What's new

Did Sachin Tendulkar play against average teams or all-time great teams?

jnaveen1980 said:
How are they oranges and apples. Both are bowlers. Both are spinners. You are calling a legitimate action chucking. IN that regard they are both the same.
Click to expand...
We all know the only reason ashwin isn't called for being a chucker is due to his country's financial influence and monopoly over the governing body the ICC.

Its apple and oranges because Warne was a leg spinner and therefore cant be compared.

It ain't rocket science.

You bringing Warne in the conversation doesn't legitimise ashwin in any way shape or form.
 
Ashwin and Warne and chucking stuff is not for this thread. Please find other relevant threads for these types of posts.

Will remove irrelevant posts now.
 
As per reports: Sachin Tendulkar will be conferred with the BCCI’s Lifetime Achievement Award at the Board’s annual gala in Mumbai on Saturday (1 February).
 
kingusama92 said:
He played against some seriously good bowlers at their peak.

In fact, some of these are the greatest bowlers of all time - Warne, Murali, Wasim, McGrath, Donald, and Waqar to name a few.

If you can pile up runs against these guys in various formats, you are the real deal.
Click to expand...
Sachin did not play many tests vs Pakistan in 90s in Tests, Saeed Anwar was better than Sachin in ODI’s vs India 🇮🇳, but Sachin was technically better player and did play lot of matches against Australia.
 
Van_Sri said:
Sachin did not play many tests vs Pakistan in 90s in Tests, Saeed Anwar was better than Sachin in ODI’s vs India 🇮🇳, but Sachin was technically better player and did play lot of matches against Australia.
Click to expand...
Anwar was a great player in his own right but Sachin has 3 man of the matches vs Pak in world cups.
 
Local.Dada said:
Anwar was a great player in his own right but Sachin has 3 man of the matches vs Pak in world cups.
Click to expand...
Overall Anwar was a better player against India 🇮🇳 compared to Sachin against Pakistan 🇵🇰 in ODI’s but true Sachin World Cup Performances against Pakistan were Great
 
IMG_3336.jpegIndia 🇮🇳 All Time ODI XI : 1) Rohit 2) Sachin 3) Ganguly 4) Kohli 5) Yuvraj 6) Dhoni*+ 7) Kapil 8) Jadeja 9) Kuldeep 10) Shami 11) Bumrah.
 
Van_Sri said:
Sachin did not play many tests vs Pakistan in 90s in Tests, Saeed Anwar was better than Sachin in ODI’s vs India 🇮🇳, but Sachin was technically better player and did play lot of matches against Australia.
Click to expand...

Saeed, a top player in his era but even Pakistanis know the gulf of class between our bowling line ups back then. Tendulkar had to play a bowling attack of Pakistan that was a level or two above Bharat’s.
 
FearlessRoar said:
As per reports: Sachin Tendulkar will be conferred with the BCCI’s Lifetime Achievement Award at the Board’s annual gala in Mumbai on Saturday (1 February).
Click to expand...

Congratulations to Sachin paaji.

Greatest of all time 🐐
 
Some bowlers who played against Sachin Tendulkar

Wasim , Waqar, Pollock, Donald, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Ambrose, Walsh
 
Kianig89 said:
Some bowlers who played against Sachin Tendulkar

Wasim , Waqar, Pollock, Donald, McGrath, Warne, Murali, Ambrose, Walsh
Click to expand...

No wonder the entire 1990s only had 3 batters averaging 50+ including test cricket and averaging 35+ in ODIs was considered respectable back then while early 40s was an elite batting average.
 
Sachin was a legend in 1990s, his stats in 2000s onwards were just like VK and Babar stat padding
 
From Indian perspective, 2003 odi wc in Sa expectations were just exactly like ct 25.In the case of ct 25, its mainly due washed up oldies.For 03 odi wc, it was after a disastrous nz tour.Both played on complete grass wickets where both teams bundled out for 90s and 100 through out the test and odi series.Wickets were so bad that both teams batsmen were devoid of any confidence. Sachin played well very well from first match till rest of the batsmen started scoring runs .
 
