What's new

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

mominsaigol said:
I took a picture with sachin at Madam Tsuades in Sydney.

They have a wax statue in Sydney of him.
Click to expand...

Lucky you.
Sachin had a very special bond with the SCG. Always received a lot of love from the locals there whenever he came to bat.
 
Mamoon said:
Tendulkar is the slightly superior batting version of Jimmy Anderson.
Click to expand...
That point has already been defeated.
Jimmy Anderson wouldn’t be a legend if he played half the matches he did, Sachin would have been an ATG even after 100 tests.

There is absolutely no comparison, Andersons legacy is his longevity, Tenduljars legacy is his quality combined with Longevity.

They couldn’t be more different.

The best comparison of James Anderson is with Anil Kumble, thats where he stands.

Btw, if Sachin who averages 53.6 with 51 centuries is slightly superior to Anderson, is Root who averages 50.9 inferior than Anderson? :yk
 
jeeteshssaxena said:
That point has already been defeated.
Jimmy Anderson wouldn’t be a legend if he played half the matches he did, Sachin would have been an ATG even after 100 tests.

There is absolutely no comparison, Andersons legacy is his longevity, Tenduljars legacy is his quality combined with Longevity.

They couldn’t be more different.

The best comparison of James Anderson is with Anil Kumble, thats where he stands.

Btw, if Sachin who averages 53.6 with 51 centuries is slightly superior to Anderson, is Root who averages 50.9 inferior than Anderson? :yk
Click to expand...
It is not defeated. Indians are not ready for this conversation.
 
No Indian can explain the following:

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.

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.

There is no difference between Tendulkar and any other 50+ averaging batsman. He simply played more matches.
 
jeeteshssaxena said:
That point has already been defeated.
Jimmy Anderson wouldn’t be a legend if he played half the matches he did, Sachin would have been an ATG even after 100 tests.

There is absolutely no comparison, Andersons legacy is his longevity, Tenduljars legacy is his quality combined with Longevity.

They couldn’t be more different.

The best comparison of James Anderson is with Anil Kumble, thats where he stands.

Btw, if Sachin who averages 53.6 with 51 centuries is slightly superior to Anderson, is Root who averages 50.9 inferior than Anderson? :yk
Click to expand...
Refer to the post by esteemed poster @Bhaijaan

Indians base Tendulkar legacy on his volume of runs only
 
Tendulkar not scoring 500 even once in a series is a very valid criticism. Triple century is nonsense coz even Smith and Root don’t have one and they are usually not important.
 
jeeteshssaxena said:
Yeah averaging 57 after 100 tests with 40+ average in all countries is enough quality to qualify as an ATG.

Andersons stats will be Siraj level after 100 tests.
Click to expand...
But who gave you the permission to choose a random cut off point in the middle of his career?

Mike Hussey was averaging 80+ in ODIs for a long time too. Should he be considered the GOAT ODI batsman?

It’s like saying Kohli is an ATG Test batsman because he averaged 55 after X number of Tests.

Players are judged by their overall career, not convenient cut off points that make them look better than they were.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
Refer to the post by esteemed poster @Bhaijaan

Indians base Tendulkar legacy on his volume of runs only
Click to expand...
Volume with quality, when you speak of Tendulkar in India especially with the masses they just speak of how he was the one man standing in the 90s and how he was the most unlucky player they have seen. Its not about the volume, Indian fans are smart enough to understand that volume doesn’t equate to quality.

Its the same reason why no Indian calls Kumble better than Wasim Akram or Waqar Younis
 
jeeteshssaxena said:
Tendulkar not scoring 500 even once in a series is a very valid criticism. Triple century is nonsense coz even Smith and Root don’t have one and they are usually not important.
Click to expand...
0 contribution to three of India’s biggest Test wins in the 2000s is also valid criticism.

Kolkata 2001, Adelaide 2003 and Rawalpindi 2004. He was a ghost.
 
Mamoon said:
But who gave you the permission to choose a random cut off point in the middle of his career?

Mike Hussey was averaging 80+ in ODIs for a long time too. Should he be considered the GOAT ODI batsman?

It’s like saying Kohli is an ATG Test batsman because he averaged 55 after X number of Tests.

