Tendulkar - The Greatest Ever?

[Illinois Nazi]

Who would you rather watch make a ton from a pure spectacle point of view?

In the next couple of days Hughes, Watson or Khawaja would be nice.

 

[Bombertastic]

I keep bringing this up. Consider first that I do in fact believe that Bradman is the best ever. However there are a few things to consider.

Bradman mainly played England and Australia and didn't experience cricket under all conditions. Although pitches were "uncovered" in that era when the conditions were good (more often then not) the pitches were utter roads to compensate in case of bad weather.

Also he is from an era of amateur cricket and apart from a couple of good bowlers the fill ins were average club bowlers at best.

Fielding is another point and certainly there were few classic catches of the era and a good drive was often escorted to the boundry rather then chased.

Then there is the fact that a lot of top order batsman had averages in the high 50's and even 60's. Yes he was a lot better then even any of them. All I'm saying is that everyone always plays the "uncovered pitches" card and they probably should just leave is alone.

 

[Bombertastic]

Who would you rather watch make a ton from a pure spectacle point of view?

Lara, Tendulkar, Chappell, V.Richards, Sangakara, Ponting, Sobers, Gower, others?

Tendulkar is a great batsmen but in terms of just watching him bat, he ain't that great to watch compared to most other greats. Anybody agree?

I disagree. He has actually curbed his game a lot in recent years and fair enough. During his lean time a few years ago he got out a lot to a huge drive. He's learned what Ponting needs to. Still he is graceful in his elegance and simplicity at the crease. Richards was awesome and would head that list for me but Tendulkar would not be far behind. Lot of left handers there, you can keep them all. JK Lara is the pick of the bunch.

 

[djrossie16]

Viv Richards was a revolutionary type of batsman for the way he played on the pitches and bowlers he had to contend with. If he could average 50 playing the way he did in that era. He could well average 60 now who knows. He must have had tremendous hand eye coordination, to be so successful hitting the ball so hard.

 

[Jimthegreat]

I keep bringing this up. Consider first that I do in fact believe that Bradman is the best ever. However there are a few things to consider.

Bradman mainly played England and Australia and didn't experience cricket under all conditions. Although pitches were "uncovered" in that era when the conditions were good (more often then not) the pitches were utter roads to compensate in case of bad weather.

Also he is from an era of amateur cricket and apart from a couple of good bowlers the fill ins were average club bowlers at best.

Fielding is another point and certainly there were few classic catches of the era and a good drive was often escorted to the boundry rather then chased.

Then there is the fact that a lot of top order batsman had averages in the high 50's and even 60's. Yes he was a lot better then even any of them. All I'm saying is that everyone always plays the "uncovered pitches" card and they probably should just leave is alone.

And we keep coming back to how far ahead he was of the players of his era.

Ask anyone how much of an amateur club bowler Harold Larwood was during bodyline, remembering pitches were uncovered. Back luck if you don't like that line of thinking. Be way, way harder than batting on sub-continent roads. Bradman would've only increased his average on those.

 

[Mint Condition]

Yet on the same "roads" Ponting, one of the greats of the era, averages 20 odd and Lara, one of the other greats, averaged 33.

Indian pitches are just another different type of challenge for batsmen. Some thrive, some do not.

 

[Spook]

I wouldn't even rate Tendulkar above Lara. Lara was a far more destructive batsmen who could played innings far above anyone we've ever witnessed.
This era has been an era of high averages due to batsmen friendly pitches and a decline in the quality of world pace bowling. Tendulkar plays way too much cricket on spin friendly wickets with the best spin bowlers being in his own team. So I just can't accept him as even the 2nd best batsmen.

Really mate, have you been watching the cricket today/tonight? Tendulkar another not out ton on a wicket doing a lot with Steyn bowling 146 km/h.

Also you say Sachin only played against the next best spinners! have you heard of blokes called Warne and Murali who he played against most of his career?

And why should wickets only be pace friendly? Because thats how they are in Australia? That's sounds pretty biased mate? We aren't the centre of the cricketing world you know... it is an international sport you know, not only Australian.
Do you know what his average in Australia is? Well its 58.54. That's while Australia went through our best ever run.

