"I think Ahmed Shehzad has more talent than Sachin Tendulkar ever had" : Abdul Razzaq

[cricketjoshila]

I agree on principal. Tendulkar was already an ATG but he wouldn't have been as great as he is now without evolving so successfully.

Well he was already being compared to Bradman in 2000.Wisden rated him as the second best batsman in both tests and ODIs and he was rated at no.7 among all cricketers by ESPN experts so he was already an ATG.

That evolution has put him in arguably the best of all times cricteria.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I agree on principal. Tendulkar was already an ATG but he wouldn't have been as great as he is now without evolving so successfully.

For the uneducated masses, yes that's true as they just see the overall runs tally, average and then decide.

But here in Pakpassion, we don't rate a Kumble (600 wickets or whatever) as highly as someone who takes 200 wickets or so at 25 average.

So in Pakpassion circles, Sachin would have been an even greater legend with his myth stretching to what he COULD HAVE DONE in this batting era.

 

[Mamoon]

Tendulkar was the Messi of cricket.

He was handed the ATG tag long before he got there purely because of his unrivaled ability.

Kohli is not at that level. Don't think he is as good as Tendulkar.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Tendulkar was the Messi of cricket.

He was handed the ATG tag long before he got there purely because of his unrivaled ability.

Kohli is not at that level. Don't think he is as good as Tendulkar.

Kohli??

I doubt how many in history of cricket are/were as good as as Tendulkar?

 

[Mamoon]

Kohli??

I doubt how many in history of cricket are/were as good as as Tendulkar?

Well Kohli will surely break his ODI runs and hundreds record that is why I named him. But I still won't consider him as good.

 

[Romali_rotti]

Razzaq may have a point, Kapil Dev had more talent on his pinky finger than Imran ever had.......

 

[Sandeep]

Freaking Rahul Dravid was considered inferior to . Where did come into the picture?

 

[Mobashir]

Razzaq may have a point, Kapil Dev had more talent on his pinky finger than Imran ever had.......

Lol Razaaq surely did hurt you!

 

[Mobashir]

Freaking Rahul Dravid was considered inferior to . Where did come into the picture?

Kohli??

I doubt how many in history of cricket are/were as good as as Tendulkar?

Mamoon's obsession with Kohli...

 

[cricketjoshila]

Well Kohli will surely break his ODI runs and hundreds record that is why I named him. But I still won't consider him as good.

49 centuries and 18000 runs are a long long way.He will need a Tendulkaresque effort to reach that.

 

[Stark]

Looks like I need to change my username

I hadnt guessed what your username meant till this post of yours

I agree on principal. Tendulkar was already an ATG but he wouldn't have been as great as he is now without evolving so successfully.

The way he altered his game was something awe inspiring. Not only did he had a brilliant technique, and temperament, but curbing the attacking instincts is something not many can achieve. With sports, where you have to carry out a job at the int'l level and with the kind of fan following he had.. These things are very taxing with expectations of such high magnitude.

Freaking Rahul Dravid was considered inferior to sachin.

Not here on pp. The thumb rule is to name anybody but Tendulkar. Where have you been all this while ?
One 'gentle'man's post here a few pages earlier will give you good bit of insight.

 

[Mamoon]

Mamoon's obsession with Kohli...

if we produce a batsman who is one percent of him, I will cut the obsession.

 

[Mamoon]

49 centuries and 18000 runs are a long long way.He will need a Tendulkaresque effort to reach that.

He is well on his way.

 

[cricketjoshila]

49 centuries and 18000 runs are a long long way.He will need a Tendulkaresque effort to reach that.

He is well on his way.

You missed the point.

 

[Mobashir]

if we produce a batsman who is one percent of him, I will cut the obsession.

At least in Indo-Pak matches our batsmen play better than him.
But you should release that there are other countries in the world than your country and your neighbors that have better batsman than both :AB

 

[endymion248]

For the uneducated masses, yes that's true as they just see the overall runs tally, average and then decide.

But here in Pakpassion, we don't rate a Kumble (600 wickets or whatever) as highly as someone who takes 200 wickets or so at 25 average.

So in Pakpassion circles, Sachin would have been an even greater legend with his myth stretching to what he COULD HAVE DONE in this batting era.

That's true, batting average>longevity if you are from a batting strong country.

Tendulkar averaged 60 in his first 100 test matches, this means that he averaged 46 in his last 100 despite the second part being in a batting friendly era without great bowlers.

Did India have absolutely nobody who can average 45 at 3 or as opener? Even more so since Indians like to say that the 90s were a one man show while, in the 2000s, India was strong.

Tendulkar only sullied his legacy by playing for so long, you should only play for as long as your average is superior to that of a potential replacement. Given India's massive batting talent, 45 is just poor.

 

[Mamoon]

At least in Indo-Pak matches our batsmen play better than him.
But you should release that there are other countries in the world than your country and your neighbors that have better batsman than both :AB

de Villiers is the best batsman across all formats these days, true.

 

[Mobashir]

de Villiers is the best batsman across all formats these days, true.

So why not mention the best but another one?

 

[Mamoon]

Because we can't compete with the resources of SA. they are natural athletes.

Pakistan and India is one soil.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

That's true, batting average>longevity if you are from a batting strong country.

Tendulkar averaged 60 in his first 100 test matches, this means that he averaged 46 in his last 100 despite the second part being in a batting friendly era without great bowlers.

Did India have absolutely nobody who can average 45 at 3 or as opener? Even more so since Indians like to say that the 90s were a one man show while, in the 2000s, India was strong.

Tendulkar only sullied his legacy by playing for so long, you should only play for as long as your average is superior to that of a potential replacement. Given India's massive batting talent, 45 is just poor.

Wow what an analysis.

Let's dig in a bit deeper.

Year - Averages

2001 - 2002 - 62, 55
2003 - 17 (bad form, tennis elbow)
2004 - 91
2005 - 44
2006 - 24 (bad form)
2007 - 2011 - 55, 48, 67, 78, 48
2012, 2013 - 23, 34

After 2000, he just had 2 bad years.

Its just that his 2012-2013 stats spoiled his numbers.

India couldn't have had a batsman who had those averages over the course of a decade.

So take your argument somewhere else.

 

[cricketjoshila]

That's true, batting average>longevity if you are from a batting strong country.

Tendulkar averaged 60 in his first 100 test matches, this means that he averaged 46 in his last 100 despite the second part being in a batting friendly era without great bowlers.

He avgd 52 in his last 90 tests.

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...;spanval1=span;template=results;type=allround

Had an injury ravaged 2005-06 but after that he was very good and then retired when he had a slump in form in 2012-13

Longeivity and consistency > peak avgs any day.

Did India have absolutely nobody who can average 45 at 3 or as opener? Even more so since Indians like to say that the 90s were a one man show while, in the 2000s, India was strong.

AFAIK

Gambhir/Sehwag/Dravid/Laxman and now Pujara and Kohli all avg above 45.

Avg is not the sole cricteria

else MoYo/Samaraweera and co. will be above Richards/Lara/Dravid/Ponting and co.

Tendulkar only sullied his legacy by playing for so long, you should only play for as long as your average is superior to that of a potential replacement. Giving India's massive batting talent, 45 is just poor.

Where did you get 45?

How many batters in WC avg 45 plus today?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

That's true, batting average>longevity if you are from a batting strong country.

Tendulkar averaged 60 in his first 100 test matches, this means that he averaged 46 in his last 100 despite the second part being in a batting friendly era without great bowlers.

Did India have absolutely nobody who can average 45 at 3 or as opener? Even more so since Indians like to say that the 90s were a one man show while, in the 2000s, India was strong.

Tendulkar only sullied his legacy by playing for so long, you should only play for as long as your average is superior to that of a potential replacement. Given India's massive batting talent, 45 is just poor.

Wrong.

Average > Longevity if the longevity is slightly higher than avareg longevity of the generation.

When longevity >>>> average longevity of the generation

then the whole dimension changes.