Sachin had to face some great pacers in their prime in 90s, but in 2000s, there was nothing special...
 
Hitman said:
Ask Dale Steyn and James Anderson who is the best batsman they have bowled to.
Click to expand...
The one ball vs 2 new ball era skewed reality a bit which i believe the likes of Sachin, lara, and pointing are viewed below Kohli and heck some people go as far as to claim Warner, rohit etc are > Those 3.

It's just in that era it's kinda impossible to be an opener + Bat full overs and chase targets down + possess 5th gears.

Hence people viewed Sachin as a stat padder from 2000's.

I viewed Sachin as a stat padder as well but not like babar, what i mean is that even though he played brilliant match winning innings in his era, he was record obsessed 100%. But the whole he put himself > his team is a myth.

Opening in odi was different in that era.

Pointing is in the same tier as kohli as an odi batter had they batted in the same era, they'd be equal. And Sachin is a bit > both if them.

I don't think he's massively > in odi, in test he's way way > them. But in odi hes still marginally superior.

Sachin would have avg 60-62 with a 95 sr in this era with pointing avg 58 and 91 sr the same as kohli.
 
mominsaigol said:
Sachin would have avg 60-62 with a 95 sr in this era with pointing avg 58 and 91 sr the same as kohli.
Click to expand...

Tendulkar’s SR would be 100+ in modern era of ODIs. He was 100% pure batting talent.

His fitness level was not of a top level athlete which explains why he wasn’t a great finisher. In 2003 CWC, he started cramping in his 70s literally, the first ever ODJ double hundred could have come earlier against NZ in 2009 but again his body gave up like on so many occasions throughout his career.

If Tendulkar had Virat Kohli’s fitness, he would have been unfairly dominant. In terms of conventional batting, he’s by far the most talented batter ever evident by the fact that all his big knocks are an absolute delight to the eye.
 
Bhaijaan said:
Tendulkar’s SR would be 100+ in modern era of ODIs. He was 100% pure batting talent.

His fitness level was not of a top level athlete which explains why he wasn’t a great finisher. In 2003 CWC, he started cramping in his 70s literally, the first ever ODJ double hundred could have come earlier against NZ in 2009 but again his body gave up like on so many occasions throughout his career.

If Tendulkar had Virat Kohli’s fitness, he would have been unfairly dominant. In terms of conventional batting, he’s by far the most talented batter ever evident by the fact that all his big knocks are an absolute delight to the eye.
Click to expand...
Naw, the likes of Jaysuria and Gilly sr were ridiculously high for their era while Sachin sr was > Average but not high by any means.

He wasn't a bang bang opener by any means and in this era he wouldn't have a strike rate of 100.

Also he isn't the most talented batter ever, the likes of gilly, Kallis, lara, pointing are far more talented then he is in terms of raw reactions and timing.

Sachin succeeded cause he's more hard working then they are cause he kept adjusting his game year by year and when he got older he adjusted his game to make up for dwindling reactions that why in his later years he played the ball late compared to his early years.
 
Tendulkar played against average teams.

The only one who played against all-time great teams is Travis Head.
 
Sachin did play very well in 2000s and a much more matured player, except 2003 and 2006 every year upto 2011 he maintained a good form.
 
mominsaigol said:
Naw, the likes of Jaysuria and Gilly sr were ridiculously high for their era while Sachin sr was > Average but not high by any means.

He wasn't a bang bang opener by any means and in this era he wouldn't have a strike rate of 100.

Also he isn't the most talented batter ever, the likes of gilly, Kallis, lara, pointing are far more talented then he is in terms of raw reactions and timing.