Players are judged by their overall career, not convenient cut off points that make them look better than they were.
Click to expand...
Not choosing a random point, I am showing you that Tendulkars quality as an ATG wouldn’t be in doubt even if he played half the tests he did. Thus basically countering your longevity nonsense.
 
The difference between Sangakkara and Tendulkar is 66 Test matches, not the quality of their batting.
 
jeeteshssaxena said:
Not choosing a random point, I am showing you that Tendulkars quality as an ATG wouldn’t be in doubt even if he played half the tests he did. Thus basically countering your longevity nonsense.
Click to expand...
No one is saying that he is not an ATG. The point is that he is not the GOAT or a level above other ATG batsmen as Indians like to think.

He is essentially the same as any other 50+ averaging ATG Test batsman. That is my point.

I am not saying that he was a poor Test batsman like Kohli or Laxman.
 
Apart from a brief period in 1996-1999, Tendulkar was never the best Test batsman in the world until his retirement. That is also reflected by the ranking points post 2000.
 
Mamoon said:
0 contribution to three of India’s biggest Test wins in the 2000s is also valid criticism.

Kolkata 2001, Adelaide 2003 and Rawalpindi 2004. He was a ghost.
Click to expand...

Not true.

2001 - He was the only batter performing in 1st test, scored a century at Chennai and picked up crucial game changing wickets

2003 - Scored 300 runs in Sydney test, India failed to take 2 wickets in 4-5 sessions.

2004 - Multan test 194, Saqlain’s wicket on last ball of the day was pure magic
 
Bhaijaan said:
Not true.

2001 - He was the only batter performing in 1st test, scored a century at Chennai and picked up crucial game changing wickets

2003 - Scored 300 runs in Sydney test, India failed to take 2 wickets in 4-5 sessions.

2004 - Multan test 194, Saqlain’s wicket on last ball of the day was pure magic
Click to expand...
I am talking about individual Test wins not the series. He did have his moments in these series, although he was one of the weakest Indian players in the 2004 tour in spite of the stat-padding in Multan that wasn’t well-received by Ganguly and Dravid anyway.
 
It is also funny when his fans hype up his Chennai knock vs Pakistan, when a brainless hack like Afridi played a far better knock in the same Test 🤣
 
Mamoon said:
I am talking about individual Test wins not the series. He did have his moments in these series, although he was one of the weakest Indian players in the 2004 tour in spite of the stat-padding in Multan that wasn’t well-received by Ganguly and Dravid anyway.
Click to expand...

Weakest player is a stretch. He contributed heavily in 1 test and didn’t have good outings in 2 other tests. Part of career.

How fair is it to run a propaganda campaign against one of the greatest ever batters as agreed by those who played the game, by cleverly picking Tendulkar’s lowest points influenced by tennis elbow related form issues and ignoring all the times he was rock solid which was the norm.
 
Mamoon said:
It is also funny when his fans hype up his Chennai knock vs Pakistan, when a brainless hack like Afridi played a far better knock in the same Test 🤣
Click to expand...

It’s regarded highly because he on top of Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain on a Day 5 Indian test pitch.

Wrt Afridi because he a was a fluke cricketer,its not talked about nearly as much and rightly so.
 
Mamoon said:
It is also funny when his fans hype up his Chennai knock vs Pakistan, when a brainless hack like Afridi played a far better knock in the same Test 🤣
Click to expand...
Chennai was a missed opportunity. Could have been all time great innings if he finished it off - like Brian Lara did in that Barbados test against Australia ( 1999 )
 
Mamoon said:
No Indian can explain the following:

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.

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.

There is no difference between Tendulkar and any other 50+ averaging batsman. He simply played more matches.
Click to expand...
There is a theory that Sachin used a very heavy bat for his physique. Hence he tired out easily and could not keep batting for long hours - necessary to score 500 plus in a series

Hence he wud get his customary hundred in almost every test series but struggled to score 2-3 tons in a series ( with some exceptions ). Unlike say Lara / Dravid / Kohli / Steve Smith who wud keep going on and on when they wer in form
 
Mamoon said:
No one is saying that he is not an ATG. The point is that he is not the GOAT or a level above other ATG batsmen as Indians like to think.

