Joe Root vs Sachin Tendulkar comparison

[Mamoon]

I challenge Indians to list unique Sachin records that are not tied to longevity.

 

[JaDed]

How is jaiswal new? He's been an opener for a while now

Jaiswal, Pant, Gill, Siraj, Bumrah, Jadeja is a transitioning team hahahahaha.

India makes 2 changes and some incompetent selections via pradish and kamboj and suddenly its transitioning .

I dont give a cahoots, how was root medicore?

His 50 won the 1st game, his 103 caused the lead to be nullified and his 22 runs made a huge difference considering the margin india lost in the 3rd game.

How is he at fault for england losing after he scored 150 and secured a record run chase before an epic botch?

You're the one not making sense. I am not name calling anyone. When someone acts stupid, I call them out.

That is not name calling but me speaking the truth.

I always speak the truth and never lie and newsflash the truth hurts.

Jaiswal’s first series in England, I didn’t say Root was mediocre , I said he was average because he was playing at home.
You might not lie but you are stating opinions, just like I’m ,calling that a lie shows comprehension issues.

If home players start counting then Ashwin and Jaddu would be considered GOAT, they aren’t, Root was supposed to be better at home than Indian batsmen, he wasn’t only slightly better than Jadeja in batting.

 

[mominsaigol]

Jaiswal’s first series in England, I didn’t say Root was mediocre , I said he was average because he was playing at home.
You might not lie but you are stating opinions, just like I’m ,calling that a lie shows comprehension issues.

If home players start counting then Ashwin and Jaddu would be considered GOAT, they aren’t, Root was supposed to be better at home than Indian batsmen, he wasn’t only slightly better than Jadeja in batting.

First of quality of runs matter rather then quantity. Gill scored the most runs yet only performed on user flat tracks with 1 draws, 1 loss and 1 win.

He genuinely won the 2nd test and full credit where it is due but his scored were meaningless as every tom dick and Harry were scoring in the 1st and 4th. Whether he pull have scored or not in the 1st or 4th would have made zero difference in the result.

Same with jadeja, nothing that he did made a damn difference except for the 3rd test where it was a fighting knock and credit needs to be given.

Root's crossed over the line in the 1st test, his 3rd test century is directly responsible for an england victory. His 5th test century is an even better knock then jadeja's in the 3rd test albeit a complete botch.

As for jadeja amd ashwin, everyone knows they are frauds except delusional indians.

Ashwin and jadeja got those wickets in the sane wickets where satner humiliated them deapite satner not even playing tests, Similarly root got a 5fer on such pitches lol.

Obviously jadeja and ashwin will out owl any overseas spinner on such pitches as they play on these pitches 24/7 and know em like the back of their hand.

Unlike ashwin and jadeja root doesnt get exposed in every overseas tour he goes to.

Secondly are you honestly comparing succeeding on doctored pitches where every tom dick and Harry can score vs succeeding on 4 flat pitches + 1 difficult pitch?

3rd test was a nightmare of a putch yet root outdated everyone proving that he is the best batter out of india and england in a pitch that has meaning to it.

While on uber flat tracks, Gill and Jadeja are better then him but that's hardly a credible achievement if every batter is performing.

 

[mominsaigol]

First of quality of runs matter rather then quantity. Gill scored the most runs yet only performed on user flat tracks with 1 draws, 1 loss and 1 win.

He genuinely won the 2nd test and full credit where it is due but his scored were meaningless as every tom dick and Harry were scoring in the 1st and 4th. Whether he pull have scored or not in the 1st or 4th would have made zero difference in the result.

Same with jadeja, nothing that he did made a damn difference except for the 3rd test where it was a fighting knock and credit needs to be given.

Root's crossed over the line in the 1st test, his 3rd test century is directly responsible for an england victory. His 5th test century is an even better knock then jadeja's in the 3rd test albeit a complete botch.

As for jadeja amd ashwin, everyone knows they are frauds except delusional indians.

Ashwin and jadeja got those wickets in the sane wickets where satner humiliated them deapite satner not even playing tests, Similarly root got a 5fer on such pitches lol.

Obviously jadeja and ashwin will out owl any overseas spinner on such pitches as they play on these pitches 24/7 and know em like the back of their hand.

Unlike ashwin and jadeja root doesnt get exposed in every overseas tour he goes to.

Secondly are you honestly comparing succeeding on doctored pitches where every tom dick and Harry can score vs succeeding on 4 flat pitches + 1 difficult pitch?

3rd test was a nightmare of a putch yet root outdated everyone proving that he is the best batter out of india and england in a pitch that has meaning to it.

While on uber flat tracks, Gill and Jadeja are better then him but that's hardly a credible achievement if every batter is performing.

@JaDed Sorry for alot of typos in the post. Atm i am have a 100 degree fever and my text keyboard is wobbling in my head.

 

[JaDed]

@JaDed Sorry for alot of typos in the post. Atm i am have a 100 degree fever and my text keyboard is wobbling in my head.

it’s alright take rest, we can argue about again during Ashes.

 

[mominsaigol]

it’s alright take rest, we can argue about again during Ashes.

Apologies for outburst as well, as I am not in a correct state of mind atm, while I have stated controversial takes on timepass, they are never directed at someone specific. I think i am going to log off PP for a week.

 

[JaDed]

First of quality of runs matter rather then quantity. Gill scored the most runs yet only performed on user flat tracks with 1 draws, 1 loss and 1 win.

He genuinely won the 2nd test and full credit where it is due but his scored were meaningless as every tom dick and Harry were scoring in the 1st and 4th. Whether he pull have scored or not in the 1st or 4th would have made zero difference in the result.

Same with jadeja, nothing that he did made a damn difference except for the 3rd test where it was a fighting knock and credit needs to be given.

Root's crossed over the line in the 1st test, his 3rd test century is directly responsible for an england victory. His 5th test century is an even better knock then jadeja's in the 3rd test albeit a complete botch.

As for jadeja amd ashwin, everyone knows they are frauds except delusional indians.

Ashwin and jadeja got those wickets in the sane wickets where satner humiliated them deapite satner not even playing tests, Similarly root got a 5fer on such pitches lol.

Obviously jadeja and ashwin will out owl any overseas spinner on such pitches as they play on these pitches 24/7 and know em like the back of their hand.

Unlike ashwin and jadeja root doesnt get exposed in every overseas tour he goes to.

Secondly are you honestly comparing succeeding on doctored pitches where every tom dick and Harry can score vs succeeding on 4 flat pitches + 1 difficult pitch?

3rd test was a nightmare of a putch yet root outdated everyone proving that he is the best batter out of india and england in a pitch that has meaning to it.

While on uber flat tracks, Gill and Jadeja are better then him but that's hardly a credible achievement if every batter is performing.

While pitch matters conditions and location matters too, for Jadeja Rahul and Gill it was away series that too for 5 tests, which would ideally make it tougher.
Doctored pitches are a thing everywhere now, if every tom dick harry could score then Ash-Jaddu wont be taking teams to oblivion(except one series).
Sachin would always score in home games, even if Spinners take wickets he would smack Shane Warne like in Chennai..

 

[JaDed]

Apologies for outburst as well, as I am not in a correct state of mind atm, while I have stated controversial takes on timepass, they are never directed at someone specific. I think i am going to log off PP for a week.

It’s alright, happens to everyone. See you soon for Asia cup

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

I challenge Indians to list unique Sachin records that are not tied to longevity.

Most test centuries as a teenager.

Now tell me unique Root records not tied to longevity?

 

[mominsaigol]

Most test centuries as a teenager.

Now tell me unique Root records not tied to longevity?

Most test centuries as a teenager.

That's longetivity, 16 to 19, 3 years while others make their debut at 19. He played the most games as a teenager which is a longetivity metric.

Also ik you wont respond due to that hindu gods nonsense but idc. It is my duty to Kill la Kill.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

I challenge posters here to tell me one record of Root not tied to longevity.

Lemme point out how idiotic this reasoning sounds.

 

[mominsaigol]

I challenge posters here to tell me one record of Root not tied to longevity.

Lemme point out how idiotic this reasoning sounds.

Challenge all posters except me

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Sachin was a unique talent who started his career at 16 and scored centuries vs tough opponents away from home.

Its not his fault that others are not good enough to play.

 

[Varun]

Challenge all posters except me

Yes, no point arguing with somebody who started watching cricket only in 2018.