Sachin succeeded cause he's more hard working then they are cause he kept adjusting his game year by year and when he got older he adjusted his game to make up for dwindling reactions that why in his later years he played the ball late compared to his early years.
Click to expand...
Kallis was the least talented among them as a Batsman. Lara was a better player in West Indies, Gilly was inconsistent but a mentally strong player, Ponting had the advantage of being part of the strongest Team of his era, Sachin was most versatile player as he was an opener in ODI’s and No 4 in Tests.
 
mominsaigol said:
Also he isn't the most talented batter ever, the likes of gilly, Kallis, lara, pointing are far more talented then he is in terms of raw reactions and timing.
Click to expand...

Gilchrist and Kallis? They had very limited shots range.

Lara is up there.
Tendulkar in terms of conventional batting was the most talented batter ever. Played every shot in the book with authority.
 
number of runs he has scored regardless of the team he had played against doesn’t matter at all because you still need talent to score this many runs.
 
Sachin is a legend...why???
watch the video above. That guy is still timing the ball like a beast
 
Sachin is so technically correct if you throw him in deep waters in international cricket even today he will find ways to build an inning.
 
Bhaijaan said:
Sachin is so technically correct if you throw him in deep waters in international cricket even today he will find ways to build an inning.
Click to expand...
Easily the most complete batter of all time in terms of technique and timing. Only thing missing was reaction timing where a few players have better hand eye coordination like Ponting, Viv etc.

However the fact that as his age increased, he was still ontop.

Age your age increases your reactions decline hence most batters who had better eye hand coordination like ponting declined, due to sachin's compact and complete technique he thrived by implementing late cuts and late shots from the backfoot.

He's one of the few cricketers who despite being talented proved that you can still remain no 1 even if someone else has a few genetic advantages over you such as reaction times. Technique and mastery will always beat pure genetics because at the end of the day, Everyone naturally declines but your experience improves and increases.

And we've this affect so many players such as kohli, Ponting, Warner, kallis etc.
 
ravisurya said:
So that also means the Wasim and Qasim basically took wickets against pretty mediocre teams which would make Bumrah the best fast bowler ever to come out of Asia?
Click to expand...
Bumrah is better than Wasim and Waqar
 
FearlessRoar said:
Yes, Sachin Tendulkar faced way stronger bowlers during his time. I mean, have you seen the likes of Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Allan Donald, Shane Warne, Brett Lee, Shoaib Akhtar, and Muttiah Muralitharan? They were beasts on the pitch.

And let's be real, the bowlers today just don't seem to have the same level of firepower, except for Jasprit Bumrah.
Click to expand...
Bowlers are way better now
90s was a bowling friendly era
 
BouncerGuy said:
Sachin is a legend...why???
watch the video above. That guy is still timing the ball like a beast
Click to expand...
Still better than Rohit right now
And gill
And I am dead serious

And also better than Kl rahul
I can guarantee you
 
mominsaigol said:
Naw, the likes of Jaysuria and Gilly sr were ridiculously high for their era while Sachin sr was > Average but not high by any means.

He wasn't a bang bang opener by any means and in this era he wouldn't have a strike rate of 100.

Also he isn't the most talented batter ever, the likes of gilly, Kallis, lara, pointing are far more talented then he is in terms of raw reactions and timing.

Sachin succeeded cause he's more hard working then they are cause he kept adjusting his game year by year and when he got older he adjusted his game to make up for dwindling reactions that why in his later years he played the ball late compared to his early years.
Click to expand...
First you saw raw reactions and timing is genetic
Then you say Tendulkar is the most talented batsman ever
Previous post you are like he isn’t the most talented ever cause he lacks timing and reaction unlike Ponting kalis.

Which is it??
 
kron said:
First you saw raw reactions and timing is genetic
Then you say Tendulkar is the most talented batsman ever
Previous post you are like he isn’t the most talented ever cause he lacks timing and reaction unlike Ponting kalis.

Which is it??
Click to expand...
I said he's the most complete batsmen ever since his technique, timing and shot selection is perfect.

However pure raw reaction times and raw power is something only God can give you.

Viv's technique is nothing special. 99% of batsmen would fail if they tried to bat like him but his God gifted reaction times allow him to bat freakishly well + his raw power and height.

Sachin's reaction times aren't great nor is he the most powerful batter.

