Word Salad with no logic.
Sachin Tendulkar averages 53.6 which is way above the threshold of 50 for an atg, on the other hand Anderson averages 26.8 which is not even below 25.
Lets ignore that for some time, Sachin averages more than 40 in every country and has an away average of 50+.
Anderson averages 30 away from home which is mediocre.
Sachin is not comparable to a longevity merchant like Anderson, unlike Andy he had both quality and quantity.
Also, Anderson was never anywhere close to Dale Steyn, similarly all three of Rabada, Bumrah and Cummins have more quality and will definitely retire with better numbers.
Just because Anderson got most wickets doesn’t mean he is anywhere close to actual ATGs, why do you need to dumb down these stats by measuring only quantity. Is actual stats based analysis too difficult to understand.?
Also, will runs start flowing in 2025 for Babar, i mean in other formats as he has been kicked out of t20s?
“it is fair to say that Tendulkar was a slightly juiced up batting version of Anderson, or Anderson was a slightly inferior bowling version of Tendulkar.”
I clearly recognize the fact that Tendulkar is a superior version because his average of 53 is better than Anderson’s average of 26. However, there a lot of parallels between the two because almost all of their records are longevity-based. They are accumulations.
No Indian can explain and justify without deflection why Tendulkar never scored 500+ runs in a Test series when it has been achieved by several Indian batsmen (30 instances) including by Dravid who played in the same era.
In addition, no Indian can explain why he never scored a 300, or why he doesn’t have the most 200s in spite of playing the most innings or why he has one of the worst MOM/MOS to matches played ratio in history and why you find his name in the top 5 run scorers in a calendar year in spite of playing for 24 years.
Apart from a 3-4 year stretch in mid to late 90’s, Tendulkar was never the best Test batsman in the world. He just had the longest career. This is another parallel between him and Anderson, who was also never the best Test bowler in the world for more than 2-3 years in his career.
The only difference between players like Tendulkar and other 50+ averaging batsmen is the number of Test matches played. That is it.
Should he get credit for having greater longevity? Sure, but it was also circumstantial to a large extent.
For the last 13 years of his career, which is more than half of his career, Tendulkar was never in contention of being the best batsman in the world.
This proves that skill, talent and technique wise, he had no comparative superiority. His biggest asset was his longevity. He started way earlier than others which helped him accumulate records.
Part of it has to do with the fact that he was really good for a teenager but never improved afterwards. He was one of those rare players who reached their ceiling by 19-20 and then it was about sustaining it.
Part of it has to do with the fact that Indian batting by 89-90 was paper thin. Gavaskar and Viswanath had retired and Vengsarkar was on his last legs.
There was a huge gaping hole in the batting lineup that allowed Tendulkar to be fast tracked at an early age which wouldn’t have happened otherwise and he would have to wait for another 4-5 years to make his debut.
The fact that for the 90% of his career he was getting out-scored every year by other batsmen proves that he wasn’t a standout batsman.
Literally any quality batsman would match his record if he plays 200 Test matches. There is absolutely nothing special about his career apart from number of matches played.
, but Sachin was technically better player and did play lot of matches against Australia.
in ODI’s but true Sachin World Cup Performances against Pakistan were Great
India 