 

[mominsaigol]

Yes, no point arguing with somebody who started watching cricket only in 2018.

Glad to see you have given up one way or another

 

[giri26]

Only people who should be taken seriously are Pakpassion members who all have 200 Tests behind them. Every former/current cricketer/expert who rate Sachin Tendulkar aren't in their right minds. Any batter is better than Sachin Tendulkar as the legends of Pakpassion think so. So lets go with that, Root is greater than Sachin, there is no comparison.

On a serious note, whatever is said on this forum or on this thread is a personal opinion. This does not change the fact that Sachin is a certified GOAT. It does not matter if poster A or B thinks otherwise. Now people are discrediting Sachin because he was consistent for 24 years? Shahid Afridi played for almost 20 years, no one calls him a legend other than Pakistan fans off-course, who will bring metrics such as match winner/selfless player etc.

India not winning games has nothing to do with Sachin Tendulkar. For example, people on the forum who call Brian Lara a legend only because of his one 153* at home against Australia need to realise that his team only won 32 Tests of the 131 he was involved in. Michael Slater who played only 74 Tests in his career has been part of 44 Test wins. So should we claim that he is better than Sangakkara or Lara? Team sport is called that for a reason, lots of decent Aussie batters were part of more Test wins than some so called legends of the game. Cricket greats cannot be judged by match winning performances. This means nothing in team sports. A player can play a brilliant knock and still lose the game because their team did not click as a unit. People have to realise that Sachin was part of a mediocre Indian team till after 2001, which is 12 years of his career.

Also people talking about Sachin not winning games all by himself in ODIs need to understand cricket first before making such statements. Sachin opened the batting for majority of his career. For an an opener to win games all by himself he needs to carry the bat for 50 overs. Can some of the legends on this forum here point out ODI openers who have done it consistently in their careers? You will not as that does not help your agenda so let me put this out for you to digest, Out of 635 players who have batted at positions 1-2 in ODI's Sachin has most hundreds batting second in winning causes, 14 in 95 innings.

Rohit Sharma is second with 12 followed by Dilshan, Jayasuriya and Anwar with 9. So understand this, openers are not expected to chase down 300 runs and bat 50 overs. In the history of ODI cricket it has not happened that many times. Cannot compare number 3 - 5 batters with openers. Some of the legends you think are better than Sachin have scored 100's in winning causes at the same rate as Sachin, so not sure how they are better.

I can post all these facts but still people will not respond and bring some comparisons like batter vs Bowler, runs against a team, runs in a continent, ground, backyard etc to further their point. If you want to discuss actual cricket, please respond. Longevity is not easy, players cannot play for 24 years and be good for all those years. People claim that it is so easy to play for 24 years and score a load of runs. Most players get burnt out and get dropped before they even get close. People actually think that Ponting, Sangakkara or anyone else would have broken Sachin's record if they had played 200 games. The fact of the matter is they wouldn't have. Sangakkara was struggling to score runs at home in his last series. Ponting was averaging 40 in his last 5 years and 37 in his last 2. He played 168 Tests. His average was dropping. You have to give it to Sanga though that he got out before his average took a huge drop as well.

Playing for 24 years and 200 Tests and still average 54 in Tests is not easy. Joe Root is doing that and I respect him for that. it is not an easy feat to play that many Tests and still maintain a healthy average. Sachin did that and now Root is doing it and he will deserve it if he achieves the land mark. If he is better than Sachin is something I don't want to get into. It is a matter of opinion. Don't care if Sachin loses his Test runs record, everyone will still rate him as a batter and he will still be getting picked and or considered in playing XI's of all former and current greats. Sunil Gavaskar once held the record for most Test runs and was first to get to 10K, multiple people have gone past that record since then, no biggie but still Sunny after almost 40 years since his retirement gets spoken about and makes most of the all-time XI's, that's their legacy and not the runs they score or the records they set. The same will be for Sachin, records are meant to be broken and good on Joe Root if he gets there, but Sachin's legacy will remain as one of the GOAT's of the game, no matter what the people on this forum think.

Jimmy Anderson and Sachin played for so many years and yet maintained a performance which was equal to the best from that era. That is no joke.

 

[mominsaigol]

Only people who should be taken seriously are Pakpassion members who all have 200 Tests behind them. Every former/current cricketer/expert who rate Sachin Tendulkar aren't in their right minds. Any batter is better than Sachin Tendulkar as the legends of Pakpassion think so. So lets go with that, Root is greater than Sachin, there is no comparison.

On a serious note, whatever is said on this forum or on this thread is a personal opinion. This does not change the fact that Sachin is a certified GOAT. It does not matter if poster A or B thinks otherwise. Now people are discrediting Sachin because he was consistent for 24 years? Shahid Afridi played for almost 20 years, no one calls him a legend other than Pakistan fans off-course, who will bring metrics such as match winner/selfless player etc.

India not winning games has nothing to do with Sachin Tendulkar. For example, people on the forum who call Brian Lara a legend only because of his one 153* at home against Australia need to realise that his team only won 32 Tests of the 131 he was involved in. Michael Slater who played only 74 Tests in his career has been part of 44 Test wins. So should we claim that he is better than Sangakkara or Lara? Team sport is called that for a reason, lots of decent Aussie batters were part of more Test wins than some so called legends of the game. Cricket greats cannot be judged by match winning performances. This means nothing in team sports. A player can play a brilliant knock and still lose the game because their team did not click as a unit. People have to realise that Sachin was part of a mediocre Indian team till after 2001, which is 12 years of his career.

Also people talking about Sachin not winning games all by himself in ODIs need to understand cricket first before making such statements. Sachin opened the batting for majority of his career. For an an opener to win games all by himself he needs to carry the bat for 50 overs. Can some of the legends on this forum here point out ODI openers who have done it consistently in their careers? You will not as that does not help your agenda so let me put this out for you to digest, Out of 635 players who have batted at positions 1-2 in ODI's Sachin has most hundreds batting second in winning causes, 14 in 95 innings.

Rohit Sharma is second with 12 followed by Dilshan, Jayasuriya and Anwar with 9. So understand this, openers are not expected to chase down 300 runs and bat 50 overs. In the history of ODI cricket it has not happened that many times. Cannot compare number 3 - 5 batters with openers. Some of the legends you think are better than Sachin have scored 100's in winning causes at the same rate as Sachin, so not sure how they are better.

I can post all these facts but still people will not respond and bring some comparisons like batter vs Bowler, runs against a team, runs in a continent, ground, backyard etc to further their point. If you want to discuss actual cricket, please respond. Longevity is not easy, players cannot play for 24 years and be good for all those years. People claim that it is so easy to play for 24 years and score a load of runs. Most players get burnt out and get dropped before they even get close. People actually think that Ponting, Sangakkara or anyone else would have broken Sachin's record if they had played 200 games. The fact of the matter is they wouldn't have. Sangakkara was struggling to score runs at home in his last series. Ponting was averaging 40 in his last 5 years and 37 in his last 2. He played 168 Tests. His average was dropping. You have to give it to Sanga though that he got out before his average took a huge drop as well.

Playing for 24 years and 200 Tests and still average 54 in Tests is not easy. Joe Root is doing that and I respect him for that. it is not an easy feat to play that many Tests and still maintain a healthy average. Sachin did that and now Root is doing it and he will deserve it if he achieves the land mark. If he is better than Sachin is something I don't want to get into. It is a matter of opinion. Don't care if Sachin loses his Test runs record, everyone will still rate him as a batter and he will still be getting picked and or considered in playing XI's of all former and current greats. Sunil Gavaskar once held the record for most Test runs and was first to get to 10K, multiple people have gone past that record since then, no biggie but still Sunny after almost 40 years since his retirement gets spoken about and makes most of the all-time XI's, that's their legacy and not the runs they score or the records they set. The same will be for Sachin, records are meant to be broken and good on Joe Root if he gets there, but Sachin's legacy will remain as one of the GOAT's of the game, no matter what the people on this forum think.

Jimmy Anderson and Sachin played for so many years and yet maintained a performance which was equal to the best from that era. That is no joke.

The reason Tendulkar gets criticised is cause you guys keep giving him a god like greatest of all time status.

If he truly was the god that you proclaimed him to be, then he should be similar to Bradman. Their should not be any cracks in his stature.

An opener winning a game in that era? Very difficult yet gilly has more wins then sachin. The so called god of cricket has none against any top tier side except for his desert storm in ings which came against a 2nd string aussie attack.