Dude is a tiny man and during his debut innings, he freqently mentioned how he got dismissed cause he just couldn't process the 140 to 150KPH pace as compared to before his debut where he was playing against 110KPH 16 year old.

He had to learn and adjust and slowly slowly adapted and adjusted.

It's a stark contrast from ponting and viv who are automatically God gifted in reactions.
 
mominsaigol said:
I said he's the most complete batsmen ever since his technique, timing and shot selection is perfect.

However pure raw reaction times and raw power is something only God can give you.

Viv's technique is nothing special. 99% of batsmen would fail if they tried to bat like him but his God gifted reaction times allow him to bat freakishly well + his raw power and height.

Sachin's reaction times aren't great nor is he the most powerful batter.

Dude is a tiny man and during his debut innings, he freqently mentioned how he got dismissed cause he just couldn't process the 140 to 150KPH pace as compared to before his debut where he was playing against 110KPH 16 year old.

He had to learn and adjust and slowly slowly adapted and adjusted.

It's a stark contrast from ponting and viv who are automatically God gifted in reactions.
Click to expand...
Slowliy adapted while scoring overseas 100s as a teenager? Ridiculous.
 
For people who cannot understand the magnitude of his career

Career Test Batting Statistics

Player Matches Runs Avg 100s 50s Best


Rohit Sharma 67 4,301 40.57 12 18 212

Virat Kohli 123 9,230 46.85 30 31 254*

Combined 190 13,531 44.08 42 49 254

Sachin 200 15,921 53.78 51 68 248
 
Tendulkar was basically the batting version of Anderson. Two great players, but their greatness is directly linked to their longevity.

An average of 53 is excellent but nothing out of this world and it has been bettered by several batsmen. Similarly, Anderson’s career average of 26 is nothing special either, better by several bowlers.

Their best achievement (most runs/centuries) and most wickets for a pacer are a consequence of playing the most matches and not a reflection of how good they actually were.

Batsmen and bowlers have had bigger impacts than them but have less runs and wickets because they played less.

Both Tendulkar and Anderson have amongst the worst MOM/matches played ratios in history.

This shows that they drizzled but rarely thundered. When India/England won Test matches, they were usually outperformed by their teammates. When India/England were losing, they could rarely turn the tide.

There have been around 30 instances of an Indian batsman scoring more than 500 runs in a Test series. Batsmen like Gavaskar, Dravid and Kohli managed this feat multiple times. However, interestingly enough, Tendulkar did it 0 times.

Tendulkar played Test cricket for 24 years. However, when you look at the list of most runs scores in a calendar year, you will find his name only twice out of the top 20 and not once in the top 5.

This again shows the drizzle and lack of thunder in his batting, as well as the lack of dominance relative to his peers.

There are only 3 instances of Anderson taking 10 wickets in a Test in spite of 188 matches.

There are 0 instances of Tendulkar scoring 300 in a Test.

In spite of playing the most Test matches in history, 7 batsmen have scored more 200s than Tendulkar and 6 batsmen have scored the same number as he has. This includes two active players in Williamson and Root who should overtake his tally.

Tendulkar had 0 contribution to three of India’s most famous Test wins of the 2000s - Kolkata 2001, Adelaide 2003 and Rawalpindi 2004.

All in all, 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.

They are the same level as great Test batsmen and bowlers and the only aspect that sets them apart is their longevity, which is impressive in its own right but it is not exactly an advertisement of how great a player truly is.

Tendulkar is extremely comparable to almost every 50+ averaging batsman in history just like Anderson is extremely comparable to every 22-28 averaging bowler in history.
 
Sachin fan said:
Slowliy adapted while scoring overseas 100s as a teenager? Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
For someone named Sachin fan, its evident that you're automatically biased. Theirs no point in discussing with you if you're going to fall into hero worship.

I love Sachin but im in no mood to hero worship
 
Mamoon said:
Tendulkar was basically the batting version of Anderson. Two great players, but their greatness is directly linked to their longevity.

