The best after the Don? CW ranked 25 contenders, here is the countdown thread

[OverratedSanity]

Definitely dumb when people do it for extra long careers.

Tendulkar averaged 57 after 176 tests ftr. That's literally still the longest career of all time with an average equivalent to Sobers/Sanga.

 

[mr_mister]

well it lowered his average and we're lying if we pretend that number doesn't come heavily into the equation when we rate batsmen

 

[mr_mister]

also we're human. if we perceive something to be selfish behaviour its gonna subconsciously weigh on our opinion


whether or not sachin thought he still had it for those final few tests the fact he retired after exactly 200 doesn't help his case much

 

[OverratedSanity]

well it lowered his average and we're lying if we pretend that number doesn't come heavily into the equation when we rate batsmen

Well yes but is averaging 57 over 100 tests more impressive or averaging 53 over 200?

It's so dumb that people care about an average so much that him that he'd be considered better by literally not playing cricket as soon as his prime ended.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea literally the way these cricket fans judge players you are better of hitting your purple patch and retiring. You'll be considered an ATG.

People who love and obsesses about a sport to the point of posting about it on a cricket forum and voting on online contests should really know better than this.

 

[mr_mister]

eh, 4th is still a pretty respectable place. I would have ranked him 2nd had I submitted a list btw.

 

[Burgey]

Yea literally the way these cricket fans judge players you are better of hitting your purple patch and retiring. You'll be considered an ATG.

People who love and obsesses about a sport to the point of posting about it on a cricket forum and voting on online contests should really know better than this.

After your post in the India-SA thread I presume you want Ashwin to retire now?

 

[GuyFromLancs]

I just want to make the point that holding it against a player for 'playing on too long' is dumb

It's not like the innings Sachin played in the tail end of his career suddenly retroactively makes the innings he played at the peak of his career less good. It's not like the runs he scored when he was the best in the world means less because he had a 4 year stretch where he was merely 'average'. If he had retired when at his peak with a career average in the high 50s he would have been 2nd of all time without a doubt. He keeps playing more cricket on from that point, scoring more runs, and suddenly he is less good?

It's just bizarre logic that I cannot wrap my head around

I agree to an extent. But he was a different kind of batsman in 2013 than he was in 1998.

People (specifically younger people) will recall him as the very competent and technically proficient accumulator he ended up as, not the Bradman-esq dasher of his mid 20s.

 

[GuyFromLancs]

... just as an add on, I remember rumours circlulsting that he was close to quitting in about 2004 with his continuing elbow trouble. Even if he'd retired then he'd have been a great. But a different kind of great than he ended up.

 

[harsh.ag]

I mean he'd already been accorded the status of the second greatest test batsman by Wisden in 2002. So that he played for around 10 more years without his record degrading is massive.

 

[cnerd123]

After your post in the India-SA thread I presume you want Ashwin to retire now?

He might as well

 

[Kirkut]

Of course people do. Cricket is NOT just Test cricket. It also totally incorporates limited overs games.

Similarly-
Batsmanship in particular is not solely Test cricket related, it is includes ODI and T20 because they challenge you quite differently as a batsman.

Would be ridiculous to call someone the best batsman who couldn't perform in limited overs, because not being able to do well in the other format means that the guy has a significant flaw in his 'batsmanship' and is not able to adapt his game. He can't be the best batsman. (There's several additional skills you need to be top class in limited overs)

People combine stats all the time. Kohli passed 50 international tons last year. It was all over the internet. Maybe only at places like CW, people have developed a superiority complex and look down upon limited overs even though cricket is surviving because of ODIs and T20s.

If limiter overs was a joke like many others here consider it to be, nobody would give a **** about cricket world cup or even T20 world cup. It would hardly mean anything. And countries like India would never have played countless ODIs for decades at the expense of Tests. And some south africans right now and Tendulkar when he was playing wouldn't have been so desperate to become world champion.

Agreed, comparing a great test batsman to a great limited overs batsman is like comparing Haile Gebrselassie to Usain Bolt. Of course there are those who excel in both tests and LOIs, but are super rare.

 

[weldone]

OS makes a good point. Tendulkar is the best 17 year-old batsman ever, and also the best 38-year old batsman ever. That's ridiculous! I should have put him at no. 1.

Edit: Lol, it looks like I did haha

 

[a massive zebra]

OS makes a good point. Tendulkar is the best 17 year-old batsman ever, and also the best 38-year old batsman ever. That's ridiculous! I should have put him at no. 1.

Edit: Lol, it looks like I did haha

He wasn't really the best 38 year old batsman ever. Bradman scored 680 runs @ 97 in the 1946-47 ashes at the age of 38 and 715 runs @ 178 against India in 1947-48 at the age of 39. Jack Hobbs and Graham Gooch (!) were probably also at least as good as Tendulkar at 38.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It's kind of understood that bradman doesn't count in these kind of discussions.

 

[Victor Ian]

What a dumb arse way to value a player. There can be so few 17 year old or 38 year old test players that it means nothing. India were very **** when Tendulkar started, otherwise he'd have had to wait until he was 20 like everyone else and India were not so good when he retired. Tendulkar was an awesome player. He had great strokes and a great temperament for the game. He was so good that he is the 4th best ever....in over 100 years. That is some feat. So stop all this lamenting how he did not get number one spot. He is not outright better than all other players, like Bradman is, so sometimes others will be picked ahead of him and other times he will be picked ahead of them. Some of the people here sound like whinging bitches.

 

[OverratedSanity]

That is utterly pathetic

 

[harsh.ag]

What a dumb arse way to value a player. There can be so few 17 year old or 38 year old test players that it means nothing. India were very **** when Tendulkar started, otherwise he'd have had to wait until he was 20 like everyone else and India were not so good when he retired. Tendulkar was an awesome player. He had great strokes and a great temperament for the game. He was so good that he is the 4th best ever....in over 100 years. That is some feat. So stop all this lamenting how he did not get number one spot. He is not outright better than all other players, like Bradman is, so sometimes others will be picked ahead of him and other times he will be picked ahead of them. Some of the people here sound like whinging bitches.

Indeed. Stop discussing player rankings in a thread about player rankings, people.

 

[Burgey]

He’s in pretty rarified air to be in the top five tbh. You could throw the top five names in the air and make an argument for whichever order they fell in. They’re all complete players when you get to this sort of thing.

He’s certainly in the top 2-3 players I’ve ever seen. Some days I think he’s number one, other days two or three. Bloke was a master.

 

[ankitj]

I thank Victor Ian for rescuing me from falling for OS's "dumb arse" argument. Thanks for being the thought police.