Similarly a so called god of cricket should not have things tied down to longetivity alone. In 24 years he top scored 2x, never scored a 500 on any series despite dozens of test batters out performing, didnt have the highest avg.

His stat of most centuries as a teenager are due to him making a debut at 16 and playing for 3 extra years, nowadays it is not possible In this era. Sachin was a by product of said era. And no one claimed afridi is > him lol.

He has no record tied down to longetivity, zero memorable innings. If you are Zimbabwe and Bangladesh he avg 51 and he has played more minnows in test then any other batter in history.

Its also a known fact that test batting g was easier in that era. Every side in this era has a lower economy then the past excluding sa. The no of drawn test matches have decreased in this era as well. A tulla like Afridi avg 37 in test cricket which shows how easy batting use to be in that era.

Despite this Joe root and Sachin have identical stats considering root doesnt play any minnows excluding one off Tests vs Zimbabwe or bamgladesh here and their.

Steve Smith avg 57+ in 74 test matches, while Sachin did it in 9. All those people claiming he avg 57 after 119 Tests failed to mention that his stupid 136 avg vs bangaldesh inflated it to that number otherwise his avg is around 50+.

Sachin also has no 300, in this era due to the harsh bowling conditons getting a 300 is a rare site unless you get the perfect batting conditons like karun nair did or Harry Brook did in pakistan however 300 was a common occurrence in sachin's era yet he could never elevate himself towards it.

All these metrics on Sachin are brutally unfair, but when you elevate Sachin to a status of a god and the undisputed no 1 or no 2 while everyone else like Steve smith, lara, Joe root, Ponting, sobers etc etc are downplayed simply due to Indian fragile ego then people will bring this up.

Winning games as an opener in that era is tough but it should be a walk in the park for the so called god of cricket.

Getting 500 runs in that era is tough if you dont play a 5 match series but many did it in 3/4, while the so called god couldnt ever come close.

Top scoring year by year is tough but a so called god should easily be able to do so.

Out averaging everyone in that era is tough but a so called god should be able to do so.

Getting an innings listed in wisden is tough but a so called god should have multiple upon multiple innings listed in that era.

Out of all sachin's records his most impressive is avg 40 or > in every country which isnt possible in this era due to pitch doctoring however its his solo record in that era. That is his greatest achievement not tied down to longetivity.

However beyond that he has 0, I repeat 0 records that aren't tied to longetivity.

Most 100's as a teenager = Longetivity as most matches played as a teenager.

Most runs = Longetivity due to playing 200 test matches.

Most centuries in test, 2nd in odi = Longetivity due to playing the most games

Most runs in odi = Longetivity as he is the only player to reach 464 odi games

He has 1 record that isnt tied to longetivity.

So factoring all this in, why is the so called God of Cricket having such cracks in his record? Why are excuses upon excuses being made such as Openers cant do this and that when players like hayden and gilly have proved it otherwise?

And why are people so desperate to point out what legends proclaim yet when other legends like Steve smith or ponting claim something about root that is filtered out.

This excessive lying needs to stop.

 

[giri26]

The reason Tendulkar gets criticised is cause you guys keep giving him a god like greatest of all time status.

If he truly was the god that you proclaimed him to be, then he should be similar to Bradman. Their should not be any cracks in his stature.

An opener winning a game in that era? Very difficult yet gilly has more wins then sachin. The so called god of cricket has none against any top tier side except for his desert storm in ings which came against a 2nd string aussie attack.

Similarly a so called god of cricket should not have things tied down to longetivity alone. In 24 years he top scored 2x, never scored a 500 on any series despite dozens of test batters out performing, didnt have the highest avg.

His stat of most centuries as a teenager are due to him making a debut at 16 and playing for 3 extra years, nowadays it is not possible In this era. Sachin was a by product of said era. And no one claimed afridi is > him lol.

He has no record tied down to longetivity, zero memorable innings. If you are Zimbabwe and Bangladesh he avg 51 and he has played more minnows in test then any other batter in history.

Its also a known fact that test batting g was easier in that era. Every side in this era has a lower economy then the past excluding sa. The no of drawn test matches have decreased in this era as well. A tulla like Afridi avg 37 in test cricket which shows how easy batting use to be in that era.

Despite this Joe root and Sachin have identical stats considering root doesnt play any minnows excluding one off Tests vs Zimbabwe or bamgladesh here and their.

Steve Smith avg 57+ in 74 test matches, while Sachin did it in 9. All those people claiming he avg 57 after 119 Tests failed to mention that his stupid 136 avg vs bangaldesh inflated it to that number otherwise his avg is around 50+.

Sachin also has no 300, in this era due to the harsh bowling conditons getting a 300 is a rare site unless you get the perfect batting conditons like karun nair did or Harry Brook did in pakistan however 300 was a common occurrence in sachin's era yet he could never elevate himself towards it.

All these metrics on Sachin are brutally unfair, but when you elevate Sachin to a status of a god and the undisputed no 1 or no 2 while everyone else like Steve smith, lara, Joe root, Ponting, sobers etc etc are downplayed simply due to Indian fragile ego then people will bring this up.

Winning games as an opener in that era is tough but it should be a walk in the park for the so called god of cricket.

Getting 500 runs in that era is tough if you dont play a 5 match series but many did it in 3/4, while the so called god couldnt ever come close.

Top scoring year by year is tough but a so called god should easily be able to do so.

Out averaging everyone in that era is tough but a so called god should be able to do so.

Getting an innings listed in wisden is tough but a so called god should have multiple upon multiple innings listed in that era.

Out of all sachin's records his most impressive is avg 40 or > in every country which isnt possible in this era due to pitch doctoring however its his solo record in that era. That is his greatest achievement not tied down to longetivity.

However beyond that he has 0, I repeat 0 records that aren't tied to longetivity.

Most 100's as a teenager = Longetivity as most matches played as a teenager.

Most runs = Longetivity due to playing 200 test matches.

Most centuries in test, 2nd in odi = Longetivity due to playing the most games

Most runs in odi = Longetivity as he is the only player to reach 464 odi games

He has 1 record that isnt tied to longetivity.

So factoring all this in, why is the so called God of Cricket having such cracks in his record? Why are excuses upon excuses being made such as Openers cant do this and that when players like hayden and gilly have proved it otherwise?

And why are people so desperate to point out what legends proclaim yet when other legends like Steve smith or ponting claim something about root that is filtered out.

This excessive lying needs to stop.

Sachin is an Indian great, what people call him in India cannot be held against him. He did not call himself God or whatever. Strange that a player gets criticised for what his fans call him, this is a lol statement. Also someone good enough to play 200+ Tests is itself a great achievement. Also saying that someone who plays 200 Tests will automatically score highest number of runs is stupid. Virat Kohli played 123 Tests and ended up under 10K test runs, Younis Khan played 118 Tests and scored 10,299 runs. So more games = more runs theory falls flat.

Lol what have Hayden and Gilly proven? Please enlighten me. Hayden and Gilly come nowhere near Sachin in ODI's with their stats, please don't bring in scoring 100's in finals nonsense. Gilly averaged 35 in ODIs and has only 8 hundreds in winning cause chasing in same amount of innings as Sachin. Hayden has 0 hundreds in ODIs in winning cause while chasing in 47 innings. Please enlighten me what they have proven? I would love to know that. Don't confuse formats, even then their records fall flat.

Sachin played well in all countries and performed everywhere, if he scored runs against Bangladesh what is wrong in that. Every player has a bogey team they cash in against. You can diss him if he failed against all the countries other than BD. Ricky Ponting has huge hole in his record with poor average in India and okay to decent average in England. Sangakkara filled his boots against Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Pakistan but absolutely struggled in India, West Indies and SA and was just average in England. Steven Smith has okay to decent records in England/SA and has absolute poor record in Bangladesh albeit in 4 innings. Joe Root averages 24 in BD and 35 in Australia. So I can pull out records of all the players you mentioned and dissect them the same way as you do with Sachin. The fact of the matter is that there is no perfect batters. Stats can be manipulated. Sachin's legend is not because he scored that many runs or scored that many hundreds, people who watched him bat knew he was special from the age of 16. He has a huge emotional value for the Indian fans from that era, which is the reason for those excessive praise from the fans of that era including myself. But again I am not a regular fanboy. I have watched the game for more than 30 years and understand the ins and outs. I don't go by stats but again some people need numbers to even understand simplest of facts about the game.