An average of 53 is excellent but nothing out of this world and it has been bettered by several batsmen. Similarly, Anderson’s career average of 26 is nothing special either, better by several bowlers.

Their best achievement (most runs/centuries) and most wickets for a pacer are a consequence of playing the most matches and not a reflection of how good they actually were.

Batsmen and bowlers have had bigger impacts than them but have less runs and wickets because they played less.

Both Tendulkar and Anderson have amongst the worst MOM/matches played ratios in history.

This shows that they drizzled but rarely thundered. When India/England won Test matches, they were usually outperformed by their teammates. When India/England were losing, they could rarely turn the tide.

There have been around 30 instances of an Indian batsman scoring more than 500 runs in a Test series. Batsmen like Gavaskar, Dravid and Kohli managed this feat multiple times. However, interestingly enough, Tendulkar did it 0 times.

Tendulkar played Test cricket for 24 years. However, when you look at the list of most runs scores in a calendar year, you will find his name only twice out of the top 20 and not once in the top 5.

This again shows the drizzle and lack of thunder in his batting, as well as the lack of dominance relative to his peers.

There are only 3 instances of Anderson taking 10 wickets in a Test in spite of 188 matches.

There are 0 instances of Tendulkar scoring 300 in a Test.

In spite of playing the most Test matches in history, 7 batsmen have scored more 200s than Tendulkar and 6 batsmen have scored the same number as he has. This includes two active players in Williamson and Root who should overtake his tally.

Tendulkar had 0 contribution to three of India’s most famous Test wins of the 2000s - Kolkata 2001, Adelaide 2003 and Rawalpindi 2004.

All in all, 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.

They are the same level as great Test batsmen and bowlers and the only aspect that sets them apart is their longevity, which is impressive in its own right but it is not exactly an advertisement of how great a player truly is.

Tendulkar is extremely comparable to almost every 50+ averaging batsman in history just like Anderson is extremely comparable to every 22-28 averaging bowler in history.
Click to expand...
What's your take on Steve Smith in test cricket?
 
RidiculousMan said:
Sachin is a GOAT in Test Cricket. Maybe just behind Bradman and Smith.
Click to expand...
Their are a few others > him but the issue is people are skeptical due to eras.

For example Jack Hobbs avg 56-57 as an opener which is the most difficult position to play test cricket in.

Then theirs the Gary Sobers and viv Richards debate.

But overall you're correct based of all the test batters I've personally watched, Sachin is no 2 behind smith
 
RidiculousMan said:

This enough to tell people how good he was.
Click to expand...

Because he had his basics covered so beautifully.
Just a beautiful conventional batter. Had the most easy and perfect looking stance. No wonder they used to always call him a textbook batter. Sachin is the manifestation of batsmanship.
 
Tendulkar was NEVER in the running for one of the best Test batsman.

He doesn't even have a Test century in the all time top 100 Wisden Test centuries.

Serial loser is his claim to fame.
 
mominsaigol said:
For someone named Sachin fan, its evident that you're automatically biased. Theirs no point in discussing with you if you're going to fall into hero worship.

I love Sachin but im in no mood to hero worship
Click to expand...
The absolute irony of this post.

I still want an explanation of how someone scoring 100s as a teen and averaging over 42 in his first proper year in tests (in an era no one even averages 50) and which included only overseas tours to NZ, England and Sri lanka was "slowly adapting".

P.S. I am the one bringing actual numbers, you made a claim and then went to talking about my user name. So anyone can see who is using emotions and who is using facts
 
Technics 1210 said:
Tendulkar was NEVER in the running for one of the best Test batsman.

He doesn't even have a Test century in the all time top 100 Wisden Test centuries.

Serial loser is his claim to fame.
Click to expand...
Yep, all past and present cricket legends, the likes of wisden who put him second after Bradman,, likes of bradman and richards, most country fans, most all time XIs, all are wrong

And only bitter fans like these are right.

Sachin's legacy will forever be decided by fans like you
 
Sachin fan said:
The absolute irony of this post.