Sachin maintained his average by playing long.

That's why his legacy will live for decades.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Wow what an analysis.

Let's dig in a bit deeper.

Year - Averages

2001 - 2002 - 62, 55
2003 - 17 (bad form, tennis elbow)
2004 - 91
2005 - 44
2006 - 24 (bad form)
2007 - 2011 - 55, 48, 67, 78, 48
2012, 2013 - 23, 34

After 2000, he just had 2 bad years.

Its just that his 2012-2013 stats spoiled his numbers.

India couldn't have had a batsman who had those averages over the course of a decade.

So take your argument somewhere else.

2003 was his struggle with a foot injury.it was 2006 which was the tennis elbow issue.

So he really lost form only in 2012-13.and he retired after that.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

2003 was his struggle with a foot injury.it was 2006 which was the tennis elbow issue.

So he really lost form only in 2012-13.and he retired after that.

Oh really didn't know that.

Sachin was never the same Sachin after 2000.

The fear among bowlers was gone (atleast after 2006).

He was respected by bowlers. That's it.

But his evolution was just unreal. The more dig it out, the more amazing it looks.

 

[jeetu]

The most talented Pak batsman was Miandad. No one ever came close.

 

[Romali_rotti]

it was 2006 which was the tennis elbow issue.

.

Nope 2004 before the test series vs Aus SRT was diagnosed with Tennis Elbow and he doesn't fully take part in the series..

 

[endymion248]

Wow what an analysis.

Let's dig in a bit deeper.

Year - Averages

2001 - 2002 - 62, 55
2003 - 17 (bad form, tennis elbow)
2004 - 91
2005 - 44
2006 - 24 (bad form)
2007 - 2011 - 55, 48, 67, 78, 48
2012, 2013 - 23, 34

After 2000, he just had 2 bad years.

Its just that his 2012-2013 stats spoiled his numbers.

India couldn't have had a batsman who had those averages over the course of a decade.

So take your argument somewhere else.

The fact is that he had that average of 46 after 2000. Maybe it was just 4 years but the slump of form in those 4 years was enough to compensate for the normal averages in other years, ie 50-60. Everyone has to have a bad average for a reason or the other, what matters is the numbers that you crunch on the other side.

India didn't need a batsman to have those averages over the course of a decade.
10 batsmen averaging 47>1 batsman averaging 46, any day, every day.

Longeivity and consistency > peak avgs any day.

Depends on the replacements.

AFAIK

Gambhir/Sehwag/Dravid/Laxman and now Pujara and Kohli all avg above 45.

Avg is not the sole cricteria

else MoYo/Samaraweera and co. will be above Richards/Lara/Dravid/Ponting and co.

Yes, SR matters too. And longevity in the case of Moyo because Pak has nobody to replace him. In the case of moyo, I agree that a lower average and more matches would have been better.

Where did you get 45?

How many batters in WC avg 45 plus today?

If he averaged 61 in his first 100 matches, has played 200 matches and has an overal overage of 53, you can do the math.

Wrong.

Average > Longevity if the longevity is slightly higher than avareg longevity of the generation.

When longevity >>>> average longevity of the generation

then the whole dimension changes.

Sachin maintained his average by playing long.

That's why his legacy will live for decades.

IMO, if Tendulkar retired after 100 matches, he would be held to much higher regards. At the very least, he shouldn't have played after WC 2011.

 

[Mobashir]

I actually am agreeing with Razzaq.

Ok, we disagree then even if Shehzad played some delightful shots to send India at home from the Asia cup.

 

[Couch Cricketer]

Tendu was the best limited overs batsman ever. I rate Dravid higher than him in Tests but Dravid does not even come in the top 5 Odi bats for India in my opinion. Tendulkar was the greatest overall batsman as to me he was the only batsman that could be considered as 1 or 2 in both formats. Where as Lara, Ponting , Kallis and all the rest might be argued about being in the top 10 of both formats but not in the top 2.

 

[endymion248]

Tendulkar has a shout of having the longest peak ever, if you look purely at numbers.

Between 1992-2004, he averaged 60.21 in 107 tests. ( an odd bad year or two in between like 2003 ) I think any batsman who retires having played 100+ tests averaging 60+ will be given automatic status of the greatest batsman ever in the modern era. Then he peaked again between 2007-2011 when he averaged 59 in 51 tests. You will find very few cricketers in history, if any, who have peaked twice in their careers.

In ODI's, his numbers get even more unreal.

I started respecting Ahmed Shehzad as a batsman since he scored an ODI ton against a full strength SA side in SA to win a series for Pakistan, but Razzaq's statement is over the top.

Ok, I'm sorry, I took this post to mean that he averaged 60.21 in his first 107 tests but it is actually considering a peak excluding his first few tests.

Tendulkar actually never crossed the 60 mark.

