Gurjot95
National Board President
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
Fixed
The Greatest ODI Batsman: Tendulkar vs Richards
- Thread starter Bublu Bhuyan
- Start date
shravi
National Board President
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2005
- Profile Flag
- India
He actually said 'forget ball tampering', in regards to Afridi???
I have to say Tum Tum, I do agree with a bit of what you are saying mate. There's no real way to prove technology has had an impact.
It has been proven. Players and coaches spend thousands of dollars on this technological equipment because it works. Maybe it doesn't work every time but just because something has been proven doesn't mean it has to be a perfect science though. TumTum doesn't seem to get that. We are not saying it has helped or hurt Tendulkar, because that is where the uncertainty lies. However, it has impacted the game. TumTum just conveniently changed his point to 'not proven' just now when he had been arguing 'totally false' all along.
Players and coaches have come out saying how it has helped them. Dale Steyn explicitly said that South Africa had really been doing their homework on the Indian batting line up before coming to India.
Yeah, it is the 'Effect of pitch conditions' and 'How have pitch conditions affected the change of cricket towards a more batsman friendly game?'. Don't try to teach me English.
Last edited:
TumTum
International Cricketer
Fixed
I don't think my reputation here is that good :laugh
drainpipe32
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2008
- Online Cricket Games Owned
negative reps to the man who created this thread.:doh
The most ridiculous thing is, it's actually Matthew Wade.....
AkshayS
Chairman of Selectors
Gurjot95
National Board President
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Location
- Melbourne, Australia
ballers101
Club Cricketer
That's just proves one thing....you didn't read.
Heres about Afridi btw...cricket's most known secret, ball tampering...this time please read.
Most bowlers have indulged in ball tampering - Tony Greig | Cricket News | Australia v Pakistan 2009/10 | Cricinfo.com
Last edited:
Dare
Chairman of Selectors
negative reps to the man who created this thread.
lol why?
AkshayS
Chairman of Selectors
Nobody can deny the fact every Sachin's thread ends up like this every every every time.
nobody can deny it.
Here also every Indian is trying to prove that Sachin is the best batsman since it's the feeling of being proud that the best batsman is from your country.
While every non-indian is trying to prove the opposite just like DumDum and many others. It's just silly to compare players from different eras and still Bublu created 2 threads like this.
Dare
Chairman of Selectors
Deny what? That 6 pages of this thread have been arguments about the use of technology and not about Sachin or Viv. Dont know if you kept up with every post in here but you might want to check it again and see what the posts have been about.
And every thread about comparing players ends up with people arguing for one guy and people arguing for the other guy. Its not just the ones that have Sachin in it.
So I don't see a point to neg rep Bablu because its actually a great comparison. Both guys were/are way ahead of their competition when it comes to ODIs and are probably the 2 best ODI batsman to play the game.
Did you ever think that people are arguing for Viv (or other guys that have been compared to Sachin) because they feel that he is the best and that its a sense of pride for them that the best batsman is from their country and not just to go against Sachin for the fun of it. Look at it from the other side and no not everyone hates Sachin, maybe just his over the top fans.
If you think its silly to compare players from different eras then why bother posting in them and commenting about them. You have your opinion on threads like this and he has his, he likes making threads like this because there will always be arguments like this and there have always been arguments like this so there is nothing to prevent him from creating them.
King Pietersen
ICC Board Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2006
- Location
- Manchester
Every time there's a comparison thread between an Indian and a non-Indian you get these muppets come on that claim every vote in favour of the non-Indian is some derived hate against India. Also, not every non-Indian has picked Richards here, I for one voted in favour of Tendulkar. In summary, stop talking out of your arse.
Bublu Bhuyan
School Cricketer
I've voted for Viv.
aditya123
National Board President
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2003
- Location
- Mumbai
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox 360
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox One
The funny thing about this thread was that it got 2 Indians and a Pakistani arguing for the same cause. Not something you see that often in online discussion boards.:banana2
AkshayS
Chairman of Selectors
^what an observation.