I still want an explanation of how someone scoring 100s as a teen and averaging over 42 in his first proper year in tests (in an era no one even averages 50) and which included only overseas tours to NZ, England and Sri lanka was "slowly adapting".

P.S. I am the one bringing actual numbers, you made a claim and then went to talking about my user name. So anyone can see who is using emotions and who is using facts.
Click to expand...
Slowly adapting as in getting better.

His first few matches were downright terrible and this is something your hero himself admitted that he needed to get use to the pace as a 16 year old.

And you're not using actual numbers. Youre arguing with emotion. Im not the one who directed my argument at you, you relied and shoved yourself into it. Not my problem.
 
Sachinistas know the truth, that's why even till this day they come re-registering in their droves cos no one cares about Tendulkar other than the cult.
 
mominsaigol said:
Slowly adapting as in getting better.

His first few matches were downright terrible and this is something your hero himself admitted that he needed to get use to the pace as a 16 year old.

And you're not using actual numbers. Youre arguing with emotion. Im not the one who directed my argument at you, you relied and shoved yourself into it. Not my problem.
Click to expand...
Agree, Sachin struggled in Pakistan which was his first tour as a Test player at 16. Sachin said he thought that the 15 runs he scored on debut will be his last runs for India. But again he wasn't a slow adaptor, this is a fact. Sachin on his first tour to NZ scored 88 and on his first tour to England scored a hundred saving a Test for India. He scored a hundred on his first tour to SA and two hundreds on his first tour to Australia. By the time he was 19, he had Test hundreds in Australia, England and SA. I wouldn't call it slow adapting. Batters who debuted at an older age with far more domestic experience did not have such record back then. In his first 4 years in Tests he averaged 48 with 6 test hundreds, all this by the age of 20. Sachin was a genius and I am someone who watched the entire career of Sachin and watched the games in Australia and SA on his first tour live on TV and know how good he was. People forget that till about 1996/97, Sachin played in a pretty mediocre batting line up in Tests especially overseas, that is 7 years of his career.

Rahul had a good start to his career and averaged in high 40's but Sourav struggled on India's overseas tours. Azhar was brilliant at home but was mediocre for most part of the 90's overseas except for his final tours to SA and NZ. The opening was a joke, Sachin and Dravid mostly came in to bat within 10 overs of almost every overseas Test. Only since 2001 did India kind of started to develop a batting line up which could work even with Sachin failing. This was a lot of pressure for a young batter who was still only 27 in 2000. He was doing this in Tests and also in ODIs. Sachin was the only Indian batter to strike at 80+ in the 90's from the Indian team. Once he started to open he took a lot of risks which meant that he threw his wicket away a lot. Sourav for all the reputation he had a SR of 70, Rahul was under 70. Azhar who was known for his aggressive batting struck only 74. Jadeja who carved a reputation of a hitter in ODIs had a career SR of under 70. These are all facts and not emotional. Sachin was by far the best batter in the 90's when we combine both the formats. He was so far ahead that it was not even a joke. In ODIs only Anwar came close to him and in Tests it was Lara.
 
giri26 said:
Agree, Sachin struggled in Pakistan which was his first tour as a Test player at 16. Sachin said he thought that the 15 runs he scored on debut will be his last runs for India. But again he wasn't a slow adaptor, this is a fact. Sachin on his first tour to NZ scored 88 and on his first tour to England scored a hundred saving a Test for India. He scored a hundred on his first tour to SA and two hundreds on his first tour to Australia. By the time he was 19, he had Test hundreds in Australia, England and SA. I wouldn't call it slow adapting. Batters who debuted at an older age with far more domestic experience did not have such record back then. In his first 4 years in Tests he averaged 48 with 6 test hundreds, all this by the age of 20. Sachin was a genius and I am someone who watched the entire career of Sachin and watched the games in Australia and SA on his first tour live on TV and know how good he was. People forget that till about 1996/97, Sachin played in a pretty mediocre batting line up in Tests especially overseas, that is 7 years of his career.