I say again Longevity isn't easy and to perform at that level for 24 years isn't easy as well. There is no lying, the only people who are trying to twist the facts to downplay a legend are on this forum. Indian people even call some actors as gods, thats a stupid sentiment, no need to bring that up when judging a player. Yes Sachin did underachieve and unfortunately did not get to play that many Tests in his prime in the 90's where he averaged more than any player in that era. He averaged 58 while the next highest was 53. He was doing it while averaging 43 at a SR of 86 at the same time in ODIs. At the age of 25 he already had most hundreds in ODIs. His injuries post 2002/03 made him a more cautious batter which most people remember but again people who saw him in the 90's will for sure shower a lot of superlatives on him due to the way he played and due to the way he dominated a decade.

 

[mominsaigol]

Sachin is an Indian great, what people call him in India cannot be held against him. He did not call himself God or whatever. Strange that a player gets criticised for what his fans call him, this is a lol statement. Also someone good enough to play 200+ Tests is itself a great achievement. Also saying that someone who plays 200 Tests will automatically score highest number of runs is stupid. Virat Kohli played 123 Tests and ended up under 10K test runs, Younis Khan played 118 Tests and scored 10,299 runs. So more games = more runs theory falls flat.

Lol what have Hayden and Gilly proven? Please enlighten me. Hayden and Gilly come nowhere near Sachin in ODI's with their stats, please don't bring in scoring 100's in finals nonsense. Gilly averaged 35 in ODIs and has only 8 hundreds in winning cause chasing in same amount of innings as Sachin. Hayden has 0 hundreds in ODIs in winning cause while chasing in 47 innings. Please enlighten me what they have proven? I would love to know that. Don't confuse formats, even then their records fall flat.

Sachin played well in all countries and performed everywhere, if he scored runs against Bangladesh what is wrong in that. Every player has a bogey team they cash in against. You can diss him if he failed against all the countries other than BD. Ricky Ponting has huge hole in his record with poor average in India and okay to decent average in England. Sangakkara filled his boots against Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Pakistan but absolutely struggled in India, West Indies and SA and was just average in England. Steven Smith has okay to decent records in England/SA and has absolute poor record in Bangladesh albeit in 4 innings. Joe Root averages 24 in BD and 35 in Australia. So I can pull out records of all the players you mentioned and dissect them the same way as you do with Sachin. The fact of the matter is that there is no perfect batters. Stats can be manipulated. Sachin's legend is not because he scored that many runs or scored that many hundreds, people who watched him bat knew he was special from the age of 16. He has a huge emotional value for the Indian fans from that era, which is the reason for those excessive praise from the fans of that era including myself. But again I am not a regular fanboy. I have watched the game for more than 30 years and understand the ins and outs. I don't go by stats but again some people need numbers to even understand simplest of facts about the game.

I say again Longevity isn't easy and to perform at that level for 24 years isn't easy as well. There is no lying, the only people who are trying to twist the facts to downplay a legend are on this forum. Indian people even call some actors as gods, thats a stupid sentiment, no need to bring that up when judging a player. Yes Sachin did underachieve and unfortunately did not get to play that many Tests in his prime in the 90's where he averaged more than any player in that era. He averaged 58 while the next highest was 53. He was doing it while averaging 43 at a SR of 86 at the same time in ODIs. At the age of 25 he already had most hundreds in ODIs. His injuries post 2002/03 made him a more cautious batter which most people remember but again people who saw him in the 90's will for sure shower a lot of superlatives on him due to the way he played and due to the way he dominated a decade.

Lol at mentioning Virat Kohli .

Anyway YK never declined, he was nearing 40 which is why he couldnt get to 200 test matches, you want him to play till 50? Lol. YK is the standard of longetivity. It isnt his fault that Pakistan as a team plays lesser test matches. Infact YK has a few metrics that Sachin never achieved.

The rest of your arguments are bogus. Steve Smith has better records then sachin in every country. The Bangladesh series is due to putch doctoring Lol. Such pitches never existed in Sachin's era.

Either you are implying that Bangladesh of all teams is a better bowling side to ATG then the likes of India and SENA and can make a fool out of ATG batters, or you just being intellectually dishonest.

Pakistan made a mockery of joe root and every one on industrial pitches and even got lucky with the toss by batting first. Once they lost their first toss to WI and batted 2nd, the likes of warrican was avg shane Warne level stats vs Pakistan .

Pakistan and Bangladesh using industrial fans is a common trope. Rubbish argument if ive ever seen one.

Steve Smith and Root cam dismantle India, Nz, England in their own dens but they cant handle Bangladesh .

The rest of your rubbish i am ignoring. That Bangladesh argument and YK argument is so bad that I just can't. You'd think a guy watching cricket for 30 years would make better arguments lol

 

[mominsaigol]

Never seen a crappier argument. Steve smith 54, 50, 52 and 51 in India and SENA but he can't handle the legendary bowling of Bangladesh

 

[mominsaigol]

Root avg 50+ in every country except Aus(only blemish), and Pakistan, india and Bangladesh.

Pakistan was due to industrial fans where he still avg 47, India was due to most pitches being doctored. On the same pitches root failed, he also took a 5 fer and humiliated the likes of Kohli, pujara and many others. The so called goats couldnt handle root bowling to them on industrial pitches which shows how crap the pitches were.

When root was given proper pitched he tonked 170 and has already humiliated india in their own den.

He avg 47 overall and 50+ on proper indian dens that dont include root himself bowling statpadding for a 5 fer.

But ofcourse No one can handle the bowling of the mighty Bangladesh

 

[giri26]

Lol at mentioning Virat Kohli .

Anyway YK never declined, he was nearing 40 which is why he couldnt get to 200 test matches, you want him to play till 50? Lol. YK is the standard of longetivity. It isnt his fault that Pakistan as a team plays lesser test matches. Infact YK has a few metrics that Sachin never achieved.

The rest of your arguments are bogus. Steve Smith has better records then sachin in every country. The Bangladesh series is due to putch doctoring Lol. Such pitches never existed in Sachin's era.

Either you are implying that Bangladesh of all teams is a better bowling side to ATG then the likes of India and SENA and can make a fool out of ATG batters, or you just being intellectually dishonest.

Pakistan made a mockery of joe root and every one on industrial pitches and even got lucky with the toss by batting first. Once they lost their first toss to WI and batted 2nd, the likes of warrican was avg shane Warne level stats vs Pakistan .

Pakistan and Bangladesh using industrial fans is a common trope. Rubbish argument if ive ever seen one.

Steve Smith and Root cam dismantle India, Nz, England in their own dens but they cant handle Bangladesh .

The rest of your rubbish i am ignoring. That Bangladesh argument and YK argument is so bad that I just can't. You'd think a guy watching cricket for 30 years would make better arguments lol

Do you even read the posts? before posting nonsense? The comparison was between Younis Khan and Virat and how the former scored more runs than the latter despite playing less Tests. Saying that more test does not necessarily mean more runs in a way where, Virat played more tests but ended up with lesser runs than Younis. I did not imply Younis should play 200 tests. Seems like you have comprehension issues as well. I brought Steven Smith's record to prove that anyone's records can be pulled apart to show them inferior to the other if you want, like you guys do for Sachin by using his longevity to prove how by playing 200 Tests he averages 54 and has 16K runs. Oh God, I am not discussing this with you anymore. I thought you were a decent poster who actually understands the game but gosh I was wrong. Your post is so unprofessional and mostly based on personal opinions and it is hard to take someone seriously when their post is full of smileys. No wonder the quality of cricket discussions on this forum has gone down dramatically in recent times.

 

[mominsaigol]

Do you even read the posts? before posting nonsense? The comparison was between Younis Khan and Virat and how the former scored more runs than the latter despite playing less Tests. Saying that more test does not necessarily mean more runs in a way where, Virat played more tests but ended up with lesser runs than Younis. I did not imply Younis should play 200 tests. Seems like you have comprehension issues as well. I brought Steven Smith's record to prove that anyone's records can be pulled apart to show them inferior to the other if you want, like you guys do for Sachin by using his longevity to prove how by playing 200 Tests he averages 54 and has 16K runs. Oh God, I am not discussing this with you anymore. I thought you were a decent poster who actually understands the game but gosh I was wrong. Your post is so unprofessional and mostly based on personal opinions and it is hard to take someone seriously when their post is full of smileys. No wonder the quality of cricket discussions on this forum has gone down dramatically in recent times.