He is essentially the same as any other 50+ averaging ATG Test batsman. That is my point.

I am not saying that he was a poor Test batsman like Kohli or Laxman.
Click to expand...
No, the point is he isn’t a superior version of James Anderson coz James Anderson averaged around 30 after 100 tests and would be in discussion for the worst players to play 100 tests.

So there is absolutely no comparison here, James Anderson was an abive average bowler who became a legend purely on basis of games played. His quality doesn’t match up with other ATGs while Sachins quality is as good as any ATG.
 
Mamoon said:
No one is saying that he is not an ATG. The point is that he is not the GOAT or a level above other ATG batsmen as Indians like to think.

He is essentially the same as any other 50+ averaging ATG Test batsman. That is my point.

I am not saying that he was a poor Test batsman like Kohli or Laxman.
Click to expand...

But Anderson is not a true ATG. So your comparison with Tendulkar is wrong. Anderson could not get that average below 25 despite bowling in England with a Dukes.

Jimmy quality wise is the equivalent of VVS Laxman. Just had more longevity.
 
Hellion said:
But Anderson is not a true ATG. So your comparison with Tendulkar is wrong. Anderson could not get that average below 25 despite bowling in England with a Dukes.

Jimmy quality wise is the equivalent of VVS Laxman. Just had more longevity.
Click to expand...
He is nowhere near Laxman in quality, Laxman averages 40+ away from home.
 
Mamoon said:
Apart from a brief period in 1996-1999, Tendulkar was never the best Test batsman in the world until his retirement. That is also reflected by the ranking points post 2000.
Click to expand...
Even during this brief period Wisden considered none of his knocks impactful enough to make the top 100 knocks in cricket.
 
Bhaijaan said:
Weakest player is a stretch. He contributed heavily in 1 test and didn’t have good outings in 2 other tests. Part of career.

How fair is it to run a propaganda campaign against one of the greatest ever batters as agreed by those who played the game, by cleverly picking Tendulkar’s lowest points influenced by tennis elbow related form issues and ignoring all the times he was rock solid which was the norm.
Click to expand...
This campaign is trying to undo the years of propoganda by Indians. I applaud the serious scholarship provided by @Mamoon here. Without this type of analysis we are risk of being swayed by emotional driven sentiment and floods of information by 1 billion passionate fans.

A rational analysis and revising of the "established" cricket knowledge is necessary to make sure we provide accuracy for future generations of cricket fans.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
This campaign is trying to undo the years of propoganda by Indians. I applaud the serious scholarship provided by @Mamoon here. Without this type of analysis we are risk of being swayed by emotional driven sentiment and floods of information by 1 billion passionate fans.

A rational analysis and revising of the "established" cricket knowledge is necessary to make sure we provide accuracy for future generations of cricket fans.
Click to expand...

Luckily the world at large is immune to Pakistani people’s cheap lies and propaganda politics about everything.
 
Bhaijaan said:
Luckily the world at large is immune to Pakistani people’s cheap lies and propaganda politics about everything.
Click to expand...
These propaganda's are nauseating honestly. Thankfully wider world don't buys any of it.

Tendulkar, Modi, Bumrah - these propagandas just don't stop. I genuinely don't understand how difficult it is NOT to be a sore loser, accept greatness and move on. Never heard any Indian fans questioning the greatness of Wasim Akram for example.

Sir Don Bradman himself rated Sachin as the greatest batsman after him and not Lara, Viv or his countryman Ponting.

Richie Benaud on live tv said Sachin the greatest batsman since Bradman.

But but but....our jealous Pakistani friends will still peddle propaganda simply because their country couldn't produce a cricketer half as good as him.

This jealousy and obsession with India is the reason why Pakistan cricket is where it is today. Forever want to bring down India rather than improving themselves.

#TrueStory
 
Hellion said:
The only difference between Anderson and Gillespie is 120 + Test matches. Longevity is the only difference, using Mamoon's own logic. That's the level of bowler Anderson was.
Click to expand...
Gillespie was a really good bowler. He had one of the best seam positions ever. His contributions got overshadows by the two GOATs like McGrath and Warne and also Lee who had his own mass fan following because of his speed.