He may not be the second best in your opinion and that's fine but don't use bull shit to back up your argument or you will look (and do look) like a dill.


Batsman friendly pitches hey??? have a look at the ball that just got him out for 146 and tell me that's a road

 

[Damon_3388]

Viv Richards was a revolutionary type of batsman for the way he played on the pitches and bowlers he had to contend with. If he could average 50 playing the way he did in that era. He could well average 60 now who knows. He must have had tremendous hand eye coordination, to be so successful hitting the ball so hard.

I never saw Richards play during his prime (born in 1988), but watching some of his great one day innings on Fox Sports' World Series Classics, he was simply awesome. He'll smack a boundary or a six, and you'll just marvel at it and wonder how the hell he did it, as often the ball will be full on his pads, no width to speak of, and won't even adjust his feet, he'll just stand and deliver with an easy flick of the wrist. Amazing.

Also, just out of interest...

Tendulkar's last 12 months - 24 innings, 1,708 runs, 81.33 average, 8 centuries, 5 half centuries

Kallis' last 12 months - 20 innings, 1,359 runs, 84.93 average, 7 centuries, 2 half centuries

Ponting's last 12 months - 23 innings, 813 runs, 36.95 average, 1 century, 6 half centuries

 

[Dagger5]

This should end all debate about Ponting being in the same bracket as him.

Tendulkar and Lara are the best I have seen and then in the tier below you would have Ponting, Dravid, Kallis and Sangakarra.

 

[Big John]

For me the past 12-18 months have lifted Tendulkar well above any other batters in his era's. That is Ponting, Kallis, Lara, whoever. To do what he has done for as long as he has is remarkable.

That is not to say he isn't the best cricketer of his time (I think Murali, Warne, Mcgrath and Gilcrhrist have claims as well), but clearly the Don is the greatest cricketer of all time.

Make all the arguments you want, but averages then were lower than now and over a 20 year career the Don was pretty much twice as good as any of his contempories and anyone before or after.

 

[Crickfan]

Who would you rather watch make a ton from a pure spectacle point of view?

Lara, Tendulkar, Chappell, V.Richards, Sangakara, Ponting, Sobers, Gower, others?

Tendulkar is a great batsmen but in terms of just watching him bat, he ain't that great to watch compared to most other greats. Anybody agree?

Nope, disagree. But he is not at the top of my list either in terms of who I would like to watch making a ton. In order of preference (considered batsmen who have scored at least 7K in runs)

V Richards
Gower
Lara
Sobers
VVS Laxman
Tendulkar
Zaheer Abbas
Azharuddin
G Chapell
Aravinda De Silva
Jayawardene
Gilchrist
Sangakarra
S Ganguly
Yousuf
Inzamam
Greenidge
M Crowe
Vengsarkar
Ponting
Gavaskar
Hayden
S Malik
Dravid
Kallis
Gooch
S Waugh
Miandad
Border
Chanderpaul

 

[Crickfan]

I wouldn't even rate Tendulkar above Lara. Lara was a far more destructive batsmen who could played innings far above anyone we've ever witnessed.

This era has been an era of high averages due to batsmen friendly pitches and a decline in the quality of world pace bowling.

Tendulkar plays way too much cricket on spin friendly wickets with the best spin bowlers being in his own team. So I just can't accept him as even the 2nd best batsmen.

1)
Here is how Tendulkar performed from debut until start of 2002 (round about the time when the era of great bowlers ended and were replaced by bowlers a notch below)

89 tests, 143 innings, 15 no, 7419 runs, avg of 57.96, 27 100's and 30 50's.

Also, Tendulkar's numbers (restated when Zim & Bang are eliminated)

81 tests, 131 innings, 13 no, 6737 runs, avg of 57.09, 25 100's and 27 50's.


Here is how those numbers compare with Lara's (debut until start of 2002)

83 tests, 147 innings, 4 no, 7221 runs, avg of 50.49, 18 100's and 34 50's

In order to equate the averages, if I grant Lara 15 not outs during this period (same as Tendulkars), then Lara's average works out to 54.70.