You can insult me all you want. I read the post.

Ofcourse you can score more runs playing lesser then no of games however it is uncommon if you literally have 30+ more games then the 2nd number.

Kohli is a better odi batter then sachin but wont reach his run tally. The difference between 118, 131 and 200 is massive and wide for obvious reasons.

No of runs are match count dependant. Cook isnt anywhere close to hayden as an opener yet has more runs then he does due to tue 60+ test count difference.

The analogy between 118 and 131 and 100 to 165 is beyond massive.

No one is pulling apart Sachin. If fans portray him as a god, the arguments will be addressed.

The issue qith sachin fans has always been the fact that they will downplay other batters to make Sachin look good.

Meanwhile no one does that for Bradman, sobers or Steve Smith cause their is no doubt that they are the best in their respective era and dont have records tied to their longetivity like sachin does.

Even Bradman who people quote 24/7, doesn't believe the gap between lara and sachin is as massive as people portray and many critics viewed Ponting in his prime > Sachin with ponting only declining and hence saxhin once again pulling ahead due to longetivity.

If you actually look at their primes before ponting's 2008 fall off, Ponting avg higher, scores more runs avg 57+ in 14 matches compared to sachin doing it in 9 with 5 of em vs Bangladesh lol. Ponting's conversion rate was significantly better at that time as well.

This is different from someone like Steve smith vs kohli, Root or anyone else where its clear he is massively > them despite having lesser runs then root.

His fans should stop doctoring arguments 24/7 and accept certain faults and stop hiding behind other critics skirts and even then you filter out said critics since you guys believe Pakistani ex cricketers words hold no weightage.

Its a fact that the modern bowling era is more favourable to bowlers as despite past sides having the likes of mcgrath, wasim, Ambrose wtc etc bowler economy of all countries except sa have gone down showing that lesser bowlers are succeeding and performing better due to conditons.

It is a fact that the no of draws have decreased and pitch doctoring exists.

It is a fact that root and saxhin avg = 51 if you exclude minnows which boosted saxhin to 54 while root hardly plays against Zimbabwe lol.

It is a fact that Sachin has onoy 1 record not tied to longetivoty which is 40+ avg in every country but he is lucky to not play in an industrial fan era lol.

It is a fact that tullas like afridi avg 37 in test cricket in that era while tullas in this era are extinct in test cricket.

Sachin is nowhere near as good as he is made out to be. He is an atg, but he is not a god so fans need to keep their mouth shut in this matter.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

The 90s was as difficult an era to bat as the current one, except that there were better bowlers in the 90s compared to this era. Sachin was the best batter of the 90s and hence he mastered making runs in difficult conditions against great bowling lineups.

Root on the other hand plays half his matches in the flattest track in the world (Bazball England pitches) against weaker bowling lineups when compared with the 90s.

The era of flattest pitches was the noughties, this is the exact era where the likes of Mohd Yousuf, Mahela, Ponting and Sanga made merry by playing on pattas against weak bowling lineups.

Ponting averages around 43-44 in the 90s and then in the noughties he averaged 60 to take his average to 50+. Thats the reason he isn’t on par with Lara and Sachin.

Jaques Kallis also averaged in mid 40s in the 90s.

Jayawardene, Sehwag, Sangakkara and Yousuf also feasted in this era.


The only reason that batsman were able to score more in the 90s was that they were actually very technically sound.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

So basically there are no records of Joe Root that are not tied to Longevity.

Hence this idiotic argument is now closed and the conspiracy theories of putting Anderson as a bowling equivalent of Sachin are also put to rest.

 

[BouncerGuy]

NO PERSONAL REMARKS PLEASE

 

[Rajdeep]

Root won’t even make the top 15 batters of all time, whereas Sachin is the undisputed number two.

What’s there to compare?

Pakistanis and their jealousy over certain Indian players like SRT and Bumrah is hilarious.
Can’t say much about Virat—for obvious reasons.

 

[mominsaigol]

Root scores 500+ runs in a series multiple times

Root surpasses ponting and Dravid in runs while playing lesser no of innings in a bowling friendly era

Root bashing india more then any other test batsmen in history despite not even playing the most no of games vs India.

@Rajdeep @jeeteshssaxena

Its just longetivity bro

 

[Rajdeep]

Root scores 500+ runs in a series multiple times

Root surpasses ponting and Dravid in runs while playing lesser no of innings in a bowling friendly era

Root bashing india more then any other test batsmen in history despite not even playing the most no of games vs India.

@Rajdeep @jeeteshssaxena

Its just longetivity bro

Root is indeed a very good batsman. No doubt.

Not sure what is their to laugh.

 

[mominsaigol]

Root is indeed a very good batsman. No doubt.

Not sure what is their to laugh.

Name the 15 who are better then him sir. Then again I don't expect anything from you at this point.

 

[Rajdeep]

Name the 15 who are better then him sir. Then again I don't expect anything from you at this point.

1. Don Bradman
2. Sachin Tendulkar
3. Jack Hobbs
4. Len Hutton
5. Brian Lara
6. Steve Smith
7. Sunil Gavaskar
8. Viv Richards
9. Garry Sobers
10. Jacques Kallis
11. Wally Hammond
12. Kumar Sangakkara
13. Herbert Sutcliffe
14. Rahul Dravid
15. Gregg Chappel

Additonally, this is what ChatGPT told me:

​

(In no particular order, but grouped roughly by greatness & legacy)

Legends Who Defined Batting​

1. Sir Donald Bradman (Australia) –
   The undisputed GOAT of cricket, averaging 99.94 in Test cricket. No one else comes close statistically.
2. Sachin Tendulkar (India) –
   The “Little Master,” with 100 international centuries and most Test runs (15,921). Played 24 years across generations.
3. Jacques Kallis (South Africa) –
   Best batting all-rounder ever. Averaged 55+ with the bat over a 166-Test career while taking 292 wickets.
4. Brian Lara (West Indies) –
   The “Prince of Trinidad,” holder of the highest individual Test score (*400). Match-winner in an era of West Indies decline.

---

Modern Masters​

1. Ricky Ponting (Australia) –
   Second-highest run-scorer in Tests (13,378), fierce competitor, and captain of one of the most dominant teams ever.
2. Kumar Sangakkara (Sri Lanka) –
   Technically flawless, elegant left-hander with 12,400+ runs and an average of 57.
3. Virat Kohli (India) –
   Modern giant with elite centuries across formats, known for chasing under pressure and away hundreds.

---

Classy Technicians​

1. Rahul Dravid (India) –
   “The Wall,” with 36 Test hundreds. Legendary for batting in tough overseas conditions.
2. Sunil Gavaskar (India) –
   First man to score 10,000 Test runs; mastered fast bowling in the 70s and 80s without a helmet.
3. Steve Smith (Australia) –
   Current era’s batting machine; ridiculous average of 58+ despite a career interruption.

---

Dominators of Their Era​

1. Allan Border (Australia) –
   Resilient leader; first man to 11,000 Test runs, held Australia together in tough times.
2. Sir Garfield Sobers (West Indies) –
   Greatest all-rounder; averaged 57.78 in Tests with elegant stroke play, also bowled multiple styles.
3. Wally Hammond (England) –
   Pre-WWII great; elegant, powerful, averaged 58+ with 7 double centuries.

---

Power & Flair Icons​

1. Viv Richards (West Indies) –
   Fearless, attacking genius; averaged 50+ batting without a helmet against ferocious fast bowlers.
2. Herbert Sutcliffe (England) –
   Opening legend from the 1920s/30s with a staggering 60+ Test average in tough batting conditions.

 

[mominsaigol]

1. Don Bradman
2. Sachin Tendulkar
3. Jack Hobbs
4. Len Hutton
5. Brian Lara
6. Steve Smith
7. Sunil Gavaskar
8. Viv Richards
9. Garry Sobers
10. Jacques Kallis
11. Wally Hammond
12. Kumar Sangakkara
13. Herbert Sutcliffe
14. Rahul Dravid
15. Gregg Chappel

Additonally, this is what ChatGPT told me:

Top 15 Test Batters of All Time

Legends Who Defined Batting​

1. Sir Donald Bradman (Australia) –
   The undisputed GOAT of cricket, averaging 99.94 in Test cricket. No one else comes close statistically.
2. Sachin Tendulkar (India) –
   The “Little Master,” with 100 international centuries and most Test runs (15,921). Played 24 years across generations.
3. Jacques Kallis (South Africa) –
   Best batting all-rounder ever. Averaged 55+ with the bat over a 166-Test career while taking 292 wickets.
4. Brian Lara (West Indies) –
   The “Prince of Trinidad,” holder of the highest individual Test score (*400). Match-winner in an era of West Indies decline.