In a world where Gillespie was allowed to lead the attack, he would have more wickets and a bigger legacy, so I have no problem with anyone putting Gillespie and Anderson at the same level in terms of quality of bowling. Anderson’s career wouldn’t have been much better if he was playing alongside McGrath and Warne.
 
jeeteshssaxena said:
He is nowhere near Laxman in quality, Laxman averages 40+ away from home.
Click to expand...
Laxman was an ordinary batsman who averaged 45 and scored just 17 hundreds in 225 innings in an era where there were a lot of flat pitches including in India.

If he played in the last 10-15 years, he would be barely better than someone like Rahane.

The legacy of Laxman is a classic example of Indian propaganda. He was a mediocre, inconsistent batsman who played 2-3 great knocks in his career and got rebranded as a man of crisis.

Anderson was a far better Test cricketer.
 
Hellion said:
The only difference between Anderson and Gillespie is 120 + Test matches. Longevity is the only difference, using Mamoon's own logic. That's the level of bowler Anderson was.
Click to expand...
No theres more, even Gillespies quality was better, quite sure his away average and performance in Asia is better than Anderson.
 
Mamoon said:
Laxman was an ordinary batsman who averaged 45 and scored just 17 hundreds in 225 innings in an era where there were a lot of flat pitches including in India.

If he played in the last 10-15 years, he would be barely better than someone like Rahane.

The legacy of Laxman is a classic example of Indian propaganda. He was a mediocre, inconsistent batsman who played 2-3 great knocks in his career and got rebranded as a man of crisis.

Anderson was a far better Test cricketer.
Click to expand...
Anderson was better just because of Longer, nothing else.

Laxmans quality can be seen by his performance against the greatest team of all time.

He batted at 6 for most of his career and thats the reason behind less centuries, he was a clutch player and his away average performances and averages are amazing unlike Anderson.

So, respectfully I disagree, quality wise even Laxman was better than Anderson.

Laxman averages 42.5 away from home which is great, Anderson averages 30.7 away which is pretty average and similar to Zaheer Khan.
 
jeeteshssaxena said:
Anderson was better just because of Longer, nothing else.

Laxmans quality can be seen by his performance against the greatest team of all time.

He batted at 6 for most of his career and thats the reason behind less centuries, he was a clutch player and his away average performances and averages are amazing unlike Anderson.

So, respectfully I disagree, quality wise even Laxman was better than Anderson.

Laxman averages 42.5 away from home which is great, Anderson averages 30.7 away which is pretty average and similar to Zaheer Khan.
Click to expand...
That is not true. Laxman was swapped all over the place because he frankly wasn't good enough to play but bcci had a soft spot for him in the same way the likes of Rahul, Karun, Sai are favoured over better players in domestic atm, with Sheryas Iyer being given the boot by far.

Firstly the whole odi nonsense where people claim he wasnt an odi cricketer but played because he was an ambassador of the team is false.

He played 80+ odi's, more then most cricketers get to play even for that era and was utter rubbish at it.

They tried him as an opener and he flunked miserably and begged bcci to not make him open.

They then shuffled him all over the place because he wasnt good enough end of story.

He finally managed to settle at no 6 but at no 6 he was nothing more then a consistent 40-45 avg batter.

Laxman's quality is that he was consistent and he managed to play 2-3 ATG knocks which very few like lara and Steve smith have played.

He was rubbish to average at all numbers minus no 6.

He doesnt avg > 50 in any country except India and barring his 2-3 knocks he was bang avg in test.

His only quality is that he was very consistent as he consistently avg 40 and consistently averaged that number in every country.

However this ignores the fact that

A) he batted with a star studded batting lineup. Replace Sachin, Dravid, Sehwag, Gamguly and many others with the likes of Labu, Bavuma, Crawley, and you'd see him averaging crap numbers.

He was elevated by a star studded lineup and always had a cushion partner to fall back on minus 2-3 atg knocks he played.

B) He was shuffled across the board and got a ladla treatment and media covered him up as some sort of ambassador, some sort of crises man. In reality fakhar zaman has played better odi equivalent crises knocks then him and unlike Laxman, he has a crap batting team to fall back in.