2)
Here is Tendulkar's numbers (no Zim or Bangladesh) from debut until start of 2002 -- when playing abroad:

44 tests, 70 innings, 7 no, 3527 runs, avg of 55.98, 14 100's and 14 50's

Since the next argument is likely to be how he performed against pace bowling in countries where the pitches are not "roads" -- whatever "roads" is supposed to connotate, here is Tendulkar's record (no Zim or Bangladesh or any sub continental teams) from debut until start of 2002 -- when playing abroad:

34 tests, 70 innings, 5 no, 2642 runs, avg of 51.80, 10 100's and 10 50's.

Even with this stipulation and similar number of not outs to Lara (so no avg inflation due to no's), it appears that Tendulkar's average (51.80) is right on par with Lara's average (50.49) during the prime period of pace bowling the world over.


So you can choose Lara over Tendulkar, no problems, but using the argument that Tendulkar didnt score against quality pace bowling while Lara did is just a figment of your imagination.



For the record,

Here is how Tendulkar has performed since (2002 until now, including the 2+ years when he had a mediocre average as he struggled with injuries) --

88 tests, 146 innings, 16 no, 7259 runs, avg of 55.84, 24 100's and 29 50's

The same period (when adjusted for minnows):

80 tests, 135 innings, 13 no, 6203 runs, avg of 50.84, 18 100's and 29 50's.

The same period (when adjusted for minnows) while playing abroad

43 tests, 73 innings, 5 no, 3544 runs, avg of 52.11, 10 100's and 16 50's.

and finally, the same period (when adjusted for minnows as well as subcontinental teams) while playing abroad:

31 tests, 55 innings, 4 no, 2791 runs, avg of 54.72, 8 100's and 16 50's


And here is Lara since beginning of 2002 until his retirement (adjusted for minnows).

44 tests, 79 innings, 2 no, 4337 runs, avg of 56.32, 14 100's and 13 50's


As can be seen, Tendulkar (in large part due to his injury riddled 2 years) has been bested by many players including Ponting, Kallis, Yousuf, Jayawardene, Sangakarra, Lara and many others during the time period in question. But this is precisely the time period when the standards of bowling dropped worldwide.

if anything ,tendulkar did not / could not capitalize on relatively easy pickings during this time while others did.

His record during the glory days of his bowling is next to none in the modern era. So your premise about him not having played the best pace bowlers is faulty.

 

[bullish23]

I can recall AB's testimonial match. It was the first one ever done, and it was a more serious affair then the others that tended to follow afterwards. G Pollock must have been around 50 years of age at the time and I can remember him smacking Craig McDermott to all parts of the ground. McDermott was not bowling half hearted either. The way he played was so graceful and effortless. Dad said to me at that time 'thats why he is only second to Bradman'. I went away and read up on his stats and they were remarkable.

Tendulkar is friggen good though. His desire to keep churning out the runs staggers, and he made an impact as an 18yr old in Australia when we were on the up. Must be a close call between Pollock and Tendulkar.

When you read about Bradman though the mind can't really comprehend it. Whenever you watch the cricket, espicially the past 10 years where Australia has dominated, whenever a a highest partnership or highest score at a particular ground was achieved, the man who previously held the record was inevitably Bradman.

Richie Benaud's best story is about Bradman. A young Benaud who has just cracked the NSW side is sitting in the sheds talking to Keith Miller. A young Richie says to Miller 'Geez I wish I had the chance to bowl to Bradman'. Keith looks at a young Richie and replies 'Son, the good lord gives everyone a lucky break in life, and that was yours'. Brilliant.

 

[Alpha1]

I think you guys need to get the DVD of this match SA v India to watch a legend show courage and determination v Steyn on fire, some of the most brilliant cricket I have seen in a long time.

Just goes to show why Tendulkar is a great and why Steyn is the best bowler in world cricket by a country mile, this was full on intense stuff, both of them not backing down and going head on against each other, who said Test cricket wasd dead?

