The Greatest ODI Batsman: Tendulkar vs Richards

[TumTum]

The thing is...

1) Fielding standards are much, much higher now than they were back in Viv's time.

2) Sachin plays SO much more cricket, yet his body is able to handle it and he's been delivering the goods for so long. It's non-stop cricket, the fact that he can maintain this record despite barely having a break is incredible.

3) Technology has come to a point where bowlers can analyse everything a batsman does before a match, even down to the smallest details. The smallest movements, flaws, weaknesses. Sachin has been under scrutiny and studied by bowlers for all these years, 2 decades, and they have yet to find a way to contain him.

4) Sachin opens the batting, ie new ball in swinging conditions. Viv batted in the middle order. So they had two different roles - Sachin isn't meant to score at a strike rate of 90, his job is usually to bat through the innings while Viv's was to demolish the opposition bowling. Sachin has shown himself capable of tearing bowling attacks apart when needed to, but hasn't done it that often.



Now, what plays in Viv's favour were the better pitches for bowling, no fielding restrictions (which Sachin enjoys as an opener), and he never wore a helmet.

But the incredible fitness and longevity of Sachin, and his ability to keep churning out runs despite all the travelling, hectic schedules, media attention, scrutiny and planning and studying from the opposing team is just incredible. Almost super-human. And that's why I pick him.

Mate that is a complete fail analysis.

1) How do you know fielding standards are higher now? Most teams have the most crappiest fielding you will ever see.

2) So Sachin has played a lot of matches, that doesn't constitute with his cricketing ability whatsoever.

3) Cricket is not a technology game mate. Bowlers are still human and not robots. They still bowl to a batsmen's strength even to this day. And that will never change.

4) Pitches were much more difficult to bat on in the 80s, Sachin has the luxury now to come in the SC conditions and face a hard new ball that just races through the dry outfield.

 

[drainpipe32]

I think you've interpreted his argument wrong Tum. All his points are perfect, the only thing you've got on him is the quality of pitches.

Would just like to add smaller bats and longer boundaries.

 

[Gurjot95]

1) How do you know fielding standards are higher now? Most teams have the most crappiest fielding you will ever see.

2) So Sachin has played a lot of matches, that doesn't constitute with his cricketing ability whatsoever.

3) Cricket is not a technology game mate. Bowlers are still human and not robots. They still bowl to a batsmen's strength even to this day. And that will never change.

4) Pitches were much more difficult to bat on in the 80s, Sachin has the luxury now to come in the SC conditions and face a hard new ball that just races through the dry outfield.

1) If you look at teams like SA, Aus, NZ. They are one of the best fielding team. Fielding has vastly improved compared to 80's.

2)Can any player maintain consistency for 20 years with his body getting older? If that was the case, then I dont think any player needs to retire.

3)With the latest technology you can't escape from being out. You can't now even think getting safe with numerous replays.

4)I agree but you also have to understand the fact that bowlers are now much more strong and pace is another reason, yet he averages 43 outside subcontinent despite the fact that he bats with billion people hopes on him.

Overall- Both batsman has played in different eras so I think it's stupid to compare these two of different genres. Both have dominated in their era's. Both are Legends so why we need to decide who is No.1 when both are from different era's.

 

[TumTum]

1) If you look at teams like SA, Aus, NZ. They are one of the best fielding team. Fielding has vastly improved compared to 80's.

Yeah those 3 teams are very good. But what can be said about the 6 others?

In those days, WI have played mostly against Aus and Eng, who were quite decent fielding sides.

 

[yashwanth kumar]

I haven't seen VIV's Batting but i still feel Sachin is the master

 

[shravi]

Yeah those 3 teams are very good. But what can be said about the 6 others?

In those days, WI have played mostly against Aus and Eng, who were quite decent fielding sides.

They have still improved, just not as much as those 3 teams. You always hear commentators impressed with how fast bowlers are throwing themselves around these days, saying that they would have never seen that when they were playing. Fielding standards have most definitely improved.

 

[jitenpatel]

One cant compare two legends from different eras. totally different styles, situations and conditions.

A Tendulkar vs Ponting or a Tendulkar vs Lara makes more sense than a comparison with Viv or Bradman.

 

[Gaurav_7]

It all happens here. The thing is Indians want to prove Sachin is the greatest while non-Indians want to prove the opposite.