Here are his cumulative averages

Mat I NO Runs HS Ave 100 50 0 R I Match

1 1 0 15 15 15.00 0 0 0 15 2 1st Test v Pak 1989/90 [1127]
1 1 0 15 15 15.00 0 0 0 - 4
2 2 0 74 59 37.00 0 1 0 59 1 2nd Test v Pak 1989/90 [1128]
2 3 0 82 59 27.33 0 1 0 8 3
3 4 0 123 59 30.75 0 1 0 41 1 3rd Test v Pak 1989/90 [1130]
4 5 0 158 59 31.60 0 1 0 35 1 4th Test v Pak 1989/90 [1132]
4 6 0 215 59 35.83 0 2 0 57 3
5 7 0 215 59 30.71 0 2 1 0 2 1st Test v NZ 1989/90 [1136]
5 8 0 239 59 29.87 0 2 1 24 3
6 9 0 327 88 36.33 0 3 1 88 1 2nd Test v NZ 1989/90 [1138]
7 10 0 332 88 33.20 0 3 1 5 2 3rd Test v NZ 1989/90 [1139]
7 10 0 332 88 33.20 0 3 1 - 4
8 11 0 342 88 31.09 0 3 1 10 2 1st Test v Eng 1990 [1148]
8 12 0 369 88 30.75 0 3 1 27 4
9 13 0 437 88 33.61 0 4 1 68 2 2nd Test v Eng 1990 [1149]
9 14 1 556 119* 42.76 1 4 1 119* 4
10 15 1 577 119* 41.21 1 4 1 21 1 3rd Test v Eng 1990 [1150]
11 16 1 588 119* 39.20 1 4 1 11 1 Only Test v SL 1990/91 [1156]
12 17 1 604 119* 37.75 1 4 1 16 1 1st Test v Aus 1991/92 [1177]
12 18 1 611 119* 35.94 1 4 1 7 3
13 19 1 626 119* 34.77 1 4 1 15 1 2nd Test v Aus 1991/92 [1180]
13 20 1 666 119* 35.05 1 4 1 40 3
14 21 2 814 148* 42.84 2 4 1 148* 2 3rd Test v Aus 1991/92 [1181]
15 22 2 820 148* 41.00 2 4 1 6 2 4th Test v Aus 1991/92 [1184]
15 23 2 837 148* 39.85 2 4 1 17 4
16 24 2 951 148* 43.22 3 4 1 114 2 5th Test v Aus 1991/92 [1186]
16 25 2 956 148* 41.56 3 4 1 5 4
17 26 2 956 148* 39.83 3 4 2 0 2 Only Test v Zim 1992/93 [1197]
18 27 2 967 148* 38.68 3 4 2 11 2 1st Test v SA 1992/93 [1200]
19 28 2 1078 148* 41.46 4 4 2 111 2 2nd Test v SA 1992/93 [1201]
19 29 2 1079 148* 39.96 4 4 2 1 4
20 30 2 1085 148* 38.75 4 4 2 6 1 3rd Test v SA 1992/93 [1206]
20 31 2 1085 148* 37.41 4 4 3 0 3
21 32 2 1158 148* 38.60 4 5 3 73 2 4th Test v SA 1992/93 [1209]
21 32 2 1158 148* 38.60 4 5 3 - 4
22 33 2 1208 148* 38.96 4 6 3 50 1 1st Test v Eng 1992/93 [1211]
22 34 3 1217 148* 39.25 4 6 3 9* 4
23 35 3 1382 165 43.18 5 6 3 165 1 2nd Test v Eng 1992/93 [1213]
24 36 3 1460 165 44.24 5 7 3 78 2 3rd Test v Eng 1992/93 [1214]
25 37 3 1522 165 44.76 5 8 3 62 1 Only Test v Zim 1992/93 [1218]
26 37 3 1522 165 44.76 5 8 3 - - 1st Test v SL 1993 [1226]
27 38 3 1550 165 44.28 5 8 3 28 1 2nd Test v SL 1993 [1228]
27 39 4 1654 165 47.25 6 8 3 104* 3
28 40 4 1725 165 47.91 6 9 3 71 2 3rd Test v SL 1993 [1229]
29 41 4 1867 165 50.45 7 9 3 142 1 1st Test v SL 1993/94 [1244]
30 42 4 1963 165 51.65 7 10 3 96 1 2nd Test v SL 1993/94 [1245]
31 43 4 1969 165 50.48 7 10 3 6 2 3rd Test v SL 1993/94 [1247]
32 44 4 2012 165 50.30 7 10 3 43 2 Only Test v NZ 1993/94 [1255]
32 45 5 2023 165 50.57 7 10 3 11* 4
33 46 5 2057 165 50.17 7 10 3 34 1 1st Test v WI 1994/95 [1274]
33 47 5 2142 165 51.00 7 11 3 85 3
34 48 5 2321 179 53.97 8 11 3 179 1 2nd Test v WI 1994/95 [1277]
34 49 5 2375 179 53.97 8 12 3 54 3
35 50 5 2415 179 53.66 8 12 3 40 2 3rd Test v WI 1994/95 [1278]
35 51 5 2425 179 52.71 8 12 3 10 4
36 52 5 2429 179 51.68 8 12 3 4 2 1st Test v NZ 1995/96 [1308]
36 53 6 2429 179 51.68 8 12 3 0* 4
37 54 7 2481 179 52.78 8 13 3 52* 1 2nd Test v NZ 1995/96 [1309]
38 55 7 2483 179 51.72 8 13 3 2 1 3rd Test v NZ 1995/96 [1310]
39 56 7 2507 179 51.16 8 13 3 24 1 1st Test v Eng 1996 [1327]
39 57 7 2629 179 52.58 9 13 3 122 3
40 58 7 2660 179 52.15 9 13 3 31 2 2nd Test v Eng 1996 [1328]
41 59 7 2837 179 54.55 10 13 3 177 1 3rd Test v Eng 1996 [1329]
41 60 7 2911 179 54.92 10 14 3 74 3
42 61 7 2921 179 54.09 10 14 3 10 2 Only Test v Aus 1996/97 [1335]
42 62 7 2921 179 53.10 10 14 4 0 4
43 63 7 2963 179 52.91 10 14 4 42 1 1st Test v SA 1996/97 [1338]
43 64 7 2970 179 52.10 10 14 4 7 3
44 65 7 2988 179 51.51 10 14 4 18 2 2nd Test v SA 1996/97 [1341]
44 66 7 2990 179 50.67 10 14 4 2 4
45 67 7 3051 179 50.85 10 15 4 61 1 3rd Test v SA 1996/97 [1344]
45 68 7 3087 179 50.60 10 15 4 36 3
46 69 7 3102 179 50.03 10 15 4 15 2 1st Test v SA 1996/97 [1347]
46 70 7 3106 179 49.30 10 15 4 4 4
47 71 7 3275 179 51.17 11 15 4 169 2 2nd Test v SA 1996/97 [1349]
47 72 7 3284 179 50.52 11 15 4 9 4
48 73 7 3319 179 50.28 11 15 4 35 1 3rd Test v SA 1996/97 [1350]
48 74 7 3328 179 49.67 11 15 4 9 3
49 75 7 3335 179 49.04 11 15 4 7 2 1st Test v WI 1996/97 [1357]
49 76 8 3350 179 49.26 11 15 4 15* 4
50 77 8 3438 179 49.82 11 16 4 88 2 2nd Test v WI 1996/97 [1361]
51 78 8 3530 179 50.42 11 17 4 92 2 3rd Test v WI 1996/97 [1363]
51 79 8 3534 179 49.77 11 17 4 4 4
52 79 8 3534 179 49.77 11 17 4 - 2 4th Test v WI 1996/97 [1364]
53 80 8 3617 179 50.23 11 18 4 83 1 5th Test v WI 1996/97 [1365]
54 81 8 3760 179 51.50 12 18 4 143 1 1st Test v SL 1997 [1374]
55 82 8 3899 179 52.68 13 18 4 139 2 2nd Test v SL 1997 [1376]
55 83 8 3907 179 52.09 13 18 4 8 4
56 84 8 3930 179 51.71 13 18 4 23 2 1st Test v SL 1997/98 [1385]
57 85 8 3945 179 51.23 13 18 4 15 1 2nd Test v SL 1997/98 [1387]
58 86 8 4093 179 52.47 14 18 4 148 1 3rd Test v SL 1997/98 [1390]
58 87 8 4106 179 51.97 14 18 4 13 3
59 88 8 4110 179 51.37 14 18 4 4 1 1st Test v Aus 1997/98 [1405]
59 89 9 4265 179 53.31 15 18 4 155* 3
60 90 9 4344 179 53.62 15 19 4 79 2 2nd Test v Aus 1997/98 [1409]
61 91 9 4521 179 55.13 16 19 4 177 1 3rd Test v Aus 1997/98 [1413]
61 92 9 4552 179 54.84 16 19 4 31 3
62 93 9 4586 179 54.59 16 19 4 34 2 Only Test v Zim 1998/99 [1425]
62 94 9 4593 179 54.03 16 19 4 7 4
63 95 9 4640 179 53.95 16 19 4 47 1 2nd Test v NZ 1998/99 [1435]
63 96 9 4753 179 54.63 17 19 4 113 3
64 97 9 4820 179 54.77 17 20 4 67 2 3rd Test v NZ 1998/99 [1438]
64 97 9 4820 179 54.77 17 20 4 - 4
65 98 9 4820 179 54.15 17 20 5 0 2 1st Test v Pak 1998/99 [1442]
65 99 9 4956 179 55.06 18 20 5 136 4
66 100 9 4962 179 54.52 18 20 5 6 1 2nd Test v Pak 1998/99 [1443]
66 101 9 4991 179 54.25 18 20 5 29 3
67 102 9 4991 179 53.66 18 20 6 0 2 1st match v Pak 1998/99 [1444]
67 103 9 5000 179 53.19 18 20 6 9 4
68 104 9 5053 179 53.18 18 21 6 53 1 2nd match v SL 1998/99 [1445]
68 105 10 5177 179 54.49 19 21 6 124* 3
69 106 10 5195 179 54.11 19 21 6 18 1 1st Test v NZ 1999/00 [1462]
69 107 11 5321 179 55.42 20 21 6 126* 3
70 108 11 5336 179 55.01 20 21 6 15 2 2nd Test v NZ 1999/00 [1464]
70 109 12 5380 179 55.46 20 21 6 44* 4
71 110 12 5597 217 57.11 21 21 6 217 1 3rd Test v NZ 1999/00 [1465]
71 111 12 5612 217 56.68 21 21 6 15 3
72 112 12 5673 217 56.73 21 22 6 61 2 1st Test v Aus 1999/00 [1476]
72 113 12 5673 217 56.16 21 22 7 0 4
73 114 12 5789 217 56.75 22 22 7 116 2 2nd Test v Aus 1999/00 [1479]
73 115 12 5841 217 56.70 22 23 7 52 4