Laxman would be avg 38-39 has he played for an average lineup except for India where he was genuinely a good HTB.

He, Jadeja and Ashwin are extremely overrated as players.

Dhoni is overrated as well but unlike these 3, Dhoni was actually a really really really really good Odi cricketer so when he gets hyped in other formats I dont mind.
 
jeeteshssaxena said:
Anderson was better just because of Longer, nothing else.

Laxmans quality can be seen by his performance against the greatest team of all time.

He batted at 6 for most of his career and thats the reason behind less centuries, he was a clutch player and his away average performances and averages are amazing unlike Anderson.

So, respectfully I disagree, quality wise even Laxman was better than Anderson.

Laxman averages 42.5 away from home which is great, Anderson averages 30.7 away which is pretty average and similar to Zaheer Khan.
Click to expand...
He batted at 6 because along with Ganguly, he was the weakest batsman in the team. India would have been a stronger Test team if they had Younis or Inzamam or Yousuf caliber batsman instead of Laxman.

A few great knocks vs the GOAT team doesn’t define a 225 innings career where he was just average for about 90% of the time.
 
BCCI’s agenda against Shreyar Iyer is very baffling. He is clearly hated by a few influential people in the board and he seems like a genuine, nonchalant guy who doesn’t use PR to fight his case.
 
Mamoon said:
Gillespie was a really good bowler. He had one of the best seam positions ever. His contributions got overshadows by the two GOATs like McGrath and Warne and also Lee who had his own mass fan following because of his speed.

In a world where Gillespie was allowed to lead the attack, he would have more wickets and a bigger legacy, so I have no problem with anyone putting Gillespie and Anderson at the same level in terms of quality of bowling. Anderson’s career wouldn’t have been much better if he was playing alongside McGrath and Warne.
Click to expand...
Gillespie was nowhere as good. He excelled due to presence of McGrath

Without McGrath he got badly exposed - first in 2003-04 BGT and then in 2005 Ashes. Australia understood that after the 2005 Ashes and hence he got shelved off quickly
 
Mamoon said:
He batted at 6 because along with Ganguly, he was the weakest batsman in the team. India would have been a stronger Test team if they had Younis or Inzamam or Yousuf caliber batsman instead of Laxman.

A few great knocks vs the GOAT team doesn’t define a 225 innings career where he was just average for about 90% of the time.
Click to expand...
Younis Inzamam and Yousuf were glorified stapadders compared to Laxman

A big reason Pakistan lose badly to Australia every time they tour is bcoz their batters could not deliver. Unlike India whose batters could atleast help deliver draws and at times set up a win

Laxman played a key role in atleast 2 big India wins in Australia ( Adelaide 2003 and Perth 2008 )
 
Mamoon said:
He batted at 6 because along with Ganguly, he was the weakest batsman in the team. India would have been a stronger Test team if they had Younis or Inzamam or Yousuf caliber batsman instead of Laxman.

A few great knocks vs the GOAT team doesn’t define a 225 innings career where he was just average for about 90% of the time.
Click to expand...
No one is calling him better than Younis, but the fact is that Inzi and Younis are also better than Anderson when it comes to quality.

He was not average for 90% of the time lol.

He averages 50.2 at number 6 and 48 at no. 5. Those averages are amazing. He was not suited for opening and hence his stats came down.
 
NishanKonar said:
Younis Inzamam and Yousuf were glorified stapadders compared to Laxman

A big reason Pakistan lose badly to Australia every time they tour is bcoz their batters could not deliver. Unlike India whose batters could atleast help deliver draws and at times set up a win

Laxman played a key role in atleast 2 big India wins in Australia ( Adelaide 2003 and Perth 2008 )
Click to expand...
That’s not true all. All the three Pakistani batsmen that I mentioned were comfortably better than Laxman.
 