Modern Masters​

1. Ricky Ponting (Australia) –
   Second-highest run-scorer in Tests (13,378), fierce competitor, and captain of one of the most dominant teams ever.
2. Kumar Sangakkara (Sri Lanka) –
   Technically flawless, elegant left-hander with 12,400+ runs and an average of 57.
3. Virat Kohli (India) –
   Modern giant with elite centuries across formats, known for chasing under pressure and away hundreds.

Classy Technicians​

1. Rahul Dravid (India) –
   “The Wall,” with 36 Test hundreds. Legendary for batting in tough overseas conditions.
2. Sunil Gavaskar (India) –
   First man to score 10,000 Test runs; mastered fast bowling in the 70s and 80s without a helmet.
3. Steve Smith (Australia) –
   Current era’s batting machine; ridiculous average of 58+ despite a career interruption.

Dominators of Their Era​

1. Allan Border (Australia) –
   Resilient leader; first man to 11,000 Test runs, held Australia together in tough times.
2. Sir Garfield Sobers (West Indies) –
   Greatest all-rounder; averaged 57.78 in Tests with elegant stroke play, also bowled multiple styles.
3. Wally Hammond (England) –
   Pre-WWII great; elegant, powerful, averaged 58+ with 7 double centuries.

---

Power & Flair Icons​

1. Viv Richards (West Indies) –
   Fearless, attacking genius; averaged 50+ batting without a helmet against ferocious fast bowlers.
2. Herbert Sutcliffe (England) –
   Opening legend from the 1920s/30s with a staggering 60+ Test average in tough batting conditions.

Using chatgpt to supplement arguments .

You lost it as soon as you said sanga, Dravid and kallis are superior.

What metric are you even utilising to determine that? Avg? Hypocritical considering you rate Sachin who avg below all these guys if you exclude minnows and avg > Dravid only of you include minnows.

Country performances? Sanga is a joke in 4 countries and is juat an upgraded version of Williamson, dravid sucks in 2 countries and is a joke their, kallis sucks in a platheroa as well but is regarded as a goat due to the clutch innings he played the countless of many listed on wisden which has sachin missing from all of em. Root has zero bad marks. Only aus of 35 which is nowhere near as bad as what dravid or sanga have on their records.

Innings to run ratio? Root surpassed dravid and sanga in runs playing lesser innings and is only behind kallis in that aspect.

No of matches wins? Root has 1 vs India this year alone while sachin has a grand total of zero .

No of times 500 runs were scored? Hahahababahabababbaabbahahaah

What metric are we using sir?

Please enlighten me first.

Then again ik you wont ever reply to this or will avoid answering the question.

 

[mominsaigol]

Using chatgpt to supplement arguments .

You lost it as soon as you said sanga, Dravid and kallis are superior.

What metric are you even utilising to determine that? Avg? Hypocritical considering you rate Sachin who avg below all these guys if you exclude minnows and avg > Dravid only of you include minnows.

Country performances? Sanga is a joke in 4 countries and is juat an upgraded version of Williamson, dravid sucks in 2 countries and is a joke their, kallis sucks in a platheroa as well but is regarded as a goat due to the clutch innings he played the countless of many listed on wisden which has sachin missing from all of em. Root has zero bad marks. Only aus of 35 which is nowhere near as bad as what dravid or sanga have on their records.

Innings to run ratio? Root surpassed dravid and sanga in runs playing lesser innings and is only behind kallis in that aspect.

No of matches wins? Root has 1 vs India this year alone while sachin has a grand total of zero .

No of times 500 runs were scored? Hahahababahabababbaabbahahaah

What metric are we using sir?

Please enlighten me first.

Then again ik you wont ever reply to this or will avoid answering the question.

Lol chatgpt said kohli .

Also I need to input into chatgpt myself. I dont trust a single prompt from @Rajdeep

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Posters are now changing the meaning of the English word ‘record’.

 

[Rajdeep]

You lost it as soon as you said sanga, Dravid and kallis are superior.

What metric are you even utilising to determine that?

My eyes and superior cricket knowledge are enough to judge; no metrics are required.

As I said, Root is my countryman, and I have immense respect for him as a batter. However, only a fool* would rate him above Sangakkara, Dravid, or Kallis. Whether it’s ChatGPT or Jarrod Kimber, anyone who truly understands cricket would have those legends above Root. Slicing and dicing stats and doing mental gymnastics 24/7 here won’t change that opinion. And comparing Root to Sachin? That’s pure blasphemy… LOL.

*P.S. – I wasn’t calling you a fool. You can filter stats from Cricinfo, after all. Also, you’re still the richest person on this forum, remember?

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

1. Bradman
2. Smith
3. Sachin
4. Sobers
5. Lara
6. Hobbs
7. Hutton
8. Richards
9. Gavaskar
10. Hammond
11. Sutcliffe
12. Border
13. Waugh
14. Kallis
15. Ponting
16. Sangakkara
17. Dravid
18. Root
19. Chappell
20. Weekes

Root will be number 18 in my list of top 20 batsman.
I could have missed one or two names as I made this just by memory of what i know about them.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Enough personal stuff now...

Stay on topic for

 

[Rajdeep]

@Rajdeep Now kindly stop derailing this thread.

My life does not revolve around Loony Toons parading around as British people. On with your Bollocks Mate!

Since we are talking about British people and bollocks, let me put my British pub hat on and respond to you in English banter style:
---
Below is when I just enter the pub

Mate, comparing Sachin to Root is like comparing a Michelin-star curry to a well-buttered crumpet. Both delicious, but one’s been making people cry tears of joy (and spice) for decades.

Sachin walked out as a 16-year-old kid, stared at Wasim and Waqar steaming in with murder in their eyes, and said, ‘Namaste, I’ll take that on the middle of the bat, cheers.’

Root’s brilliant, don’t get me wrong. He is England’s finest since Cook discovered how to bat without a helmet hair commercial.

But Sachin’s literally been the final boss for three generations of bowlers. McGrath, Warne, Shoaib, Muralitharan - all got the Tendulkar treatment.

Root? Classy, elegant, scores tons for breakfast. But Sachin had a billion people breathing down his neck every time he walked out to bat. Root’s biggest stress is choosing between Yorkshire Tea or PG Tips.

In short: Root’s a BMW M3 at best where as Sachin’s the entire Ferrari factory. One’s England’s GOAT, the other’s Cricket’s God.


Below is after I spend few hours in the pub

Oi, listen here, mate. You lot banging on about Joe Root like he’s the second coming of cricket? Please. Sachin Tendulkar is a whole bloody institution, he is. Root’s a lovely lad, no doubt....polite, neat technique, scores runs like he’s doing his homework. But Sachin? He walked out against McGrath, Warne, Wasim, Waqar and all the other lunatics bowling fire at him, and didn’t blink.

Root’s biggest worry is whether his tea’s too hot or if the rain’s gonna stop play. Sachin’s worried about a billion people staring at him, expecting him to single-handedly save a bloody country. And he did. Every. Single. Time.

Put it this way: Root’s a solid pint at the pub - smooth, dependable. Sachin’s a keg of craft ale that makes you cheer, cry, and sometimes spill it all over your trousers. There’s really no contest, mate. Sachin’s the king of the crease, Root’s just the bloke keeping England’s tea warm.

 

[Ab Fan]

Good Comparison.

Thank you!

 

[Ab Fan]

Since we are talking about British people and bollocks, let me put my British pub hat on and respond to you in English banter style:
---
Below is when I just enter the pub

Mate, comparing Sachin to Root is like comparing a Michelin-star curry to a well-buttered crumpet. Both delicious, but one’s been making people cry tears of joy (and spice) for decades.

Sachin walked out as a 16-year-old kid, stared at Wasim and Waqar steaming in with murder in their eyes, and said, ‘Namaste, I’ll take that on the middle of the bat, cheers.’

Root’s brilliant, don’t get me wrong. He is England’s finest since Cook discovered how to bat without a helmet hair commercial.