 

[Partridge]

Who would you rather watch make a ton from a pure spectacle point of view?

Lara, Tendulkar, Chappell, V.Richards, Sangakara, Ponting, Sobers, Gower, others?

Tendulkar is a great batsmen but in terms of just watching him bat, he ain't that great to watch compared to most other greats. Anybody agree?

For me personally, probably Viv first, then Lara second. Viv in his prime was something else.

I must say I never saw Sobers, but from all accounts he must have been pretty damn useful too.

 

[sherb]

For me personally, probably Viv first, then Lara second. Viv in his prime was something else.

I must say I never saw Sobers, but from all accounts he must have been pretty damn useful too.

The thing with Sobers was that people refer to him as the greatest all-rounder of all time (which I think he was).

However, his batting alone made him a great (8,000 odd Test runs at 57 ish). The bowling and fielding was just a bonus.

The 254 at Melbourne in 71/72 was the most marvellous innings I have seen.

 

[djrossie16]

I never saw Richards play during his prime (born in 1988), but watching some of his great one day innings on Fox Sports' World Series Classics, he was simply awesome. He'll smack a boundary or a six, and you'll just marvel at it and wonder how the hell he did it, as often the ball will be full on his pads, no width to speak of, and won't even adjust his feet, he'll just stand and deliver with an easy flick of the wrist. Amazing.

Also, just out of interest...

Tendulkar's last 12 months - 24 innings, 1,708 runs, 81.33 average, 8 centuries, 5 half centuries

Kallis' last 12 months - 20 innings, 1,359 runs, 84.93 average, 7 centuries, 2 half centuries

Ponting's last 12 months - 23 innings, 813 runs, 36.95 average, 1 century, 6 half centuries

yeah i never saw him live but seen a fair amount of footage from world series classics and talk from the oldies. At the very least he is the best one day batsman of all time. Just ridiculous that he still holds the fastest test hundred of all time. When it happened people must have been like "well that's different!".

Also had the most runs in a year for ages until Yousuf took the record on flat tracks pitches.

 

[Parquet Court]

agree with sir viv and lara being a ton you just have to see for yourself, never had the chance to see sir viv in full flight but those fox sports classics have given me an image of him in full flight.

lara making a ton was also a sight to behold because he usually went on and made 150 plus, that 170 odd he made at adelaide when funky miller was the spinner due to warney getting rubbed out was amazing to watch, made a mockery of those square boundaries.

may not go down to well on this board but we could be saying the same thing about ian bell in 7-8 years time if he gets his bum into gear

 

[Andrew Mc]

Was looking at the all time series scorers (Cook is rising up that list pretty quickly) and wanted to see where Tendulkar was on that list. Seems he's not even close to the top - not that it's his fault - he's played just 3 5 Test series in his career, and just 10 4 Test series (41 3's, and 57 2's). Perhaps that's the key to longevity - lots of little series. And his best effort - 493 runs in the 2007/2008 4 Test series in Aus. A long way short of the 829 Richards plundered in 4 Tests against England in 1976.

 

[Sharkey]

not even a close comparison, its Bradman first, daylight second and then the likes of Tendulkar, G Chappell, Kallis even; third.

 

[King Elvis]

Bradman basically scored a ton every single time he walked out to bat.

Who is the best of all time isn't even a discussion.

 

[nobbyiscool]

i wont profess to rate the don, i never saw him play. stats suggest he was pretty handy though...

ive been watching cricket 20 years - but tendulkar is not the best batsman ive seen in my time, that honour goes to brian lara. the most beautiful batsman to watch, even i enjoyed him destroying australia in sydney, then over 10 years later in adelaide - the latter is i think the best innings i've ever seen.

i guess i have no such memories of tendulkar, he never captured my imagination the way lara did.

overall, as cricketers, lara, tendulkar and warne are the best i've seen, but lara just shades the other 2

 

[Jesse Custer]

From what i've seen, Tendulkar is the greatest batsman.

 

[QPower]

Silly to rate him like that...not close

 

[Upgrayedd]

About the same