74 116 12 5886 217 56.59 22 23 7 45 1 3rd Test v Aus 1999/00 [1481]
74 117 12 5890 217 56.09 22 23 7 4 3
75 118 12 5987 217 56.48 22 24 7 97 1 1st Test v SA 1999/00 [1484]
75 119 12 5995 217 56.02 22 24 7 8 3
76 120 12 6016 217 55.70 22 24 7 21 1 2nd Test v SA 1999/00 [1486]
76 121 12 6036 217 55.37 22 24 7 20 3
77 122 12 6054 217 55.03 22 24 7 18 2 Only Test v BD 2000/01 [1512]
77 122 12 6054 217 55.03 22 24 7 - 4
78 123 12 6176 217 55.63 23 24 7 122 2 1st Test v Zim 2000/01 [1515]
78 124 12 6215 217 55.49 23 24 7 39 4
79 125 13 6416 217 57.28 24 24 7 201* 1 2nd Test v Zim 2000/01 [1517]
80 126 13 6492 217 57.45 24 25 7 76 1 1st Test v Aus 2000/01 [1531]
80 127 13 6557 217 57.51 24 26 7 65 3
81 128 13 6567 217 57.10 24 26 7 10 2 2nd Test v Aus 2000/01 [1535]
81 129 13 6577 217 56.69 24 26 7 10 3
82 130 13 6703 217 57.29 25 26 7 126 2 3rd Test v Aus 2000/01 [1539]
82 131 13 6720 217 56.94 25 26 7 17 4
83 132 13 6794 217 57.09 25 27 7 74 2 1st Test v Zim 2001 [1548]
83 133 14 6830 217 57.39 25 27 7 36* 4
84 134 14 6850 217 57.08 25 27 7 20 1 2nd Test v Zim 2001 [1549]
84 135 14 6919 217 57.18 25 28 7 69 3
85 136 14 7074 217 57.98 26 28 7 155 1 1st Test v SA 2001/02 [1564]
85 137 14 7089 217 57.63 26 28 7 15 3
86 138 14 7090 217 57.17 26 28 7 1 2 2nd Test v SA 2001/02 [1569]
86 139 15 7112 217 57.35 26 28 7 22* 4
87 140 15 7200 217 57.60 26 29 7 88 2 1st Test v Eng 2001/02 [1574]
87 140 15 7200 217 57.60 26 29 7 - 4
88 141 15 7303 217 57.96 27 29 7 103 2 2nd Test v Eng 2001/02 [1575]
88 142 15 7329 217 57.70 27 29 7 26 4
89 143 15 7419 217 57.96 27 30 7 90 2 3rd Test v Eng 2001/02 [1578]
90 144 15 7595 217 58.87 28 30 7 176 2 1st Test v Zim 2001/02 [1589]
91 145 15 7631 217 58.70 28 30 7 36 2 2nd Test v Zim 2001/02 [1591]
91 146 15 7673 217 58.57 28 30 7 42 4
92 147 15 7752 217 58.72 28 31 7 79 2 1st Test v WI 2002 [1598]
93 148 15 7869 217 59.16 29 31 7 117 1 2nd Test v WI 2002 [1599]
93 149 15 7869 217 58.72 29 31 8 0 3
94 150 15 7869 217 58.28 29 31 9 0 1 3rd Test v WI 2002 [1601]
94 151 15 7877 217 57.91 29 31 9 8 3
95 152 15 7877 217 57.49 29 31 10 0 1 4th Test v WI 2002 [1602]
96 153 15 7918 217 57.37 29 31 10 41 2 5th Test v WI 2002 [1604]
96 154 15 8004 217 57.58 29 32 10 86 4
97 155 15 8020 217 57.28 29 32 10 16 2 1st Test v Eng 2002 [1610]
97 156 15 8032 217 56.96 29 32 10 12 4
98 157 15 8066 217 56.80 29 32 10 34 1 2nd Test v Eng 2002 [1612]
98 158 15 8158 217 57.04 29 33 10 92 3
99 159 15 8351 217 57.99 30 33 10 193 1 3rd Test v Eng 2002 [1613]
100 160 15 8405 217 57.96 30 34 10 54 2 4th Test v Eng 2002 [1614]
101 161 15 8440 217 57.80 30 34 10 35 1 1st Test v WI 2002/03 [1616]
102 162 15 8483 217 57.70 30 34 10 43 2 2nd Test v WI 2002/03 [1618]
102 163 16 8499 217 57.81 30 34 10 16* 4
103 164 16 8535 217 57.66 30 34 10 36 1 3rd Test v WI 2002/03 [1622]
103 165 16 8711 217 58.46 31 34 10 176 3
104 166 16 8719 217 58.12 31 34 10 8 1 1st Test v NZ 2002/03 [1631]
104 167 16 8770 217 58.07 31 35 10 51 3
105 168 16 8779 217 57.75 31 35 10 9 1 2nd Test v NZ 2002/03 [1633]
105 169 16 8811 217 57.58 31 35 10 32 3
106 170 16 8819 217 57.26 31 35 10 8 1 1st Test v NZ 2003/04 [1660]
106 171 16 8826 217 56.94 31 35 10 7 3
107 172 16 8881 217 56.92 31 36 10 55 2 2nd Test v NZ 2003/04 [1662]
107 173 16 8882 217 56.57 31 36 10 1 3
108 174 16 8882 217 56.21 31 36 11 0 2 1st Test v Aus 2003/04 [1671]
108 174 16 8882 217 56.21 31 36 11 - 4
109 175 16 8883 217 55.86 31 36 11 1 2 2nd Test v Aus 2003/04 [1673]
109 176 16 8920 217 55.75 31 36 11 37 4
110 177 16 8920 217 55.40 31 36 12 0 1 3rd Test v Aus 2003/04 [1678]
110 178 16 8964 217 55.33 31 36 12 44 3
111 179 17 9205 241* 56.82 32 36 12 241* 1 4th Test v Aus 2003/04 [1680]
111 180 18 9265 241* 57.19 32 37 12 60* 3
112 181 19 9459 241* 58.38 33 37 12 194* 1 1st Test v Pak 2003/04 [1693]
113 182 19 9461 241* 58.04 33 37 12 2 1 2nd Test v Pak 2003/04 [1695]
113 183 19 9469 241* 57.73 33 37 12 8 3
114 184 19 9470 241* 57.39 33 37 12 1 2 3rd Test v Pak 2003/04 [1697]
115 185 19 9478 241* 57.09 33 37 12 8 2 3rd Test v Aus 2004/05 [1718]
115 186 19 9480 241* 56.76 33 37 12 2 4
116 187 19 9485 241* 56.45 33 37 12 5 1 4th Test v Aus 2004/05 [1720]
116 188 19 9540 241* 56.44 33 38 12 55 3
117 189 19 9543 241* 56.13 33 38 12 3 2 1st Test v SA 2004/05 [1722]
118 190 19 9563 241* 55.92 33 38 12 20 2 2nd Test v SA 2004/05 [1724]
118 191 20 9595 241* 56.11 33 38 12 32* 4
119 192 21 9843 248* 57.56 34 38 12 248* 2 1st Test v BD 2004/05 [1725]
120 193 21 9879 248* 57.43 34 38 12 36 1 2nd Test v BD 2004/05 [1727]
121 194 21 9973 248* 57.64 34 39 12 94 2 1st Test v Pak 2004/05 [1738]
121 194 21 9973 248* 57.64 34 39 12 - 4
122 195 21 10025 248* 57.61 34 40 12 52 1 2nd Test v Pak 2004/05 [1741]
122 196 21 10077 248* 57.58 34 41 12 52 3
123 197 21 10118 248* 57.48 34 41 12 41 2 3rd Test v Pak 2004/05 [1743]
123 198 21 10134 248* 57.25 34 41 12 16 4
124 199 21 10156 248* 57.05 34 41 12 22 1 1st Test v SL 2005/06 [1775]
125 200 21 10265 248* 57.34 35 41 12 109 1 2nd Test v SL 2005/06 [1776]
125 201 21 10281 248* 57.11 35 41 12 16 3
126 202 21 10304 248* 56.92 35 41 12 23 1 3rd Test v SL 2005/06 [1778]
126 203 21 10323 248* 56.71 35 41 12 19 3
127 203 21 10323 248* 56.71 35 41 12 - 2 1st Test v Pak 2005/06 [1781]
128 204 21 10337 248* 56.48 35 41 12 14 2 2nd Test v Pak 2005/06 [1782]
128 204 21 10337 248* 56.48 35 41 12 - 4
129 205 21 10360 248* 56.30 35 41 12 23 2 3rd Test v Pak 2005/06 [1783]
129 206 21 10386 248* 56.14 35 41 12 26 4
130 207 21 10402 248* 55.92 35 41 12 16 2 1st Test v Eng 2005/06 [1785]
130 208 22 10430 248* 56.07 35 41 12 28* 4
131 209 22 10434 248* 55.79 35 41 12 4 2 2nd Test v Eng 2005/06 [1788]
131 209 22 10434 248* 55.79 35 41 12 - 4
132 210 22 10435 248* 55.50 35 41 12 1 2 3rd Test v Eng 2005/06 [1791]
132 211 22 10469 248* 55.39 35 41 12 34 4
133 212 22 10513 248* 55.33 35 41 12 44 1 1st Test v SA 2006/07 [1823]
133 213 22 10527 248* 55.11 35 41 12 14 3
134 214 22 10590 248* 55.15 35 42 12 63 2 2nd Test v SA 2006/07 [1825]
134 215 22 10590 248* 54.87 35 42 13 0 4
135 216 22 10654 248* 54.91 35 43 13 64 1 3rd Test v SA 2006/07 [1827]
135 217 22 10668 248* 54.70 35 43 13 14 3
136 218 22 10769 248* 54.94 36 43 13 101 1 1st Test v BD 2007 [1832]
136 219 22 10800 248* 54.82 36 43 13 31 3
137 220 23 10922 248* 55.44 37 43 13 122* 1 2nd Test v BD 2007 [1833]
138 221 23 10959 248* 55.34 37 43 13 37 2 1st Test v Eng 2007 [1840]
138 222 23 10975 248* 55.15 37 43 13 16 4
139 223 23 11066 248* 55.33 37 44 13 91 2 2nd Test v Eng 2007 [1841]