If something is right then people would argue on it surely.
If something is right then people would argue on it surely.
aditya123
National Board President
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2003
- Location
- Mumbai
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox 360
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - Xbox One
My take on this. I`ve never seen Sir. Viv bat live but looking at archival footage and going by opinions, he is a legend of the game. Tendulkar has lasted 2 entire decades and is still scoring with the same consistency. If anything, Tendulkar at his prime (the 90s) faced way better bowling attacks than now and probable attacks which were on par with the ones which Sir. Viv faced. In the 90s we had, Wasim, Waqar, Aquib Javed, Saqlain, Mushy, Azhar Mahmood (with Akhtar debuting in the late 90s) and Co playing for Pakistan, all at their prime. Sri Lanka had Pushpakumara, Vaas (at his prime), Murali along with support bowlers like Dharmasena. SA had Donald, Klusener, Pollock, Brian McMillan, Fannie De Villiers, Symcox (very useful ODI bowler). Australia as always had Warne, McGrath, Damien Fleming, Kaspa. NZ had Shane O Connor, Simon Doull, Danny Morrison, Geoff Allot, Vettori and Co. West Indies had Ambrose, Walsh, Dillon, Bishop in their attack.
All these attacks were way better than the current bowling attacks and I don`t think there would`ve been much to chose between the above mentioned attacks and the ones which Viv faced. Tendulkar played most of his ODI cricket and was at his peak against these attacks. The argument that Tendulkar has had it easy when it comes to the quality of bowling attack falls flat on its face. He has ODI runs in every country and against good bowling attacks in the 90s.
Even if we agree that attacks these days are crap, the batsmen has to be top notch to be scoring runs in the same vein in two different decades. He was prolific in 1998 and is nearly as prolific now. He started his career in 1989. That in itself is a testimony to his longevity. Tum Tum, when you say that playing for 20 years non stop has nothing to do with skill, I would like to remind you that Tendulkar plays for India which has always had plenty of batting talent and staying in the side without performance is`nt all that easy.
When someone says that Tendulkar faced far easier attacks than Viv, he is`nt looking at the whole of Tendulkar`s career. Tendulkar of the 90s had to face as potent bowling attacks as Sir Viv had to and he was as destructive. And please don`t bring in that argument that pressure does`nt matter. It surely does. Tendulkar, although widely idolized in India, has to put up with crap when he fails. I don`t think Viv would`ve played under that kind of pressure. Tendulkar in the 90s, against good attacks, was a one man army most of the times. Sir Viv, certainly wasn`t one. Tendulkar did not have Holding, Marshall, Garner and Roberts in his side who could defend even a total of 180, something which gives a batsman more freedom to play his `natural game`.
I`m not, for a moment implying that Tendulkar owns Viv as an ODI batsman or something but it clearly is`nt one sided like Tum Tum makes it sound. The variety of challenges that Tendulkar has faced, the different attacks that he has faced and the different eras in which he has scored runs and continues to do so successfully even today, makes me go for Tendulkar.
The bowling quality in the 90s was not bad at all. 300 was still a very big total then and sides very rarely chased that. Tendulkar played a major chunk of his cricket in that era as well which we must not forget.
aditya123 added 13 Minutes and 38 Seconds later...
Also, Tum Tum, if we but your theory that technology is useless and has had no impact on how teams are better prepared these days, how do you explain certain bowlers just bursting onto the scene the way Mendis does. When we say that his mystery has worn off, what we refer to is that the batsman have figured him out. For a minute, let us assume that India only figured out Mendis because they played them a gazillion times since the Asia Cup. Technology does exactly the same thing. The analysis which can be done using technology cuts down on the learning curve against X batsman or bowler. Teams tend to play a lot more cricket these days and hence playing 20 yrs worth of cricket without getting figured out, technology or no technology, flat wickets or not, is not an easy thing. Had it been that easy, Ravi Bopara would be scoring truck loads of ODI runs and Philip Hughes would be invincible.
aditya123 added 7 Minutes and 4 Seconds later...
