metamorphosis that started around '90. In terms of difficulty of conditions an adequate summary would be 70s&80s > 90s > 00s.

As I mentioned before, 'cricketastically', that Richards had those performances against the fastest and greatest ever like Lillee, Thomson, Imran, Hadlee etc clinches it for him, AND that fact being so in those conditions mentioned place him beyond the reach of any other ODI bat past, present, and future. His 153* vs Aus '79 and 189* vs Eng '84 are probably ten times better than the third greatest knock ever cricketastically (taking conditions, attacks etc into consideration) and will imo stay the two greatest ODI innings ever as long as cricket is played. Add to this the fact that statistically too he is ahead more so in terms of statistics that matter more. In fact in the 20 years of cricket-watching "live' (started watching live from around '90 from when on I have vivid memories) I rate Steve Waugh's 120* vs SA in the WC '99, De Silva's centuries vs Pak (Akram, Younis, Saqlain) in Sharjah '97, Lara's 153* vs Pak in Sharjah '93 and again Lara in the C&U against Aus and Pak in '97 above any ODI innings I have seen from SRT. I cannot rate his centuries on a flat deck against Aus (no McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, only Warne recovering from shoulder operation and sub-standard benchers like Fleming and Kasperowicz) in Sharjah '98 just as I cannot rate Ponting's century in the WC'03 final also on a equally flat track vs India consisting of rank medium-pacers.

 

[Migara]

I still maintain I did no cherry-picking. I picked out the stronger teams of both eras, and included the statistics for the respective performances for both against those teams on the opposition turf, and THAT when the best bowlers were playing.

Your argument makes Kapil >> Botham as an all rounder because Kapil did very well against Windies.

 

[vcs]

Vic, my motive was not to denigrate SRT, but to indeed highlight what I believe is imo Richards' vast superiority.

There simply is no such thing when you are comparing cricketers of that quality, unless you are arguing Bradman's case. That's just my opinion, though.

I did not intend to put down SRT than rather I admit taunt some of the very biased SRT fans here.

I am no moderator but 'taunting' a fan-base does not seem to be an acceptable way to put forward your argument.

I still maintain I did no cherry-picking. I picked out the stronger teams of both eras, and included the statistics for the respective performances for both against those teams on the opposition turf, and THAT when the best bowlers were playing.

I looked over some of your posts - and I have said it about many of the stat wars that go on here - but sample sizes of 3 or 4 matches tell us close to nothing in comparison to the body of work a player has achieved over his entire career. For me, filtering out records to look at such small samples is intellectually dishonest, without considering overall records.

This is without going into obvious but definitely debatable (at least to some here) issues like the absence of protective gear, as also of the numerous restrictions on the bowlers, more difficult pitches which were more like the test pitches then where even 200 in 50 overs was a good total, and superior fast bowling etc which makes Richards' average and strike-rate imo at least 20 to 30 p.c higher if juxtaposed in the background of the 90s/00s.

Also I noticed nobody in over 30 pages of debating bothered about these stats (or the difference in conditions across the two eras wrt ODIs) here wherein some of these same posters were quick to bring forth in the Lara vs SRT debates the stats for the two of them in Aus and SA in tests in the 90s where SRT averaged a little better (iirc) on the opposition turf. That was on the premise that the tracks got super-flat at the exact dawn of the new year/decade/century/millennium. In reality I believe that was a culmination of a decade-long metamorphosis that started around '90. In terms of difficulty of conditions an adequate summary would be 70s&80s > 90s > 00s.

As I mentioned before, 'cricketastically', that Richards had those performances against the fastest and greatest ever like Lillee, Thomson, Imran, Hadlee etc clinches it for him, AND that fact being so in those conditions mentioned place him beyond the reach of any other ODI bat past, present, and future. His 153* vs Aus '79 and 189* vs Eng '84 are probably ten times better than the third greatest knock ever cricketastically (taking conditions, attacks etc into consideration) and will imo stay the two greatest ODI innings ever as long as cricket is played. Add to this the fact that statistically too he is ahead more so in terms of statistics that matter more. In fact in the 20 years of cricket-watching "live' (started watching live from around '90 from when on I have vivid memories) I rate Steve Waugh's 120* vs SA in the WC '99, De Silva's centuries vs Pak (Akram, Younis, Saqlain) in Sharjah '97, Lara's 153* vs Pak in Sharjah '93 and again Lara in the C&U against Aus and Pak in '97 above any ODI innings I have seen from SRT. I cannot rate his centuries on a flat deck against Aus (no McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, only Warne recovering from shoulder operation and sub-standard benchers like Fleming and Kasperowicz) in Sharjah '98 just as I cannot rate Ponting's century in the WC'03 final also on a equally flat track vs India consisting of rank medium-pacers.