139 224 23 11067 248* 55.05 37 44 13 1 4
140 225 23 11149 248* 55.19 37 45 13 82 1 3rd Test v Eng 2007 [1842]
140 226 23 11150 248* 54.92 37 45 13 1 3
141 227 23 11151 248* 54.66 37 45 13 1 2 1st Test v Pak 2007/08 [1849]
141 228 24 11207 248* 54.93 37 46 13 56* 4
142 229 24 11289 248* 55.06 37 47 13 82 1 2nd Test v Pak 2007/08 [1850]
142 229 24 11289 248* 55.06 37 47 13 - 3
143 230 24 11351 248* 55.10 37 48 13 62 2 1st Test v Aus 2007/08 [1855]
143 231 24 11366 248* 54.90 37 48 13 15 4
144 232 25 11520 248* 55.65 38 48 13 154* 2 2nd Test v Aus 2007/08 [1857]
144 233 25 11532 248* 55.44 38 48 13 12 4
145 234 25 11603 248* 55.51 38 49 13 71 1 3rd Test v Aus 2007/08 [1862]
145 235 25 11616 248* 55.31 38 49 13 13 3
146 236 25 11769 248* 55.77 39 49 13 153 1 4th Test v Aus 2007/08 [1863]
146 237 25 11782 248* 55.57 39 49 13 13 3
147 238 25 11782 248* 55.31 39 49 14 0 2 1st Test v SA 2007/08 [1870]
148 239 25 11809 248* 55.18 39 49 14 27 2 1st Test v SL 2008 [1882]
148 240 25 11821 248* 54.98 39 49 14 12 3
149 241 25 11826 248* 54.75 39 49 14 5 1 2nd Test v SL 2008 [1884]
149 242 25 11857 248* 54.64 39 49 14 31 3
150 243 25 11863 248* 54.41 39 49 14 6 1 3rd Test v SL 2008 [1886]
150 244 25 11877 248* 54.23 39 49 14 14 3
151 245 25 11890 248* 54.04 39 49 14 13 2 1st Test v Aus 2008/09 [1887]
151 246 25 11939 248* 54.02 39 49 14 49 4
152 247 25 12027 248* 54.17 39 50 14 88 1 2nd Test v Aus 2008/09 [1889]
152 248 26 12037 248* 54.22 39 50 14 10* 3
153 249 26 12105 248* 54.28 39 51 14 68 1 3rd Test v Aus 2008/09 [1891]
153 250 26 12152 248* 54.25 39 51 14 47 3
154 251 26 12261 248* 54.49 40 51 14 109 1 4th Test v Aus 2008/09 [1892]
154 252 26 12273 248* 54.30 40 51 14 12 3
155 253 26 12310 248* 54.22 40 51 14 37 2 1st Test v Eng 2008/09 [1898]
155 254 27 12413 248* 54.68 41 51 14 103* 4
156 255 27 12424 248* 54.49 41 51 14 11 1 2nd Test v Eng 2008/09 [1901]
156 256 27 12429 248* 54.27 41 51 14 5 3
157 257 27 12589 248* 54.73 42 51 14 160 2 1st Test v NZ 2008/09 [1915]
157 257 27 12589 248* 54.73 42 51 14 - 4
158 258 27 12638 248* 54.70 42 51 14 49 2 2nd Test v NZ 2008/09 [1917]
158 259 27 12702 248* 54.75 42 52 14 64 3
159 260 27 12764 248* 54.78 42 53 14 62 1 3rd Test v NZ 2008/09 [1918]
159 261 27 12773 248* 54.58 42 53 14 9 3
160 262 27 12777 248* 54.37 42 53 14 4 1 1st Test v SL 2009/10 [1933]
160 263 28 12877 248* 54.79 43 53 14 100* 3
161 264 28 12917 248* 54.73 43 53 14 40 1 2nd Test v SL 2009/10 [1935]
162 265 28 12970 248* 54.72 43 54 14 53 2 3rd Test v SL 2009/10 [1937]
163 266 29 13075 248* 55.16 44 54 14 105* 1 1st Test v BD 2009/10 [1949]
163 267 29 13091 248* 55.00 44 54 14 16 3
164 268 29 13234 248* 55.37 45 54 14 143 2 2nd Test v BD 2009/10 [1950]
164 268 29 13234 248* 55.37 45 54 14 - 4
165 269 29 13241 248* 55.17 45 54 14 7 2 1st Test v SA 2009/10 [1951]
165 270 29 13341 248* 55.35 46 54 14 100 3
166 271 29 13447 248* 55.56 47 54 14 106 2 2nd Test v SA 2009/10 [1952]
167 272 29 13455 248* 55.37 47 54 14 8 2 1st Test v SL 2010 [1964]
167 273 29 13539 248* 55.48 47 55 14 84 3
168 274 29 13742 248* 56.08 48 55 14 203 2 2nd Test v SL 2010 [1966]
169 275 29 13783 248* 56.02 48 55 14 41 2 3rd Test v SL 2010 [1968]
169 276 29 13837 248* 56.02 48 56 14 54 4
170 277 29 13935 248* 56.18 48 57 14 98 2 1st Test v Aus 2010/11 [1972]
170 278 29 13973 248* 56.11 48 57 14 38 4
171 279 29 14187 248* 56.74 49 57 14 214 2 2nd Test v Aus 2010/11 [1973]
171 280 30 14240 248* 56.96 49 58 14 53* 4
172 281 30 14280 248* 56.89 49 58 14 40 1 1st Test v NZ 2010/11 [1974]
172 282 30 14292 248* 56.71 49 58 14 12 3
173 283 30 14305 248* 56.54 49 58 14 13 2 2nd Test v NZ 2010/11 [1975]
173 283 30 14305 248* 56.54 49 58 14 - 4
174 284 30 14366 248* 56.55 49 59 14 61 2 3rd Test v NZ 2010/11 [1978]
175 285 30 14402 248* 56.47 49 59 14 36 1 1st Test v SA 2010/11 [1985]
175 286 31 14513 248* 56.91 50 59 14 111* 3
176 287 31 14526 248* 56.74 50 59 14 13 1 2nd Test v SA 2010/11 [1987]
176 288 31 14532 248* 56.54 50 59 14 6 3
177 289 31 14678 248* 56.89 51 59 14 146 2 3rd Test v SA 2010/11 [1988]
177 290 32 14692 248* 56.94 51 59 14 14* 4
178 291 32 14726 248* 56.85 51 59 14 34 2 1st Test v Eng 2011 [2000]
178 292 32 14738 248* 56.68 51 59 14 12 4
179 293 32 14754 248* 56.52 51 59 14 16 2 2nd Test v Eng 2011 [2001]
179 294 32 14810 248* 56.52 51 60 14 56 4
180 295 32 14811 248* 56.31 51 60 14 1 1 3rd Test v Eng 2011 [2003]
180 296 32 14851 248* 56.25 51 60 14 40 3
181 297 32 14874 248* 56.12 51 60 14 23 2 4th Test v Eng 2011 [2004]
181 298 32 14965 248* 56.25 51 61 14 91 3
182 299 32 14972 248* 56.07 51 61 14 7 2 1st Test v WI 2011/12 [2015]
182 300 32 15048 248* 56.14 51 62 14 76 4
183 301 32 15086 248* 56.08 51 62 14 38 1 2nd Test v WI 2011/12 [2017]
184 302 32 15180 248* 56.22 51 63 14 94 2 3rd Test v WI 2011/12 [2019]
184 303 32 15183 248* 56.02 51 63 14 3 4
185 304 32 15256 248* 56.08 51 64 14 73 2 1st Test v Aus 2011/12 [2025]
185 305 32 15288 248* 56.00 51 64 14 32 4
186 306 32 15329 248* 55.94 51 64 14 41 1 2nd Test v Aus 2011/12 [2027]
186 307 32 15409 248* 56.03 51 65 14 80 3
187 308 32 15424 248* 55.88 51 65 14 15 1 3rd Test v Aus 2011/12 [2029]
187 309 32 15432 248* 55.71 51 65 14 8 3
188 310 32 15457 248* 55.60 51 65 14 25 2 4th Test v Aus 2011/12 [2031]
188 311 32 15470 248* 55.44 51 65 14 13 4
189 312 32 15489 248* 55.31 51 65 14 19 1 1st Test v NZ 2012 [2054]
190 313 32 15506 248* 55.18 51 65 14 17 2 2nd Test v NZ 2012 [2055]
190 314 32 15533 248* 55.08 51 65 14 27 4
191 315 32 15546 248* 54.93 51 65 14 13 1 1st Test v Eng 2012/13 [2058]
191 315 32 15546 248* 54.93 51 65 14 - 4
192 316 32 15554 248* 54.76 51 65 14 8 1 2nd Test v Eng 2012/13 [2062]
192 317 32 15562 248* 54.60 51 65 14 8 3
193 318 32 15638 248* 54.67 51 66 14 76 1 3rd Test v Eng 2012/13 [2065]
193 319 32 15643 248* 54.50 51 66 14 5 3
194 320 32 15645 248* 54.32 51 66 14 2 2 4th Test v Eng 2012/13 [2066]
195 321 32 15726 248* 54.41 51 67 14 81 2 1st Test v Aus 2012/13 [2074]
195 322 33 15739 248* 54.46 51 67 14 13* 4
196 323 33 15746 248* 54.29 51 67 14 7 2 2nd Test v Aus 2012/13 [2076]
197 324 33 15783 248* 54.23 51 67 14 37 2 3rd Test v Aus 2012/13 [2081]
197 325 33 15804 248* 54.12 51 67 14 21 4
198 326 33 15836 248* 54.04 51 67 14 32 2 4th Test v Aus 2012/13 [2085]
198 327 33 15837 248* 53.86 51 67 14 1 4
199 328 33 15847 248* 53.71 51 67 14 10 2 1st Test v WI 2013/14 [2101]
200 329 33 15921 248* 53.78 51 68 14 74 2 2nd Test v WI 2013/14 [2102]


