wfdu_ben91 said:
Hayden has a MUCH better converison rate then Tendulker.
I'm joking? No.
Tendulkers better then Hayden in every single category? I disagree. Apart from probably cutting the ball, name one part of batting Hayden hasn't matched Tendulker in? Hayden can dominate, he has great techinique and a brilliant Test Match/Century Rate converison. I'd say the only thing standing in the way of Tendulker's century record is that Tendulker has played more matches then Hayden.
And yes, I think Hobbs was a opening batsman.
Most of your points are so irrelevant, your argument is weak, now let me show you why Tendulkar and Hayden should not be mentioned in the same sentence.
Hayden's stats for ODI's:
Runs: 4131 Highest Score: 146 Average: 40.10 Strike Rate: 75.90 100's: 5 50's: 26 4's: 419 6's: 50
Tendulkar's stats for OD's:
Runs: 14148 Highest Score: 186 Average: 44.21 Strike Rate: 85.97 100's: 39 50's: 72 4's: 1508 6's: 149.
Now, lets see if Hayden had played as many games as Tendulkar...First of all, this should give you a clue...If Hayden doesn't even get selected, then how the hell can he be so damn good.
IF Hayden would have mainted that 40.10 average and had played as many games as Tendulkar...And I very very highly doubt he would have mainted that average....He would still be around 1500 runs short of Tendulkar's total....And this is...If he had mainted that average, and realisticly speaking he most certainly would not have. If Hayden had played as many games, he would probably have a lower average, and hense would then be around 4-5 thousand runs short of Tendulkar...Maybe more.
Now lets look at the centuries each have scored...Tendulkar has scored 34 more centuries than Hayden...No other batsman has even scored 34 ODI centuries...You might argue that Hayden has not played as many games as Tendulkar, so it's unfair to look at the centuries aspect...But let's pretend that he did play as many games as Sachin.
Hayden scores a century 4.3% of the time, whereas Tendulkar scores a century 11.02% of the time. A difference of a whopping 6.72%.
This means that if Hayden had played as many games as Tendulkar he would have 17 centures...Tendulkar would still have more than double off Hayden's centuries. Right Hayden is so much better...
:
BTW, besides for cutting the ball better than Hayden, Tendulkar has also much superior footwork, he basicly plays every shot in the book, and does it at a level where Hayden cannot. I have watched both of them, and Tendulkar is soooo far ahead, its not funny...
Listen, I'm not saying that Hayden is a bad batsman, he's not, he is a great bat, but Tendulkar is lightyears ahead, the raw facts prove just that.
Tendulkar has also got out in the 90's more than any other batsman.
I wait for your rebuttle...
...That is if you have one...
langerrox said:
dude tendulkar is good but stat-wise he is just a minnow basher, he has 10 centurys agaisnt the minnows and averages above 45 agaisnt west indies, aus and sri lanka only.. im not saying his bad im saying he isnt the greatest
I still want you to name me an opening batsman who was better, Ill prove to you by raw statistics that Tendulkar was better...then we'll see how many runs they scored agaisnt minows, etc etc.. Because runs agaisnt minows applies to all batsmen.
Your argument is really weak bro, read my other post, with the stats..You'll see.