The rest of your post is interesting - there is no doubt batsmen had it tougher physically in previous generations with uncovered wickets, lack of protection and so on - but it's not as if Sachin had any control over the conditions he batted in. All we can say is his era was 'different' (perhaps better spinners and more spin-friendly wickets, more depth in Test-playing nations, variability in conditions?) and there is no doubt he is up there with the best of his era.

 

[NYLove78]

I did some more stats-filtering meanwhile. Again one can always find manipulation and distortion Perhaps its the fact that I have been a student of Mathematics till I was in the Phd program at Stony Brook in neighboring Long Island that I tend to look at everything in a rather theoretical/analytical manner. I am pretty sure that some of the posters here 'cricketastically' might be far better than me as judges.

I believe ODI batting in particular to have been more difficult in the 70s and 80s than in the 90s and 00s due to - 1) Absence of decent protective gear, 2) no restrictions on bowlers, 3) more bowler-friendly pitches, 4) better faster and more intimidatory fast bowling (though spin has improved majorly in this era), 5) larger boundaries pre-ropes, 6) slower outfields, 7) inferior bats, 8) less money (more of a psychological factor). In the Richards or SRT case, playing for a relatively weak team and improved fielding count against the former. But that still made scoring against fast bowling in particular more difficult in the 70s and 80s. As I had posted before, Cricket Web - Features: Standardised ODI Batting Performances shows that both averages and strike-rates were on the rise from '90, especially so from after '92.

Regardless I confined myself to pure stats looking at the performances of these two against 1) the significant attacks of their eras and that in 2) places where pitches are considered less batsman-friendly. I therefore excluded pitches in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the rest of Asia (like Sharjah) and the African pitches other than SA (I might cop some flak for that but I have been consistent). These places have long been considered very batsman-friendly and that is the ONLY reason that I have excluded them. I have included all the stats for both players for matches they played in WI, Aus, Eng, SA and NZ.

Again I know some might find this manipulation. But I maintain that these are the stats against the best opposition attacks (For Richards - Aus/Eng/Ind/Pak/NZ and SRT - WI/Aus/Eng/SA/Pak/NZ/SL) of their respective eras in the countries where tracks were relatively less flat (WI/Aus/Eng/SA/NZ). If anybody feels any venue or country needs to be added or removed please feel free to do so.

Now these are Richards' stats against Aus/Eng/Ind/Pak/NZ in WI/Aus/Eng/NZ :-

Richards vs Aus/Eng/Ind/Pak/NZ in WI/Aus/Eng/NZ

Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
131 4850 189* 48.01 8

For SRT first I took his stats against WI/Aus/Eng/Pak/NZ in WI/Aus/Eng/NZ so as to maintain a parity with Richards (SA were not playing and though SL had better individuals imo they were yet to attain Test status then)

SRT vs WI/Aus/Eng/Pak/NZ in WI/Aus/Eng/NZ

Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
72 2515 163* 38.10 3

And these are SRT's figures against WI/Aus/Eng/SA/Pak/NZ/SL in in WI/Aus/Eng/SA/NZ

SRT vs WI/Aus/Eng/SA/Pak/NZ/SL in WI/Aus/Eng/SA/NZ

Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
111 3631 163* 35.25 5

I added period stipulation for the first time in my filtering and took Richards figures till end-1986 which is when many feel he should have retired. I read that he wanted to then and the Caribbean Board wanted him to stay back for WC '87. Imran Khan iirc mentioned that he felt 'romantically' Richards should have retired in 1986. Anyway these are Richards' figures covering his prime including his peak from debut in '75 (at 23) till end - '86.

Richards vs Aus/Eng/Ind/Pak/NZ in WI/Aus/Eng/NZ till end-1986

Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
86 3715 189* 56.28 7

As SRT's best figures in every column are as an opener I took his record from 21 Sep 1994 onwards (when after a few matches as opener he made his first century vs Aus) till date.

SRT vs WI/Aus/Eng/SA/Pak/NZ in WI/Aus/Eng/SA/NZ from 21 Sep 1994 till now

Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
119 4000 163* 36.36 5

As I mentioned before, there does exist a group on CW that constantly harps on the decade of 2000-2010 being one of flat tracks. Just for that reason (I am not implying anything here) I stipulated SRT's stats for ' 94 (when he was 21) to end - '99 (before tracks turned extra-flat) and obtained these figures.