The slump actually starts in 2010-11.

 

[Lords]

Razzak has lost it, just like most of the other failed cricketers who dont know when to quit. He wont be taken seriously he made sure that.

I would rather listen to The Don instead of some bits and pieces player who cant even secure his place in a fragile team.

Meanwhile, no falooda was given by Sachin.

 

[Mobashir]

Razzak has lost it, just like most of the other failed cricketers who dont know when to quit. He wont be taken seriously he made sure that.

I would rather listen to The Don instead of some bits and pieces player who cant even secure his place in a fragile team.

Meanwhile, no falooda was given by Sachin.

Sachin was the master off them all in this regard.

 

[hur rizvi]

if Shehzad goes onto acheive half the feats that Tendu did, he would become the best Pakistan batsman ever..

Shehzad is a decent prospect, but not even close to Tendulkar's talent, Just consider, Tendulkar at 16 years of age was smacking likes Abdul Qadir all over the park and Shehzad finds it difficult against half decent spinners

 

[Indiafan]

Sachin was the master off them all in this regard.

Did you even take a look at the stats posted above and then comment?

 

[Indiafan]

Tendulkar only sullied his legacy by playing for so long, you should only play for as long as your average is superior to that of a potential replacement. Given India's massive batting talent, 45 is just poor.

Rubbish. So Sachin should have just given up on his country just to preserve his personal average and legacy? He still felt he had a lot to contribute

There is a reason youngsters like Kohli, Pujara swear on the tips and guidance the likes of Sachin has provided to them. There is a reason why our talented batsmen make a smooth transition from domestic to international and maintain a good average while our bowlers don't. Sachin not only helped India in the transition period but in those 2 years guided and groomed these young batsmen

Lara retired on a high and we all know what happened after that. West Indies batting immediately hit rock bottom and never recovered. He could easily have stayed a couple more year and guided youngsters

If Sachin sullied his legacy to help upcoming youngsters, so be it

 

[Bewal Express]

I hope Shazad lives up to the hype.

 

[Mobashir]

Did you even take a look at the stats posted above and then comment?

I am not a stat driven person but:
2000 onwards he has 29 hundreds in 214 innings.
8 from 20 innings against the mighty bengalis and zimbabwens.
So that's 21 from about 190 innings...

Then, apart from that century in SA, not one test innings I can say "woow what an innings".

Shouldn't talk to kids with special needs like that.

Calling someone a kid doesn't make you right.

 

[Sherlock]

Goes to show how ignorant our players sound when they're fronted by cameras and a red dot.

 

[Saqs]

Rubbish. So Sachin should have just given up on his country just to preserve his personal average and legacy? He still felt he had a lot to contribute

There is a reason youngsters like Kohli, Pujara swear on the tips and guidance the likes of Sachin has provided to them. There is a reason why our talented batsmen make a smooth transition from domestic to international and maintain a good average while our bowlers don't. Sachin not only helped India in the transition period but in those 2 years guided and groomed these young batsmen

Lara retired on a high and we all know what happened after that. West Indies batting immediately hit rock bottom and never recovered. He could easily have stayed a couple more year and guided youngsters

If Sachin sullied his legacy to help upcoming youngsters, so be it

Good point.

 

[Adil_94]

Re: "I think Ahmed Shehzad has more talent than Sachin Tendulkar ever had": Abdul Raz

My comment seems to have rubbed some chilly up your butt huh ? funny thing is I really do feel Dev was light years more talented than your Imran... Now suck it up sunshine you don't like it, well keep crying then .. I actually am agreeing with Razzaq.