But Sachin’s literally been the final boss for three generations of bowlers. McGrath, Warne, Shoaib, Muralitharan - all got the Tendulkar treatment.

Root? Classy, elegant, scores tons for breakfast. But Sachin had a billion people breathing down his neck every time he walked out to bat. Root’s biggest stress is choosing between Yorkshire Tea or PG Tips.

In short: Root’s a BMW M3 at best where as Sachin’s the entire Ferrari factory. One’s England’s GOAT, the other’s Cricket’s God.


Below is after I spend few hours in the pub

Oi, listen here, mate. You lot banging on about Joe Root like he’s the second coming of cricket? Please. Sachin Tendulkar is a whole bloody institution, he is. Root’s a lovely lad, no doubt....polite, neat technique, scores runs like he’s doing his homework. But Sachin? He walked out against McGrath, Warne, Wasim, Waqar and all the other lunatics bowling fire at him, and didn’t blink.

Root’s biggest worry is whether his tea’s too hot or if the rain’s gonna stop play. Sachin’s worried about a billion people staring at him, expecting him to single-handedly save a bloody country. And he did. Every. Single. Time.

Put it this way: Root’s a solid pint at the pub - smooth, dependable. Sachin’s a keg of craft ale that makes you cheer, cry, and sometimes spill it all over your trousers. There’s really no contest, mate. Sachin’s the king of the crease, Root’s just the bloke keeping England’s tea warm.

POTW mate, it is POTW.

Just came to say this.

 

[Ab Fan]

The only stats that matter is below:-

Away from home vs non minnows,



Smith and SRT are top 2 and Root is not even in 10.

 

[Ab Fan]

So basically there are no records of Joe Root that are not tied to Longevity.

Hence this idiotic argument is now closed and the conspiracy theories of putting Anderson as a bowling equivalent of Sachin are also put to rest.

There is one - Only player to score 0 100s in Australia and regarded as ATG by fans. Root holds this.

 

[Technics 1210]

Oh, you don't need waffle after waffle, paragraph after paragraph, quote after quote, just to defend Tendulkar.

Greatness can be defended in a line, but the only line Tendulkar will end on is a footnote.

 

[atreus]

Jaiswal’s first series in England, I didn’t say Root was mediocre , I said he was average because he was playing at home.
You might not lie but you are stating opinions, just like I’m ,calling that a lie shows comprehension issues..

Root didn't stat pad at Edgbaston but was easily the best batsman of the series in the two tough wickets presented in London, Only Rahul coming anywhere close.

 

[atreus]

1. Bradman
2. Smith
3. Sachin
4. Sobers
5. Lara
6. Hobbs
7. Hutton
8. Richards
9. Gavaskar
10. Hammond
11. Sutcliffe
12. Border
13. Waugh
14. Kallis
15. Ponting
16. Sangakkara
17. Dravid
18. Root
19. Chappell
20. Weekes

Root will be number 18 in my list of top 20 batsman.
I could have missed one or two names as I made this just by memory of what i know about them.

If you're rating Hobbs then Hobbs is number 2, everyone else can fight for 3. Root at about Ponting level right now seems fair though he is better than Ponting and Kallis.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

If you're rating Hobbs then Hobbs is number 2, everyone else can fight for 3. Root at about Ponting level right now seems fair though he is better than Ponting and Kallis.

Hobbs era was relatively easier when compared to Bradman.

The best bowler of his time was Sydney Barnes and he didn’t have to face him, other bowlers of his era are not highly rated even by the critics who read and write about vintage cricket.

Larwood, Barnes and Maurice tate are the only three famous bowlers of that era and they were in his side.

I am quite sure you haven’t heard much about Jack Gregory, Jack Ryder, ted mcdonald etc.

I still put him above Gavaskar because there is a common perception in cricket forums that Hobbs is easily the best opener of all time, with Sutcliffe being second.


Coming to the second point, for me peak performance is important, Ponting averaged 60 overall at his peak, the best average Root ever had is 51, the last 5 years which is supposedly his peak even there his numbers against top teams away from home are not extraordinary, they are just good numbers.

In terms of performance at peak he is easily below Smith and also below 2016-2019 Kohli. Thats the reason I put him below Sanga and Dravid.

 

[atreus]

Hobbs era was relatively easier when compared to Bradman.

The best bowler of his time was Sydney Barnes and he didn’t have to face him, other bowlers of his era are not highly rated even by the critics who read and write about vintage cricket.

Larwood, Barnes and Maurice tate are the only three famous bowlers of that era and they were in his side.

I am quite sure you haven’t heard much about Jack Gregory, Jack Ryder, ted mcdonald etc.

I still put him above Gavaskar because there is a common perception in cricket forums that Hobbs is easily the best opener of all time, with Sutcliffe being second.

Ok, so Hobbs basically had two careers: one before the First World War, and one after.

Before the war, pitches were prepared almost entirely in favour of the bowlers, and it remains by far the lowest-scoring era of cricket compared to everything that came after. Hobbs himself believed he was a far inferior batsman after 1916 than before, yet he still scored the same volume of runs, and in fact found run-scoring even easier. The average batting figure in that era was 24; the general historical average in Test cricket is about 31. England played on uncovered wickets, where wet pitches and sticky dogs often caused batting disasters. South Africa had matting wickets, which are notoriously difficult to play on, while Australia also used uncovered wickets exposed to the elements.

Hobbs was utterly dominant in that era, outstripping everyone else by a margin that remains virtually unheard of (minimum 15 Tests) and completely unprecedented. Contemporaries such as Trumper, Hill, and Faulkner were considered among the best batsmen in the world and are still remembered as greats. Leading batsmen of the time, with their averages, included:

Bardsley – 45

Faulkner – 41

Trumper – 39

Hill – 38

Armstrong – 35

Rhodes – 35

Tyldesley – 31

Hobbs – 57.

That level of dominance is almost unique. Perhaps Steyn can be argued in bowling terms, but otherwise only Viv Richards and Bradman can really be said to have achieved a similar degree of superiority over their peers at their peaks.

After the war, pitches were redesigned to favour batsmen. Over-prepared wickets led to an age of flat surfaces reminiscent of the 2000s. Hobbs himself thought he was a shadow of his former self, and recurring illnesses forced him to become a slower scorer. By the time he returned from the war he was 38, yet he played Test cricket until 47, and continued playing first-class red-ball cricket for another five years.

In his older age, Hobbs was occasionally troubled by medium-pace bowlers, particularly those who relied on “pace off the pitch,” such as Maurice Tate and Bill Bowes. Nevertheless, he remained one of the leading batsmen in the world. In the interwar period, he averaged 62 before his decline in his final series. Only George Headley and Donald Bradman produced better figures. He was widely regarded as superior to Sutcliffe and McCartney, and was only surpassed once Hammond—and eventually Bradman—came along.

Hobbs remained a supreme player of spin. He scored two hundreds against Clarence Grimmett, one of the most successful spinners ever; one of those came on an unplayable sticky wicket where England were expected to fold under 150, but Hobbs and Sutcliffe produced some of the greatest innings ever seen. He also scored two centuries when Mailey was in the midst of a legendary series, effectively ending Mailey’s career in 1924/25.

Against pace, even in his later years, Hobbs remained a fantastic player of fast bowling and the leading Batsman in the world against it. The Australian giant Jack Gregory had been virtually unplayable in his early years, averaging just 16 or 17 with the ball in first-class cricket until his knee injury in 1922/23. Hobbs casually took four first-class centuries off him, two in Tests. He also scored heavily off Ted McDonald, Harold Larwood, and others in English cricket, and he averaged over 100 against the four-pronged pace attacks the West Indies toured with, which were a very good attack that got put completely to the sword.

All in all, Hobbs in the first half of his career reached an unprecedented peak, and in the second half achieved the unheard-of feat of remaining the best—or second-best—batsman in the world well into his forties.

All in all, Hobbs' first half and his prime has a level of dominance only exceeded by the Don himself, his second half gives him unprecedented longevity that is not challenged by anyone but Tendulkar, the feat of being the world's best Batsman when that age and having health issues is something no one else has achieved. It's a prime of Viv combined with the longevity of Tendulkar, that's why I said he should be number two.

Coming to the second point, for me peak performance is important, Ponting averaged 60 overall at his peak, the best average Root ever had is 51, the last 5 years which is supposedly his peak even there his numbers against top teams away from home are not extraordinary, they are just good numbers.

