Who is Better--- Sachin or Gangs???

[Anil]

Not to the extent Tendulkar could, and did.

absolutely!!!

 

[Sanz]

Not to the extent Tendulkar could, and did.

What difference does it make ? There was a period when Ganguly won as many matches and scored as much as tendulkar (if not more) for India.

As for the fear, there was a peiod at least in ODIs when Pakisani fans and cricketers feared Ganguly more than Tendulkar (just like we feared Aquib more than Waqar).

PS :- I gave the example because I have had the opportunity to interact with Pakistani and hear Pakistani cricketers more than say SAffies or Lankans.

 

[Richard]

How do people write off Bevan too easily? Just because Anil, and maybe a few others don't rate Bevan alongside Viv and Sachin doesn't mean a lot of people are 'guilty' (I use that in the lightest sense of the word) of doing so too.

Many people just bulk those 3 together. I certainly do.

And as I say - I put Bevan ahead of anyone else.
The "guilty" term referred to putting across opinion as fact.

 

[Richard]

i certainly don't "bulk" these three together....bevan for me comes a distant third....his outstanding qualities in the one day arena were his abilities to stand firm under pressure and see games through for australia...and in the process built up an incredible average with a phenomenal number of not outs(by the way not all of them were made in pressure scenarios, in a lot of situations, an impressive top and middle order paved the way and he just put the finishing touches)....impressive under any circumstances...but and this is a big but, when you compare the overall batsmanship of viv and sachin and see what they have accomplished, bevan pales in comparison....the other two are hugely better stroke players despite what richard claims, while not being as quick as bevan between the wickets, both were excellent judges of the run, they have both influenced countless wins for their countries with magnificent performances which bevan can only dream about and they have been incredibly consistent at the top of the order with exceptional averages....obviously less than bevan's as the role and style of playing is significantly different....

Not so.
Bevan may never have got the chance to play the sort of innings Richards and Tendulkar did at ODI level, but he demonstrated time and again his ability to play them at the domestic level.
You are ill-informed, simply, if you think Bevan wasn't as good a strokeplayer as the other 2.
If what you claimed was true, I'd agree that Bevan wasn't as good as the other 2 - but it simply isn't true, and as such I rate Bevan highest.

 

[Richard]

Not to the extent Tendulkar could, and did.

Maybe not, I only really saw the two of them when both were coming towards the end of their ODI careers (2001\02 was the first time I took real note) but I'd say there wasn't a tremendous amount in it, at least in the time I saw.

 

[Richard]

agreed...and i am certainly not writing bevan off in any sense....he was quite an exceptional one day player to be sure....but overall as a cricketer i don't really rate him that high because he failed in tests, i am an old timer who believes that the real cricket is test cricket and one day specialists don't count for that much in my book....

That's a silly attitude IMO.
The two forms of cricket are different, simple as.
Being good or poor at one form doesn't remotely affect a player's standing in the other as far as I'm concerned.
If someone's brilliant at ODIs and poor at Tests I apply a separate rating - not say "he's only good at stuff that isn't a real test".

 

[Francis]

I have to say it's sad when I see people knock Sachin. He's getting on in life and he's not the cricketer he used to be. But at his best no bowler could stop him. I really believe that, that there have been times when no bowler could defeat him. I feel it an honour to have seen him play and this is a bit like when a MCG crowd were mocking Steve Waugh. This wasn't long before he made his last ball of the day century. The crowd gave Waugh a standing ovation when he got into double figures... no mind he's their best batsman after Bradman and Chappell.

If Tendulkar's average ever (of course it wont) dropped below 50, I'd still rate him one of the ten best cricketers ever because of his impact and how awesome he was around 1998/99.

He deserves better than he's getting.

Of course I can take a light hearted thread. But I'm just such a fan of Sachin I had to go on a rant.

 

[Richard]

Tendulkar's recent Test form has absolutely nothing to do with my rating of Bevan as a better ODI player than him.

 

[Dasa]

My objection was to you putting across your opinion as fact (yes, I'm more than aware I'm guilty of that, too) - and I was (as others do to me) pointing-out that.

If what you claimed was true, I'd agree that Bevan wasn't as good as the other 2 - but it simply isn't true, and as such I rate Bevan highest.

 

[Richard]

Well - in that instance it wasn't my opinion - it is true that Bevan was an extremely capable strokeplayer.

 

[Beleg]

Sanz posted,

What difference does it make ? There was a period when Ganguly won as many matches and scored as much as tendulkar (if not more) for India.

As for the fear, there was a peiod at least in ODIs when Pakisani fans and cricketers feared Ganguly more than Tendulkar (just like we feared Aquib more than Waqar).

PS :- I gave the example because I have had the opportunity to interact with Pakistani and hear Pakistani cricketers more than say SAffies or Lankans.

I don't know about Pakistani cricketers but whenever I sat to watch cricket with my friends and extended family, the biggest cheer always erupted not when a Pakistani scored a century, or a fifty, or at the fall of Azhar's/Dravid's and Ganguly's wickets, but when Sachin went down. And that remained true whether it was 1997, 2003 or even if Ganguly out-performed Tendulkar. Obviously, there were people who feared Ganguly more, but in my experience they have been far and few.