Kapil was a great but first look at their records and their impact on the game. Imran found us two more ATGs inspired a generation of Fast bowlers. Kapil hasn't had that impact on the game. Kapil may have been more talented but Rohit is more talented than Kohli but we all know who is the better player.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I'm not going to bother reading through this thread, but this has to be one of the most stupid statements of all time.

 

[Stark]

I'm not going to bother reading through this thread...

You dont like comedy? This right here is pure gold strewn all over.. _old

 

[Bewal Express]

I'm not going to bother reading through this thread, but this has to be one of the most stupid statements of all time.

It sums of Razzaq.

 

[Indiafan]

I am not a stat driven person but:
2000 onwards he has 29 hundreds in 214 innings.
8 from 20 innings against the mighty bengalis and zimbabwens.
So that's 21 from about 190 innings...

Then, apart from that century in SA, not one test innings I can say "woow what an innings".



Calling someone a kid doesn't make you right.

He was the prime reason we reached no 1 in tests. So that's a great reason he stayed both for team and him

 

[Mobashir]

He was the prime reason we reached no 1 in tests. So that's a great reason he stayed both for team and him

No he wasn't.

Sehwag and Zaheer were.

 

[Indiafan]

No he wasn't.

Sehwag and Zaheer were.

Nope, We became no 1 during late 2009. Sachin had one of the highest averages in matches won during that period (not that I believe in only looking at these numbers). But Sachin's come back form coincided exactly with our rise to test no 1

Sachin averaged 67 and 78 during the years we were no 1

 

[waqar goraya]

Why? Just because he praised Tendulkar highly and appreciated him? Pata nahi humaray logon ko kyun itni khaarish hoti hay jab Tendulkar ko all time best kaha jaata hay. Sure, he may/may not be the best ever, but he definitely fits within the ambit of the discussion. Not too far fetched what Mamoon said about him being "superhuman" (figure of speech of course)

I have been posting and reading here for quite some time and my comment was specific to that particular poster having read his posts over a decent period of time.
You may call him God or an angel in stead of a super human or a super hero but his post implies that Tendulkar supersedes Imran.
I have no problem with that too if he considers Tendulkar a greater cricketer than Imran . It is just that he takes anti Pakistan stance far too much.
It is not that he praised Tendulkar but he also compared him with Imran and then arbitrarily also called Tendulkar superior to Imran. This is how i comprehend his post.

Imran Khan is the best all rounder. And wasim is the best left arm fast bowler. Now do i have to put a pakistani flag after my name?

No, but when you always belittle India in your every other post then an Indian flag looks awkward.
You have a right to claim that a particular batsman is the best batsman but it seems nonsensical to down grade the best all rounder in comparison with a particular best batsman.
He compared an orange with an apple and readily termed one superior to another.
After all it was just fun stuff.

 

[Buffet]

Tendulkar was already an ATG but he wouldn't have been as great as he is now without evolving so successfully.

Full credit to evolve here but I am not sure how much difference it has made over all as far as perception goes. In 2003, Sachin was named as 1st all time best ODI batsman & 2nd all time best test batsman by Wisden. A panel of cricketers made by ESPN put him around 5/6 among all cricketers in 2001.

This was before his last 10 years. Sure, more brownie points was accumulated by SRT due to his second peak around 2009/2010. But if you cut off his career even around 2003, he was rated as high as you can get.

 

[Big Mac]

It seems like in Pakistan the defence of having talent is justification for not actually producing the goods.

Yep, talent is useless without work ethic and discipline but in Pakistan hard work seems to be viewed with mistrust. Meanwhile we continue hyping superstar talunted future ATGs that never amount to anything.

 

[Mp812]

Razzaq probably believes that Batman and Gotham city exist somewhere in USA too.

 

[Mamoon]

Full credit to evolve here but I am not sure how much difference it has made over all as far as perception goes. In 2003, Sachin was named as 1st all time best ODI batsman & 2nd all time best test batsman by Wisden. A panel of cricketers made by ESPN put him around 5/6 among all cricketers in 2001.

This was before his last 10 years. Sure, more brownie points was accumulated by SRT due to his second peak around 2009/2010. But if you cut off his career even around 2003, he was rated as high as you can get.

I agree with you and like I said afterwards, my statement didn't come out the way I intended to.

Tendulkar was an ATG by 2001-2002. Even if he would have retired, his legacy would have been cemented. However, his evolution as a batsman is what separates him from other ATGs.

 

[zubair007]

Razzaq is just trolling Indian fans
Shahzad may have more talent than Tendulkar (in Razzaq's opinion, not mine), but isn't he too young to be compared to the great man yet? Who knows, he might surpass Tendulkar if he is destined to, but why blow the trumpet before he's done that. It is more than just talent, though. It's about heart as well. A young 16 year old Tendulkar was bloodied by a young fearsome Waqar on his nose, yet did not retire to the safety of the dressing room which would be the easy way out. He continued to bat. That is character, strength, and resolve. Shahzad will require all of these as well as many other qualities to be able to match Tendulkar's productivity.

 

[Soprano]

Tendulkar has too many feats.

In the late 90's, he was a machine. Far greater than what people like Wasim has achieved and look how much we revere them.

We Lancastrians rever Wasim and what he achieved. Sachin was not all that in his sole season for the white rose. I guess he's more at home on them roads of Mumbai.

Wasim>Sachin.

 

[cricketjoshila]

We Lancastrians rever Wasim and what he achieved. Sachin was not all that in his sole season for the white rose. I guess he's more at home on them roads of Mumbai.

Wasim>Sachin.

Sachin never had time or any incentive to play county.He played for Yorkshire for a season just for fun.And Tendulkar achieved what he did in TEST CRICKET and not some domestic cricket.

I know few englishmen like to think that county cricket is pinnacle of cricket which is why the reverance for the likes of Jack Hobbs and co.But thats not how it works.


Tendulkar avgd 50 plus away from home.Next time do check up facts before posting.

 

[Saqs]

Re: "I think Ahmed Shehzad has more talent than Sachin Tendulkar ever had": Abdul Raz

Lol at Mamoon belittling Wasim just to praise Sachin. Wow.

 

[Mamoon]

I don't have to belittle anyone. Who is the bigger legend of the game is as clear as day and night.

 

[Saqs]

Re: "I think Ahmed Shehzad has more talent than Sachin Tendulkar ever had": Abdul Raz

But it's subjective.

I know as many people who would put Wasim name down first before Sachin.

And they are both automatic entries into anybody's world XI so why even the need to bring it up considering one is an all rounder and the other a specialist batsman.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Lol at Mamoon belittling Wasim just to praise Sachin. Wow.

He belittled Wasim?Where?

 

[Saqs]

Re: "I think Ahmed Shehzad has more talent than Sachin Tendulkar ever had": Abdul Raz

He belittled Wasim?Where?

Far greater than what people like Wasim achieved and look how we revere him.

Something to that effect.

Argument makes no sense

And if anything we don't revere Wasim as much as he deserves to be revered.

 

[Mamoon]

But it's subjective.

And they are both automatic entries into anybody's world XI so why even the need to bring it up considering one is an all rounder and the other a specialist batsman.

Wasim underachieved in Test cricket.

He will make a Test all time XI purely because he is a left hander. If you take that out of the equation, he doesn't make it.

Tendulkar makes the XI purely on his performances. Regardless of whether he is left handed or right handed.

I don't think its subjective.

Both are legends of the game without a shadow of a doubt but Tendulkar is clearly ahead.

Although, I'd have Imran Khan and Shane Warne over both if it came to that.

 

[Mamoon]

Far greater than what people like Wasim achieved and look how we revere him.

Something to that effect.

Argument makes no sense

And if anything we don't revere Wasim as much as he deserves to be revered.

His dodgy actions has left a bad taste in the mouths of some people and understandably so.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Far greater than what people like Wasim achieved and look how we revere him.

Something to that effect.

Argument makes no sense

And if anything we don't revere Wasim as much as he deserves to be revered.

Well Wasim is belittled on PP by many because he works in India.He is perhaps the best bowler to have come out of Pakistan ahead of Waqar and even IK.