Rahul had a good start to his career and averaged in high 40's but Sourav struggled on India's overseas tours. Azhar was brilliant at home but was mediocre for most part of the 90's overseas except for his final tours to SA and NZ. The opening was a joke, Sachin and Dravid mostly came in to bat within 10 overs of almost every overseas Test. Only since 2001 did India kind of started to develop a batting line up which could work even with Sachin failing. This was a lot of pressure for a young batter who was still only 27 in 2000. He was doing this in Tests and also in ODIs. Sachin was the only Indian batter to strike at 80+ in the 90's from the Indian team. Once he started to open he took a lot of risks which meant that he threw his wicket away a lot. Sourav for all the reputation he had a SR of 70, Rahul was under 70. Azhar who was known for his aggressive batting struck only 74. Jadeja who carved a reputation of a hitter in ODIs had a career SR of under 70. These are all facts and not emotional. Sachin was by far the best batter in the 90's when we combine both the formats. He was so far ahead that it was not even a joke. In ODIs only Anwar came close to him and in Tests it was Lara.
Click to expand...
You guys are looking way too closely at the word slowly adapting. I didn't mean it very literally.

I was referring to sachin's own words.
 
Sachin fan said:
Yet he and Sachin has identical numbers at this stage of their career
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say so, there are subtle differences.

After 116 Tests:

Tendulkar was ordinary vs Pakistan and South Africa after 24 Tests. He also did a lot of stat padding vs Zimbabwe.

Smith hasn’t done much of stat padding because he played no Tests vs minnow opposition except two in Bangladesh in 2017 on vicious turners. He doesn’t average below 44 against any team.

His series in India in 2017 is better than any series that Tendulkar has had in Australia and he played on better batting wickets.

Smith > Tendulkar in Test cricket for sure.
 
Sachin fan said:
Yep, all past and present cricket legends, the likes of wisden who put him second after Bradman,, likes of bradman and richards, most country fans, most all time XIs, all are wrong

And only bitter fans like these are right.

Sachin's legacy will forever be decided by fans like you
Click to expand...
Why u r arguing with a wonderful sane poster who wrote his wet dream about dealing aggressively with indian fans in his office after pak lost a group game in wc 19 .
 
pillionrider said:
I'm not even a Sachin bhakt anymore. But no one has hurt Pakistanis more by his very existence than Sachin Tendulkar. Even a decade after retirement.

:bow:
Click to expand...
There might be an element of truth to it because he was better than all out batsmen at a time when Pakistan and India were very competitive and Pakistan enjoyed a better bowling attack.

We always felt that Pakistan would be at a different level to India if they had a batsman like him but we couldn’t produce one, so yes there was an element of jealously/bitterness.

However, we would have been a lot more hurt if he wasn’t bang average vs Pakistan in Test cricket. Pakistan basically reduced him to a Pujara/Rahane level batsman in Test cricket.
 
Mamoon said:
I wouldn’t say so, there are subtle differences.

After 116 Tests:

Tendulkar was ordinary vs Pakistan and South Africa after 24 Tests. He also did a lot of stat padding vs Zimbabwe.

Smith hasn’t done much of stat padding because he played no Tests vs minnow opposition except two in Bangladesh in 2017 on vicious turners. He doesn’t average below 44 against any team.

His series in India in 2017 is better than any series that Tendulkar has had in Australia and he played on better batting wickets.

Smith > Tendulkar in Test cricket for sure.
Click to expand...
Sachin played 9 of his 116 matches against Zim

He barely played Pak at his peak (once as a teen and once when he had a career threatening injury). He still was averaging over 40 against them.

Even in that period His averages within pakistan and within south africa are well over 40s, showing he excelled in actual difficult conditions against their bowlers.

I would argue that zimbabwe had bowlers like Heath Streak who is way better than current west indies, sri lanka and Pak test bowlers who smith is averaging a lot against.

You can pick and choose how you want I guess.