NishanKonar said:
Gillespie was nowhere as good. He excelled due to presence of McGrath

Without McGrath he got badly exposed - first in 2003-04 BGT and then in 2005 Ashes. Australia understood that after the 2005 Ashes and hence he got shelved off quickly
Click to expand...
I would pick Anderson over him too, but my point is that Anderson is comparable to most 25-27 averaging bowlers just like Tendulkar is comparable to most 50+ averaging batsmen
 
mominsaigol said:
That is not true. Laxman was swapped all over the place because he frankly wasn't good enough to play but bcci had a soft spot for him in the same way the likes of Rahul, Karun, Sai are favoured over better players in domestic atm, with Sheryas Iyer being given the boot by far.

Firstly the whole odi nonsense where people claim he wasnt an odi cricketer but played because he was an ambassador of the team is false.

He played 80+ odi's, more then most cricketers get to play even for that era and was utter rubbish at it.

They tried him as an opener and he flunked miserably and begged bcci to not make him open.

They then shuffled him all over the place because he wasnt good enough end of story.

He finally managed to settle at no 6 but at no 6 he was nothing more then a consistent 40-45 avg batter.

Laxman's quality is that he was consistent and he managed to play 2-3 ATG knocks which very few like lara and Steve smith have played.

He was rubbish to average at all numbers minus no 6.

He doesnt avg > 50 in any country except India and barring his 2-3 knocks he was bang avg in test.

His only quality is that he was very consistent as he consistently avg 40 and consistently averaged that number in every country.

However this ignores the fact that

A) he batted with a star studded batting lineup. Replace Sachin, Dravid, Sehwag, Gamguly and many others with the likes of Labu, Bavuma, Crawley, and you'd see him averaging crap numbers.

He was elevated by a star studded lineup and always had a cushion partner to fall back on minus 2-3 atg knocks he played.

B) He was shuffled across the board and got a ladla treatment and media covered him up as some sort of ambassador, some sort of crises man. In reality fakhar zaman has played better odi equivalent crises knocks then him and unlike Laxman, he has a crap batting team to fall back in.

Laxman would be avg 38-39 has he played for an average lineup except for India where he was genuinely a good HTB.

He, Jadeja and Ashwin are extremely overrated as players.

Dhoni is overrated as well but unlike these 3, Dhoni was actually a really really really really good Odi cricketer so when he gets hyped in other formats I dont mind.
Click to expand...
First of all, please get your stats right, at number 6 he averaged 50+ , similary he averaged 48 at number 5.

His stats went down because he was never suited for opening and we had Tendulkar at number 4 and Ganguly at number 5 who were doing well and that’s why he was shifted to number 6.

Most of the amazing away wins of that fab 5 era of Indian batting came because of Laxman pulling a rescue act irrespective of conditions.

In this era also he would average more than 45 at number 6 or 5.
 
jeeteshssaxena said:
First of all, please get your stats right, at number 6 he averaged 50+ , similary he averaged 48 at number 5.

His stats went down because he was never suited for opening and we had Tendulkar at number 4 and Ganguly at number 5 who were doing well and that’s why he was shifted to number 6.

Most of the amazing away wins of that fab 5 era of Indian batting came because of Laxman pulling a rescue act irrespective of conditions.

In this era also he would average more than 45 at number 6 or 5.
Click to expand...
Laxman is a crap player. You gotta accept it.
 
Mamoon said:
That’s not true all. All the three Pakistani batsmen that I mentioned were comfortably better than Laxman.
Click to expand...
Pakistan with those 3 in middle order lost 9 tests in a row against Australia from 1999-2006 both home & away

Without Laxman India wud not have won 2001 BGT or drawn 2003-04 BGT or won 2008 Perth Test

Laxman was like Alan Lam of the 1980s - not so great overall record but excellent record against best team of their generation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mominsaigol
Will Pakistan replicate its recent success against stronger teams?
Replies
60
Views
2K
cricketmania22
C
MenInG
The Anderson–Tendulkar Trophy: Significance?
Replies
45
Views
963
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
The Bald Eagle
"Win is a win, no matter who you win against, if we lose to these teams, then we get criticized too": Hassan Ali
Replies
21
Views
1K
ravisurya
R
atreus
  • Article Article
Viv Richards and Sachin Tendulkar — are they really far apart statistically?
Replies
7
Views
612
atreus
atreus
BouncerGuy
Arun Dhumal hints at expanded 94-match IPL in 2028 but without new teams
Replies
5
Views
466
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
Back
Top