 

[Mamoon]

Well Wasim is belittled on PP by many because he works in India.He is perhaps the best bowler to have come out of Pakistan ahead of Waqar and even IK.

Imran at his peak was a better bowler than Wasim at his peak.

 

[Saqs]

Re: "I think Ahmed Shehzad has more talent than Sachin Tendulkar ever had": Abdul Raz

Wasim underachieved in Test cricket.

He will make a Test all time XI purely because he is a left hander. If you take that out of the equation, he doesn't make it.

Tendulkar makes the XI purely on his performances. Regardless of whether he is left handed or right handed.

I don't think its subjective.

Both are legends of the game without a shadow of a doubt but Tendulkar is clearly ahead.

Although, I'd have Imran Khan and Shane Warne over both if it came to that.

Well its not his fault he's a left hander lol. That's a ridiculous argument. He makes the side and is a legend because of what he achieved, not because he was a left hander. He makes the side because he could do things with that cricket ball that others only dream of. And he could swing that willow any which way too. Has a higher test score than Sachin if you want to go there

The only fast bowlers that would be ahead of Wasim are probably Waqar at his peak and Marshall. End of.

 

[Mamoon]

Well its not his fault he's a left hander lol. That's a ridiculous argument. He makes the side and is a legend because of what he achieved, not because he was a left hander. He makes the side because he could do things with that cricket ball that others only dream of. And he could swing that willow any which way too. Has a higher test score than Sachin if you want to go there

The only fast bowlers that would be ahead of Wasim are probably Waqar at his peak and Marshall. End of.

Marshall, Mcgrath and Steyn are better Test bowlers than Wasim.

I didn't say it is his fault, but he will make the team because of that. There were better Test bowlers than him.

Like I said, Wasim underachieved. He had amazing skill with the ball and could deliver any sort of delivery. On talent alone, he should have been the best of all time.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Imran at his peak was a better bowler than Wasim at his peak.

Wasim and IK avgd pretty much the same at their peaks.But avgs and esp peak avgs dont tell every thing.

Else on basis avg Samaraweera and MoYo and Sanga would be ahead of Lara/SRT/Viv etc etc.

Also peak avg wise Ponting is ahead of everyone bar Bradman which again isnt quite true.

What Wasim could do with the ball no one else could with the ball.Also Wasim had ti share his career with Waqar/Saqi/Akhtar.

IK didnt have that level of competition during most of his career.

 

[amax]

Wasim underachieved in Test cricket.

He will make a Test all time XI purely because he is a left hander. If you take that out of the equation, he doesn't make it.

Tendulkar makes the XI purely on his performances. Regardless of whether he is left handed or right handed.

BS, there are very few rivals of wasim in term of peer appreciation and even fewer that can match moment of brilliance he can produce as a cricketer.

 

[Mamoon]

Peer appreciation is always there for characters like Lara and Wasim because they have something special but how often would Lara make an all time XI ahead of Tendulkar and Ponting? He was selfish beyond belief.

Wasim was magnificent to watch, fantastically skillful bowler but he didn't fulfill his potential in Tests. In ODIs, he's the best ever in my book.

 

[Soprano]

Sachin never had time or any incentive to play county.He played for Yorkshire for a season just for fun.And Tendulkar achieved what he did in TEST CRICKET and not some domestic cricket.

I know few englishmen like to think that county cricket is pinnacle of cricket which is why the reverance for the likes of Jack Hobbs and co.But thats not how it works.

We Englishmen realise Test cricket is the litmus test and it was great to decimate your boys home and away recently.

Tendulkar avgd 50 plus away from home.Next time do check up facts before posting.

My point was in relation to someone slighting the achievements of Wasim. As a season ticket holder at Old Trafford and witnessing MANY great bowlers I have never seen anything like him.

 

[Soprano]

KP>Sachin

 

[London_Lahori]

Shehzad is a boring batsman , all his shots are so unattractive. I wonder how someone who takes 100 balls to score 60 runs in Odis in todays era gets compared to Tendulkar ? The guy has hardly played any Test cricket either , especially in overseas conditions. Comparison between Umar Akmal and Tendulkar would have been more apt.

His shots are unattractive? Take a hike son.

 

[cricketjoshila]

We Englishmen realise Test cricket is the litmus test and it was great to decimate your boys home and away recently.

Yea first series win in India in 30 odd years.

But what has that got to do with Tendulkar and Mumbai's pitch and Yorkshire?

Let me remind you about what you said

Sachin was not all that in his sole season for the white rose. I guess he's more at home on them roads of Mumbai.

My point was in relation to someone slighting the achievements of Wasim. As a season ticket holder at Old Trafford and witnessing MANY great bowlers I have never seen anything like him.

Again what has that got to do with Tendulkar playing only one season with Yorkshire?

 

[London_Lahori]

I can't believe this is still going

Though this has turned into a Tendulkar thread. Should just merge it with the Tendulkar thread.

 

[Soprano]

Yea first series win in India in 30 odd years.

Fact is we beat you on your patch and mauled you on ours.

But what has that got to do with Tendulkar and Mumbai's pitch and Yorkshire?

Let me remind you about what you said





Again what has that got to do with Tendulkar playing only one season with Yorkshire?

As you seemed to have got insecure about my comment about Sachin let me make it clear it wasn't designed to bash Sachin. For me cricket is not purely a statistical game...I am in no way a stats freak.

I form my judgement on a decent pair of eyes and whenever I saw Sachin bat against someone like Flintoff in england I always got the impression I was watching a batsman who looked anything but an ATG.

Great as he was...a notch below Lara and Ponting IMO.

 

[criclover510]

What are you smoking/drinking?? Razzaq share some of that with us lol

 

[cricketjoshila]

Fact is we beat you on your patch and mauled you on ours.

We did the same to you during the last series.Happens in Cricket.

As you seemed to have got insecure about my comment about Sachin let me make it clear it wasn't designed to bash Sachin. For me cricket is not purely a statistical game...I am in no way a stats freak.

I form my judgement on a decent pair of eyes and whenever I saw Sachin bat against someone like Flintoff in england I always got the impression I was watching a batsman who looked anything but an ATG.

Great as he was...a notch below Lara and Ponting IMO.

Yes.I understand where you are coming from.Your pair of eyes seem to be different from almost every cricket expert on this planet.Carry on.

 

[srh]

Talent wise Ahmed Shehzad is pretty good; I would put him on par with Tendulkar or a step below Tendulkar; but definitely not above Tendulkar.

But Tendulkar is more about hard work than talent. And yet to see if Ahmed Shehzad can match him in that regard.

 

[Saqs]

Re: "I think Ahmed Shehzad has more talent than Sachin Tendulkar ever had": Abdul Raz

I can't believe this is still going

Though this has turned into a Tendulkar thread. Should just merge it with the Tendulkar thread.

Lol dude the thread is about Tendulkar. It didn't just turn into a Tendulkar thread.

 

[cricketjoshila]

Talent wise Ahmed Shehzad is pretty good; I would put him on par with Tendulkar or a step below Tendulkar; but definitely not above Tendulkar.

But Tendulkar is more about hard work than talent. And yet to see if Ahmed Shehzad can match him in that regard.

LOL.Tendulkar at aged 16 was good enough to score runs againist IK/Wasim.Was good enough to smash Qadir to all parts of the ground.Good enough to score centuries at Perth and Sydney at the age of 18.That is called talent.

Ahmed Shehzad isnt even close to Tendulkar.Then again not many are.

 

[Saqs]

Re: "I think Ahmed Shehzad has more talent than Sachin Tendulkar ever had": Abdul Raz

Marshall, Mcgrath and Steyn are better Test bowlers than Wasim.

I didn't say it is his fault, but he will make the team because of that. There were better Test bowlers than him.

Like I said, Wasim underachieved. He had amazing skill with the ball and could deliver any sort of delivery. On talent alone, he should have been the best of all time.

Steyn is better than Wasim in Tests?

The same bowler you say cannot swing it both ways?