SRT vs WI/Aus/Eng/SA/Pak/NZ in WI/Aus/Eng/SA/NZ from 21 Sep 1994 till end-1999

Mat Runs HS Bat Av 100
57 1564 84 29.50 0

Please remember that these are not figures for scores against the mentioned teams on their turf e.g these include matches against Aus in Aus as well as in WI and Eng and SA and NZ. Same holds for the other teams as well.

As I had said before Richards's best as exemplified by his innings like 189* and 153* is just untouchable. I feel none other than Bradman and Sobers shade him or even come close. That's what the spectator in me would conclude. If I were to take stats I have to exclude weaker attacks (which I have done for both) as also the flatter tracks (which too I have been ambivalent with). I won't make conclusions this time round. As I said please let me know if any other venue can be included (I think we agree on the attacks – I cannot include the likes of Zimbabwe in either case and those like Kenya, Bangladesh, Namibia etc for the latter).

I would just like you guys to note of that a very large %age of Richards’ matches (131/187 i.e. ~ 70%) were played in less favorable conditions against the best attacks of his era and this is borne out by the first stat. Comparatively, SRT played the better attacks of his era in less favorable batting conditions (relative to his era) only 72/442 times (when he averages 38+, his best figure among the four stats, after excluding SA and SL) which is a dismal 16%. Even if I include SA and SL (his average then drops by 3 points to 35) that makes it 111/442, still short of 26%.

Simple Math/Stat or common sense tells you the obvious, THAT, despite the fact that SRT had it much easier in every conceivable facet of batting, Richards averages significantly higher with a superior strike-rate. One look at the centuries and the difference is even more stark. SRT has like four times as many 100s and yet one-one he does not match the King even once in any of the comparisons. Which shows a much much larger %age of the King's 100s came in far more difficult conditions against much better attacks.I might agree with SRT being the second-greatest ODI bat ever too (though I think Chappell, Abbas and Jones were close too if not better esp Chappell) but imo in ODIs none can me compared to the King. Would like to know what Vic_orthodox, Sanz, Migara and HB and others think.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I did some more stats-filtering meanwhile. Again one can always find manipulation and distortion Perhaps its the fact that I have been a student of Mathematics till I was in the Phd program at Stony Brook in neighboring Long Island that I tend to look at everything in a rather theoretical/analytical manner. I am pretty sure that some of the posters here 'cricketastically' might be far better than me as judges.

Not to mention Simon Cowell.

 

[NYLove78]

Your argument makes Kapil >> Botham as an all rounder because Kapil did very well against Windies.

1) The e.g you give is far from an exact analogy as I have taken multiple cases and you are taking one single case into consideration.

2) Kapil is widely considered the greatest ODI allerounder ever (also scored the maximum points ever in the ICC's ODI allrounder rankings in '83 I think). IMO Kapil vs Botham is close, much closer than Richards vs SRT, and possibly contrary to the opinions of the majority of the people my personal rating is Imran > Kapil > Botham > Hadlee as allrounders overall.

As bowlers Hadlee = Imran > Botham > Kapil (I think Lillee, Marshall, Hadlee and Imran are the four greatest fast bowlers ever in no particular order); as batsmen Kapil > Botham > Imran > Hadlee. Imran scores 1.5 + 3 = 4.5; Kapil 1 + 4 = 5; Botham 3 + 2 = 5 and Hadlee 1.5 + 4 = 5.5. I thought Kapil was more natural than Botham and led a much weaker attack. Botham had Snow (I think at the start), Willis most of the time, Old, Hendrick, Selvey etc over his career. I heard Richards destroyed some very promising English guys with monstrous pace like Graham Dilley and Greg Thomas which shows that there was a lot more talent at Botham's disposal than Kapil's.

In terms of pure allround cricketing talent I think Kapil was the second best ever after Sobers himself. We all know of his 175*. How many however know of his 72* in 38 on a typical 80s WIn fast, bouncy, difficult Berbice pitch in 1983 aganst Garner-Holding-Marshall-Davis? The fastest 50 (in 22 balls) for long in ODIs before pitches got easier and bowlers were heavily restricted in the 90s when the record was obliterated ; The greatest non-century knock ever in ODIs I believe; One of the best ever; One of the most destructive innings ever; From one of the cleanest strikers ever; All this from the lead and strike-bowler of a relatively weak team. That was I think India's first ever win in ODIs over WI.