This point does not make much sense. A SR of 90 is a SR of 90, be it the 80s, 90s or now. Its just that more people now know that a SR of 90+ is`nt as herculean a task and hence more and more batsmen are scoring at that rate. However, to keep up a SR of 90 and an AVERAGE (Tum Tum please listen) for 21 long years is what is to be taken note of. 21 years of ODI cricket in the 90s and 2000s is more cricket than a career of same length spanning the 70s and 80s. Its hard to argue that a player won`t get figured out during such a long timespan.
All these attacks were way better than the current bowling attacks and I don`t think there would`ve been much to chose between the above mentioned attacks and the ones which Viv faced. Tendulkar played most of his ODI cricket and was at his peak against these attacks. The argument that Tendulkar has had it easy when it comes to the quality of bowling attack falls flat on its face. He has ODI runs in every country and against good bowling attacks in the 90s.
Even if we agree that attacks these days are crap, the batsmen has to be top notch to be scoring runs in the same vein in two different decades. He was prolific in 1998 and is nearly as prolific now. He started his career in 1989. That in itself is a testimony to his longevity. Tum Tum, when you say that playing for 20 years non stop has nothing to do with skill, I would like to remind you that Tendulkar plays for India which has always had plenty of batting talent and staying in the side without performance is`nt all that easy.
When someone says that Tendulkar faced far easier attacks than Viv, he is`nt looking at the whole of Tendulkar`s career. Tendulkar of the 90s had to face as potent bowling attacks as Sir Viv had to and he was as destructive. And please don`t bring in that argument that pressure does`nt matter. It surely does. Tendulkar, although widely idolized in India, has to put up with crap when he fails. I don`t think Viv would`ve played under that kind of pressure. Tendulkar in the 90s, against good attacks, was a one man army most of the times. Sir Viv, certainly wasn`t one. Tendulkar did not have Holding, Marshall, Garner and Roberts in his side who could defend even a total of 180, something which gives a batsman more freedom to play his `natural game`.
I`m not, for a moment implying that Tendulkar owns Viv as an ODI batsman or something but it clearly is`nt one sided like Tum Tum makes it sound. The variety of challenges that Tendulkar has faced, the different attacks that he has faced and the different eras in which he has scored runs and continues to do so successfully even today, makes me go for Tendulkar.
The bowling quality in the 90s was not bad at all. 300 was still a very big total then and sides very rarely chased that. Tendulkar played a major chunk of his cricket in that era as well which we must not forget.
aditya123 added 13 Minutes and 38 Seconds later...
Also, Tum Tum, if we but your theory that technology is useless and has had no impact on how teams are better prepared these days, how do you explain certain bowlers just bursting onto the scene the way Mendis does. When we say that his mystery has worn off, what we refer to is that the batsman have figured him out. For a minute, let us assume that India only figured out Mendis because they played them a gazillion times since the Asia Cup. Technology does exactly the same thing. The analysis which can be done using technology cuts down on the learning curve against X batsman or bowler. Teams tend to play a lot more cricket these days and hence playing 20 yrs worth of cricket without getting figured out, technology or no technology, flat wickets or not, is not an easy thing. Had it been that easy, Ravi Bopara would be scoring truck loads of ODI runs and Philip Hughes would be invincible.
aditya123 added 7 Minutes and 4 Seconds later...
This point does not make much sense. A SR of 90 is a SR of 90, be it the 80s, 90s or now. Its just that more people now know that a SR of 90+ is`nt as herculean a task and hence more and more batsmen are scoring at that rate. However, to keep up a SR of 90 and an AVERAGE (Tum Tum please listen
) for 21 long years is what is to be taken note of. 21 years of ODI cricket in the 90s and 2000s is more cricket than a career of same length spanning the 70s and 80s. Its hard to argue that a player won`t get figured out during such a long timespan.
Last edited:
