The Greatest ODI Batsman: Tendulkar vs Richards

[TumTum]

READ. READ. How many times do I say do not pick and choose. You are entirely ignoring every single posts. Even if you have old tapes of games in the 80s that means nothing. The quality of the picture, the way they use slow motions show exactly where the ball pitches, how much the ball moves. Go on youtube and type in Viv Richards wickets and you will see the difference in tapes. TumTum, do you study for an exam worth 50% of your mark? Most likely yes. Why because you want to know everything and have everything memorized for the exam. I highly doubt your just going to go into the exam and wing it thinking your going to get a good mark...because 99 times out of 100, your going to fail.

Convert this into sports, if a player knows that later on in an inning this player slows down due to hours of studying the players. He will have a better opportunity to get him out. This is not a sport thing, this is 100% science and it is proven in studies and works in education and sports. Now I will agree you cannot prove that it gives an advantage for bowlers. However, you said technology has no impact on the game today....100% wrong.

But that is ALL theory.

None of this "research" can be proven to have an effect in real cricket.

 

[Dare]

Did I say anything in that post, Sachin is greatest? Reread the post.

He can go to any limit to disapprove Sachin is greatest.

Read your own post dude.

Bowlers have improved their bowling from last decade that's it.

Dude you aint making any sense. You missed my point completely. What do you mean by last decade?

I was talking about the time when pitches were uncovered, when the batsman had tiny ass gloves, little or no helmet and had to put up with 6 bouncers per every over. That aint last decade thats long time ago.

 

[ballers101]

But that is ALL theory.

None of this "research" can be proven to have an effect in real cricket.

No its not. It is proven. Not throughcricket but through other sports it is proven by science. And it is proven by science that by studying your opponent you find out their weaknesses and when you use it to your advantage most times the subject is successful. Cricket is a sport, unless you want to have some ridiculous debate that its not a sport. Great example of this, UFC before a fight these fighters go through hours of studying so they can counter their opponent. Same thing in cricket you figure out at what points this batsmen is vunerable due to technology and you tear them apart using this method.

 

[Gurjot95]

Read your own post dude.

You better reread my previous edited post . Anyways I will write it again -He just want to proves fact that any great batsman is better than Sachin whereas I found stupid to compare the two players from completely different era's. Both era's have their good and bad points for batting.

Dude you aint making any sense. You missed my point completely. What do you mean by last decade?

I was talking about the time when pitches were uncovered, when the batsman had tiny ass gloves, little or no helmet and had to put up with 6 bouncers per every over. That aint last decade thats long time ago.

Bowlers in mid 80's < Modern Day bowlers. Bowlers are now much more improved than mid 80's. I know you will say with subcontinent it's easy to bat but with many great bowlers are available in this era. It's not easy to bat against them. I know there were many bowlers in that era also which was very difficult to face but it doesn't make the bowlers are now crap.

Skill improves with the time goes.

 

[Dare]

No its not. It is proven. Not throughcricket but through other sports it is proven by science. And it is proven by science that by studying your opponent you find out their weaknesses and when you use it to your advantage most times the subject is successful. Cricket is a sport, unless you want to have some ridiculous debate that its not a sport. Great example of this, UFC before a fight these fighters go through hours of studying so they can counter their opponent. Same thing in cricket you figure out at what points this batsmen is vunerable due to technology and you tear them apart using this method.

So wouldn't the batsman do the same thing and have another point in his favor in this batsman's game. So wouldn't it be easier for Sachin to face a bowler if he has studied the films and harder for Viv because he didn't have that option. Not that Viv would because he wasn't that kind of batsman and doesn't seem to be that kind of person.

 

[ballers101]

So wouldn't the batsman do the same thing and have another point in his favor in this batsman's game. So wouldn't it be easier for Sachin to face a bowler if he has studied the films and harder for Viv because he didn't have that option. Not that Viv would because he wasn't that kind of batsman and doesn't seem to be that kind of person.

That's not the argument....TumTum thinks that Technology has absolutely no impact on cricket.

Yes it would work both ways nevertheless.

 

[drainpipe32]

Bowlers in mid 80's < Modern Day bowlers.

No. Sorry. No.

 

[Gurjot95]

So wouldn't the batsman do the same thing and have another point in his favor in this batsman's game. So wouldn't it be easier for Sachin to face a bowler if he has studied the films and harder for Viv because he didn't have that option. Not that Viv would because he wasn't that kind of batsman and doesn't seem to be that kind of person.

So you do agree that Technology has affect on Modern game.

 

[Dare]

You better reread my previous edited post . Anyways I will wirite it again -He just want to proves fact that any great batsman is better than Sachin whereas I found stupid to compare the two players from completely different era's. Both era's have their good and bad points for batting.

Thats better.

Bowlers in mid 80's < Modern Day bowlers. Bowlers are now much more improved than mid 80's. I know you will say with subcontinent it's easy to bat but with many great bowlers are available in this era. It's not easy to bat against them. I know there were many bowlers in that era also which was very difficult to face but it doesn't make the bowlers are now crap.

It still doesn't mean that its harder for the bowlers of today then it was for the bowlers that bowled before the pitches got covered. I wont say its easy in the subcontinent because its generally easier to bat everywhere not just in the subcontinent.
Also the bowlers of the 80s weren't lesser then the ones from today. The skills that Hadlee, Imran, Marshall, Garner had are no less than what the guys of today posses, they are probably greater.

Skill improves with the time goes.

Not really. You will have a hard time finding a more skilled fast bowler then Malcolm Marshall.

Dare added 6 Minutes and 33 Seconds later...

So you do agree that Technology has affect on Modern game.

Technology impacts everything including cricket but in cricket if you are building a bowling plan according to technology it can be affected by the pitch, the ball, the weather it can fail you allot more then lets say basketball or UFC which was previously used.
England use technology probably more then any but in the test in Barbados they let Ramdin make 150+ because it was probably the flattest wicket the world has seen.

 

[Gurjot95]

Also the bowlers of the 80s weren't lesser then the ones from today. The skills that Hadlee, Imran, Marshall, Garner had are no less than what the guys of today posses, they are probably greater.

They are greatest of all time. I know Legend bowlers were there in that era's but that doesn't mean this era bowlers are crap. All teams have improved their bowling (except India ofcourse). It is difficult to to play now with amount of new techniques bowlers have introduced.

That again comes to fact that both era's have good and bad points so comparing these two batsman doesn't make any sense.

 

[TumTum]

That again comes to fact that both era's have good and bad points so comparing these two batsman doesn't make any sense.

The only way you can compare them is by judging them to their peers.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

No. Sorry. No.

Actually, on average, players are better now than back then. There are those exceptional cases of bowlers like Marshall, Hadlee, Dev, Imran Khan, Barnes, Qadir, etc. etc., but you pick up an average domestic bowler or batsman and he is likely to compare poorly with an average domestic bowler or batsman in this era. Cricket is more competitive now, more people play, more money goes into it, coaching and facilities are better, there should be no doubt that players currently are more well rounded and are more highly skilled than those of the past. Fast bowlers are bowling faster, spinners are more accurate, batsmen hit harder and run faster between the wickets, fielding and fitness standards are better all over...

But seeing as we're talking about International cricket, where it is the best players of each nation against each other, this point probably doesn't count (except for fielding and fitness).

 

[Dare]

They are greatest of all time. I know Legend bowlers were there in that era's but that doesn't mean this era bowlers are crap. All teams have improved their bowling (except India ofcourse). It is difficult to to play now with amount of new techniques bowlers have introduced.

Nobody is saying bowlers of today are crap, just that it was easier for a bowler back in the day and thats why some people rate the batsman of the past better then the ones of today.

Actually, on average, players are better now than back then.There are those exceptional cases of bowlers like Marshall, Hadlee, Dev, Imran Khan, Barnes, Qadir, etc. etc., but you pick up an average domestic bowler or batsman and he is likely to compare poorly with an average domestic bowler or batsman in this era. Cricket is more competitive now, more people play, more money goes into it, coaching and facilities are better, there should be no doubt that players currently are more well rounded and are more highly skilled than those of the past. Fast bowlers are bowling faster, spinners are more accurate, batsmen hit harder and run faster between the wickets, fielding and fitness standards are better all over...