That is not to say that Ganguly wasn't a lethal force in ODI cricket. The cover-drive for six he played off Waqar Younis at Toronto will forever be etched in my memory as (one of) the best shots I have ever witnessed.

And I am sure you will accept that Tendulkar has been the more consistent player.

 

[Matt79]

I feel it an honour to have seen him play and this is a bit like when a MCG crowd were mocking Steve Waugh. This wasn't long before he made his last ball of the day century. The crowd gave Waugh a standing ovation when he got into double figures... no mind he's their best batsman after Bradman and Chappell.

If Tendulkar's average ever (of course it wont) dropped below 50, I'd still rate him one of the ten best cricketers ever because of his impact and how awesome he was around 1998/99.

He deserves better than he's getting.

I was at that test at the MCG, and I didn't detect any mockery of Waugh - except by the English with their very aggressive fields which were a smart-**** move but honestly Waugh couldn't, and didn't, complain about people playing mind games. I think people at the ground were cheering every single run that Waugh made, and giving boundaries standing ovations, because we believed that it would probably be the last time we saw him there.

That said, and getting back on topic, I think Tendaulkar has obviously always been a much better player than Ganguly, but that's ok, because Ganguly is in fair company in that regard. I hope Tendaulkar recaptures at least some of his best form before he calls stumps for the last time - certainly the true fans of cricket in India, and around the world, should accord him every respect and bit of gratitude, because he's been an absolute champion, and no slump now will ever change that.

One of my big regrets in watching cricket is that every time I've gone to see Tendaulkar play, its coincided with one of his rare failures - usually against McGrath. Real bittersweet - yes I'm happy re: the breakthrough, but dammit I came to see Sachin bat!

 

[Anil]

Not so.
Bevan may never have got the chance to play the sort of innings Richards and Tendulkar did at ODI level, but he demonstrated time and again his ability to play them at the domestic level.
You are ill-informed, simply, if you think Bevan wasn't as good a strokeplayer as the other 2.
If what you claimed was true, I'd agree that Bevan wasn't as good as the other 2 - but it simply isn't true, and as such I rate Bevan highest.

don't assume my level of information, richard....i have seen some of bevan's best innings....and i have seen tendulkar and richards at their best....it is absurd to compare him to them as stroke players....if you want to put in the last word on this go ahead, i have no problems but as i said before, we will never agree and i have no intention and honestly no bandwidth for a never-ending cycle of argument with you on this....

 

[Anil]

That's a silly attitude IMO.
The two forms of cricket are different, simple as.
Being good or poor at one form doesn't remotely affect a player's standing in the other as far as I'm concerned.
If someone's brilliant at ODIs and poor at Tests I apply a separate rating - not say "he's only good at stuff that isn't a real test".

that's what i feel and i didn't say it affected his standing in the other, i said it affected his overall standing in my eyes, bevan will never be a great cricketer in my book...he will always be a great one day specialist....never a cricketing legend like a tendulkar or a viv....and for me there will always be a significant difference between the two...

 

[Richard]

don't assume my level of information, richard....i have seen some of bevan's best innings....and i have seen tendulkar and richards at their best....it is absurd to compare him to them as stroke players...

Really? How many of Bevan's innings in domestic cricket have you seen?
I can assure you, he's played countless innings in both England and Australia that have shown him a strokeplayer of the highest class.
You've, I'll bet, only ever seen Bevan's best innings in ODIs... and as a result you haven't actually seen all the best of him. You've only seen one side of his best.
It's absurd to suggest a player with so much going for him cannot be as good a strokeplayer as Tendulkar and IVA.

 

[Richard]

that's what i feel and i didn't say it affected his standing in the other, i said it affected his overall standing in my eyes, bevan will never be a great cricketer in my book...he will always be a great one day specialist....never a cricketing legend like a tendulkar or a viv....and for me there will always be a significant difference between the two...

For me there's no such thing as "overall" standing.
For me, there is a standing in Tests, and one in ODIs.
Those two have absolutely nothing to do with one-another.

 

[Ikki]

I'm agreeing with Richard, hell has frozen over, get your skates on. I rate Bevan the best one-day batsman as well.

 

[luckyeddie]

I'm agreeing with Richard, hell has frozen over, get your skates on. I rate Bevan the best one-day batsman as well.

I'm old enough to remember Viv in the days before he got bored of it all, so I rate Bevan 'only' as second-best - but it's a very, very close second.

/I'm careful not to open any cans of worms - please, I don't wish to enter a debate about the pros and cons of Richards' attitude.

 

[Ikki]

I'm old enough to remember Viv in the days before he got bored of it all, so I rate Bevan 'only' as second-best - but it's a very, very close second.

/I'm careful not to open any cans of worms - please, I don't wish to enter a debate about the pros and cons of Richards' attitude.

Don't have to explain yourself to me mate, or anyone else. Those three are up there. Who you choose is your business. Some people in this forum can't fathom others having a difference in opinion. That their's is fact. Anyway, let's not hi-jack the thread (meaning me). I just rate Bevans so highly is because of his battling quality. The many times he's carried the team over the line, for me as an Aussie fan, has been amazing. Awe-struck at times.

 

[Richard]

And I'd hope you'd have seen some of his even-more-incredible innings for NSW in the MM\ING.