The only thing to think is Sachin still had a long career and second wind after this stage, let's see what Smith does.
 
Mamoon said:
There might be an element of truth to it because he was better than all out batsmen at a time when Pakistan and India were very competitive and Pakistan enjoyed a better bowling attack.

We always felt that Pakistan would be at a different level to India if they had a batsman like him but we couldn’t produce one, so yes there was an element of jealously/bitterness.

However, we would have been a lot more hurt if he wasn’t bang average vs Pakistan in Test cricket. Pakistan basically reduced him to a Pujara/Rahane level batsman in Test cricket.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately Sachin didn't get to play pakistan in his prime.

He has played just 3 series.

Once as a teenager in 1989 in his debut series.

Once in 1999 when he was carrying the career threatening back injury and still scored the Chennai 100.

And in his last series against them in 2004, he averaged 68 against Pak despite still recovering from his other career threatening injury.

So there is no "reducing" there, just bit sad that one of the best batsmen didn't get to play one of the best bowling attack in his prime. Who knows what would have happened.
 
Sachin fan said:
Sachin played 9 of his 116 matches against Zim

He barely played Pak at his peak (once as a teen and once when he had a career threatening injury). He still was averaging over 40 against them.

Even in that period His averages within pakistan and within south africa are well over 40s, showing he excelled in actual difficult conditions against their bowlers.

I would argue that zimbabwe had bowlers like Heath Streak who is way better than current west indies, sri lanka and Pak test bowlers who smith is averaging a lot against.

You can pick and choose how you want I guess.

The only thing to think is Sachin still had a long career and second wind after this stage, let's see what Smith does.
Click to expand...
Sachin fan said:
Unfortunately Sachin didn't get to play pakistan in his prime.

He has played just 3 series.

Once as a teenager in 1989 in his debut series.

Once in 1999 when he was carrying the career threatening back injury and still scored the Chennai 100.

And in his last series against them in 2004, he averaged 68 against Pak despite still recovering from his other career threatening injury.

So there is no "reducing" there, just bit sad that one of the best batsmen didn't get to play one of the best bowling attack in his prime. Who knows what would have happened.
Click to expand...
Too many excuses, none of which are our problem. Young, injured, woke up on the wrong side of the bed, had a fight with his wife. Bottom line is that he was nothing special vs Pakistan in Test cricket.

We can’t fantasize about what he would have done in his prime or not. We can only go by the matches that he actually played.

There is no guarantee that Tendulkar would have dominated Pakistan in Tests in his so-called peak. There are many examples of batsmen failing in certain series in their peak years. For example, Kohli averaged 9 in the 2017 BGT in India, and if he didn’t play in that series, not a single Indian fan would have entertained the possibility of him failing so miserably in that series.

Furthermore, it is a gross exaggeration that Zimbabwe had a better bowling attack than current Pakistan and even Sri Lanka and West Indies bowling attacks.

Between Heath Streak’s debut and retirement in 1993 and 2005, he was the only bowler who will be good enough to play for the aforementioned teams in the last 10-15 years.

The other bowlers like Olonga, Strang brothers, Blignaut etc. have zero chance of playing for any Pakistan, Sri Lanka or West Indies Test team in history.

Heath Streak was a very good bowler but he was no McGrath, and you can’t label a bowling attack better just because of him when everyone else was so mediocre.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

atreus
  • Article Article
Viv Richards and Sachin Tendulkar — are they really far apart statistically?
Replies
7
Views
482
atreus
atreus
BouncerGuy
Arun Dhumal hints at expanded 94-match IPL in 2028 but without new teams
Replies
5
Views
359
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
B
Test cricket needs multiple teams like India for its survival - a bold new model
Replies
70
Views
1K
RizwanT20Champ
R
Cricket Warrior
[EXCLUSIVE] "Sachin faced positive pressure, Babar faces hostility": Jonathan Agnew
2
Replies
92
Views
2K
TheSultan
T
T
Is Imran Khan the greatest Test cricketer since 1970?
Replies
39
Views
848
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Back
Top