Look at all the "average" batsman and bowlers the WI had from the 70s and 80s that played domestic cricket in England and how well they did. Wayne Daniel and Sylvester Clarke the best examples and there were many from other countries.
Dont understand how you can say that cricket is more competitive now especially when you listen or read comments from former players about the competition between the players and teams back then.
There is no way to say that cricketers of today are more skilled then cricketers from the past. You had tailenders that could bat and field well back then just like you have them today. Who is to say that Sachin, Lara, Ponting are more skilled then Bradman, Sobers and Gavaskar and how would you determine that or that McGrath, Wasim, Donald are more skilled then Hadlee, Marshall and Lille. No way to determine that.
Also fast bowlers arent bowling faster today. There was probably more bowlers bowling faster back in the day because they could last longer and were in much better physical shape.
Which batsman can hit harder then Viv or Sobers, and if they do is it those huge bats they hold or their natural strength, I think its the bats.
Ill give you the fielding but there were great examples of that back in the day just like there are today but the fitness is not something I would agree on.

 

[drainpipe32]

TBH I'd like to see Friend face Hadlee, Imran, Akram, Dev, Lillee and Thomson on uncovered pitches with no protection.

And then if he's still alive he can come back and play on flat decks against mostly average bowlers.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

You're not reading my post right.

Dont understand how you can say that cricket is more competitive now especially when you listen or read comments from former players about the competition between the players and teams back then.

Not competition between teams, but competition for a spot in the teams. Same number of domestic teams as before, but more players fighting for a spot.

There is no way to say that cricketers of today are more skilled then cricketers from the past. You had tailenders that could bat and field well back then just like you have them today. Who is to say that Sachin, Lara, Ponting are more skilled then Bradman, Sobers and Gavaskar and how would you determine that or that McGrath, Wasim, Donald are more skilled then Hadlee, Marshall and Lille. No way to determine that.

I said on average. Look at my post:

There are those exceptional cases of bowlers like Marshall, Hadlee, Dev, Imran Khan, Barnes, Qadir, etc. etc., but you pick up an average domestic bowler or batsman and he is likely to compare poorly with an average domestic bowler or batsman in this era.

But seeing as we're talking about International cricket, where it is the best players of each nation against each other, this point probably doesn't count (except for fielding and fitness).

As for determining it, I'm going by the fact that there are many very trained coaches in the world now days, and facilities in general have improved. Bowlers, for example, even at associate level have several variations. Infact, just watching cricket at the level of UAE or Hong Kong reveals a lot, because the gulf between a cricketer at associate level and someone who plays it as a hobby now is HUGE, and we know the gap between associate level and test level is very big too. Yes the past players who played for these associate sides in the past were pretty average.

Even domestic cricket in places like England shows a lot more talent (Albeit due to all the foreign players), and there are several players from like 30 years back who might not have been good enough for domestic cricket now-days.

Also fast bowlers arent bowling faster today. There was probably more bowlers bowling faster back in the day because they could last longer and were in much better physical shape.

Actually, bowlers are bowling faster now-days than before. Look at how many bowlers on the current international scene are capable of hitting 90 MPH. Broad, Anderson, Onions, Siddle, Johnson, Nannes, Tait, Aamer, Gul, Steyn, Malinga, Edwards, Taylor, Roach. And there are several more who aren't on the international scene who are capable of such speeds (Napier, Harmison, Shahzad come to mind). And I'm sure I'm missing a few names from that list.

The thing is, these players don't hit such speeds frequently due to the amount of cricket they have to play. But improvements in coaching have lead to better and more efficient bowling actions designed to allow high speeds with minimal injuries.

As for fitness, yes, there were tons of cricketers back in the day who were in great shape. But at the same time, there were tons who would not be fit for cricket as it is today. Most of these players were either not of international quality, or played for Asian teams. But now day the fitness levels of the average cricketer is much higher.


At International level, this all doesn't matter. Just saying that as a general statement (Players now-days are better than those in the past), it isn't wrong. Applied to International cricket though, it is (Well, except for fielding )