 

[Cricketman]

:rtfl:rtfl Is this a joke? Two examples -

1. He was placed at the #7th spot back in 2001 in ESPN's '25 Greatest Cricketer's of All Time'. The list was compiled by 15 men, most of them being former greats and a few of them being highly respected cricketer analyst. Here's the link - ESPN Legends of Cricket - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. He was placed at the #9th spot recently in 2009 by Christopher Martin Jenkins in his '100 Greatest Test Cricketers of All Time. Here's the link - Don Bradman's star would shine in any era - Times Online


Not to mention he found a place in Bradman's Dream Team, ahead of Viv Richards at the number 4 spot.


P.S. He also found a place in Richie Benaud's Dream Team - Murali misses out in Benaud's Greatest XI | Cricket News | Global | Cricinfo.com

Not to mention that he was ranked #1 on Shane Warne's top 100 cricketers.

 

[sifter132]

Not to mention that he was ranked #1 on Shane Warne's top 100 cricketers.

Hmmm, the same guy who says Yusuf Pathan's century last week was the best he'd ever seen. Yeah, slogging Ali Murtaza and Rajagopal Sathish is the stuff of legends...

2)Can any player maintain consistency for 20 years with his body getting older? If that was the case, then I dont think any player needs to retire.

Viv played 17 years and as I said - it's not his fault that they didn't play as many ODIs back then. Instead he played county cricket in England.
Here's Viv's career:
121 Tests
187 ODIs
507 First Class
500 List A
By days played:
Tests:121 x 5
+First class: (507-121) x 3
+OD: 500 x 1
=Total: 605 + 1158 + 500 = 2263 days of cricket maximum

And Sachin's:
166 Tests
442 ODIs
1 T20I
268 First Class
529 List A
29 T20
By days played:
Tests:166 x 5
+First class: (268-166) x 3
+OD: 529 x 1
+T20: 29 x 1
=Total: 830 + 306 + 529 + 29 = 1694 days of cricket maximum

And yet apparently Sachin is some marvel. Viv played more total cricket in less time. He just played county cricket instead of ODIs.

 

[Cricketman]

Why are first class matches being multiplied by 3? They are 4 day matches.

The lack of first class matches for Sachin is due to the fact that he debuted in international cricket at the age of 16. He's been a regular fixture in the team since. And besides, there is a clear difference in preparation, psychology, and ability when it comes to comparing first class and international cricket.

That is another quality that I feel shows his sheer genius in batting - his ability to tackle Wasim, Waqar, etc at the tender age of 16 with aplomb. Just a few months later he was cracking international hundreds, and the ones in Sydney and Perth were just amazing.

Then he started opening in ODIs, and in the 90s he asserted himself as the world's best cricketer. He's kept that going, shifting gears as he ages but that aggressive monster still lies inside of him, as shown by his recent 200* and blitzing performances in the IPL.

 

[Robelinda]

That is another quality that I feel shows his sheer genius in batting - his ability to tackle Wasim, Waqar, etc at the tender age of 16 with aplomb. Just a few months later he was cracking international hundreds, and the ones in Sydney and Perth were just amazing.

More than a few months between 1989 and 1992. Sachin didnt look all that great during the 1990 tour of England, or for much of the 91/92 Aus tour outside of the two tons, even though they were excellent. He was found out by SA too early on, but recovered well. Still, greatr stuff for someone so young.

 

[sifter132]

Why are first class matches being multiplied by 3? They are 4 day matches.

The lack of first class matches for Sachin is due to the fact that he debuted in international cricket at the age of 16. He's been a regular fixture in the team since. And besides, there is a clear difference in preparation, psychology, and ability when it comes to comparing first class and international cricket.

I used 3 because if I used 4 it favours Viv and I didn't want to be soon as too biased in my post

And yeah without doubt international matches are harder than playing county cricket, I'm just debunking the myth that the modern guys play a heap more cricket. A heap more INTERNATIONAL cricket - yes. But even if I weighted internationals twice as hard as first class, Viv still wins.

 

[ahmed shah]

i would say sachin tendulkar he looks more solid then anyone

 

[Gurjot95]

That was not my point. I replied to TumTum who said age doesn't affect cricket ability. It affects but maintaining the same consistence for whole cricket life is just brilliant. Jaya, Viv, Lara and Sachin are one of examples and that's why they are called Legends.