In terms of performance at peak he is easily below Smith and also below 2016-2019 Kohli. Thats the reason I put him below Sanga and Dravid.

Again, completely different eras. Also, all the 2000s bats have inflated their stats via Post-Walsh West Indies who were worse than Bangladesh and absolutely god awful in bowling stocks. Ponting and Kallis filled their pockets well by bashing that pathetic attack at home and on roads, It's no coincidence Kallis made 712 runs in 6 innings against them at home when Vasbert Drakes and Adam Sanford were some of their main bowlers.

Ponting definitely had a higher peak than Root but was also a batsman who came with a time limit given how reliant he was on his reflexes while Root is a technician thus have a higher spell of sustained excellence. Away isn't much of a point for Ponting considering he had the most embarrassing series any Great Batsman ever had, in 2001. His India series is god awful, and he didn't do well in 2001 or 2005 English Ashes either and was generally inconsistent. Two of his three Lankan tours were also bang average though he has a great hundred against Saqlain in Sri Lanka. All in all, they're both very close, it's peak vs sustained excellence.

 

[Ab Fan]

Ok, so Hobbs basically had two careers: one before the First World War, and one after.

Before the war, pitches were prepared almost entirely in favour of the bowlers, and it remains by far the lowest-scoring era of cricket compared to everything that came after. Hobbs himself believed he was a far inferior batsman after 1916 than before, yet he still scored the same volume of runs, and in fact found run-scoring even easier. The average batting figure in that era was 24; the general historical average in Test cricket is about 31. England played on uncovered wickets, where wet pitches and sticky dogs often caused batting disasters. South Africa had matting wickets, which are notoriously difficult to play on, while Australia also used uncovered wickets exposed to the elements.

Hobbs was utterly dominant in that era, outstripping everyone else by a margin that remains virtually unheard of (minimum 15 Tests) and completely unprecedented. Contemporaries such as Trumper, Hill, and Faulkner were considered among the best batsmen in the world and are still remembered as greats. Leading batsmen of the time, with their averages, included:

Bardsley – 45

Faulkner – 41

Trumper – 39

Hill – 38

Armstrong – 35

Rhodes – 35

Tyldesley – 31

Hobbs – 57.

That level of dominance is almost unique. Perhaps Steyn can be argued in bowling terms, but otherwise only Viv Richards and Bradman can really be said to have achieved a similar degree of superiority over their peers at their peaks.

After the war, pitches were redesigned to favour batsmen. Over-prepared wickets led to an age of flat surfaces reminiscent of the 2000s. Hobbs himself thought he was a shadow of his former self, and recurring illnesses forced him to become a slower scorer. By the time he returned from the war he was 38, yet he played Test cricket until 47, and continued playing first-class red-ball cricket for another five years.

In his older age, Hobbs was occasionally troubled by medium-pace bowlers, particularly those who relied on “pace off the pitch,” such as Maurice Tate and Bill Bowes. Nevertheless, he remained one of the leading batsmen in the world. In the interwar period, he averaged 62 before his decline in his final series. Only George Headley and Donald Bradman produced better figures. He was widely regarded as superior to Sutcliffe and McCartney, and was only surpassed once Hammond—and eventually Bradman—came along.

Hobbs remained a supreme player of spin. He scored two hundreds against Clarence Grimmett, one of the most successful spinners ever; one of those came on an unplayable sticky wicket where England were expected to fold under 150, but Hobbs and Sutcliffe produced some of the greatest innings ever seen. He also scored two centuries when Mailey was in the midst of a legendary series, effectively ending Mailey’s career in 1924/25.

Against pace, even in his later years, Hobbs remained a fantastic player of fast bowling and the leading Batsman in the world against it. The Australian giant Jack Gregory had been virtually unplayable in his early years, averaging just 16 or 17 with the ball in first-class cricket until his knee injury in 1922/23. Hobbs casually took four first-class centuries off him, two in Tests. He also scored heavily off Ted McDonald, Harold Larwood, and others in English cricket, and he averaged over 100 against the four-pronged pace attacks the West Indies toured with, which were a very good attack that got put completely to the sword.

All in all, Hobbs in the first half of his career reached an unprecedented peak, and in the second half achieved the unheard-of feat of remaining the best—or second-best—batsman in the world well into his forties.

All in all, Hobbs' first half and his prime has a level of dominance only exceeded by the Don himself, his second half gives him unprecedented longevity that is not challenged by anyone but Tendulkar, the feat of being the world's best Batsman when that age and having health issues is something no one else has achieved. It's a prime of Viv combined with the longevity of Tendulkar, that's why I said he should be number two.

Again, completely different eras. Also, all the 2000s bats have inflated their stats via Post-Walsh West Indies who were worse than Bangladesh and absolutely god awful in bowling stocks. Ponting and Kallis filled their pockets well by bashing that pathetic attack at home and on roads, It's no coincidence Kallis made 712 runs in 6 innings against them at home when Vasbert Drakes and Adam Sanford were some of their main bowlers.

Ponting definitely had a higher peak than Root but was also a batsman who came with a time limit given how reliant he was on his reflexes while Root is a technician thus have a higher spell of sustained excellence. Away isn't much of a point for Ponting considering he had the most embarrassing series any Great Batsman ever had, in 2001. His India series is god awful, and he didn't do well in 2001 or 2005 English Ashes either and was generally inconsistent. Two of his three Lankan tours were also bang average though he has a great hundred against Saqlain in Sri Lanka. All in all, they're both very close, it's peak vs sustained excellence.

That’s a pretty good illustration of Hobbs test career. Good bit of knowledge as well for those who don’t know much about it.

 

[mominsaigol]

That’s a pretty good illustration of Hobbs test career. Good bit of knowledge as well for those who don’t know much about it.

Good to see you are finally acknowledging others as superior.

Now you need to bow down and acknowledge those ss that I sent. Submit yourself to me.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

Ok, so Hobbs basically had two careers: one before the First World War, and one after.

Before the war, pitches were prepared almost entirely in favour of the bowlers, and it remains by far the lowest-scoring era of cricket compared to everything that came after. Hobbs himself believed he was a far inferior batsman after 1916 than before, yet he still scored the same volume of runs, and in fact found run-scoring even easier. The average batting figure in that era was 24; the general historical average in Test cricket is about 31. England played on uncovered wickets, where wet pitches and sticky dogs often caused batting disasters. South Africa had matting wickets, which are notoriously difficult to play on, while Australia also used uncovered wickets exposed to the elements.

Hobbs was utterly dominant in that era, outstripping everyone else by a margin that remains virtually unheard of (minimum 15 Tests) and completely unprecedented. Contemporaries such as Trumper, Hill, and Faulkner were considered among the best batsmen in the world and are still remembered as greats. Leading batsmen of the time, with their averages, included:

Bardsley – 45

Faulkner – 41

Trumper – 39

Hill – 38

Armstrong – 35

Rhodes – 35

Tyldesley – 31

Hobbs – 57.

That level of dominance is almost unique. Perhaps Steyn can be argued in bowling terms, but otherwise only Viv Richards and Bradman can really be said to have achieved a similar degree of superiority over their peers at their peaks.

After the war, pitches were redesigned to favour batsmen. Over-prepared wickets led to an age of flat surfaces reminiscent of the 2000s. Hobbs himself thought he was a shadow of his former self, and recurring illnesses forced him to become a slower scorer. By the time he returned from the war he was 38, yet he played Test cricket until 47, and continued playing first-class red-ball cricket for another five years.

In his older age, Hobbs was occasionally troubled by medium-pace bowlers, particularly those who relied on “pace off the pitch,” such as Maurice Tate and Bill Bowes. Nevertheless, he remained one of the leading batsmen in the world. In the interwar period, he averaged 62 before his decline in his final series. Only George Headley and Donald Bradman produced better figures. He was widely regarded as superior to Sutcliffe and McCartney, and was only surpassed once Hammond—and eventually Bradman—came along.

Hobbs remained a supreme player of spin. He scored two hundreds against Clarence Grimmett, one of the most successful spinners ever; one of those came on an unplayable sticky wicket where England were expected to fold under 150, but Hobbs and Sutcliffe produced some of the greatest innings ever seen. He also scored two centuries when Mailey was in the midst of a legendary series, effectively ending Mailey’s career in 1924/25.

Against pace, even in his later years, Hobbs remained a fantastic player of fast bowling and the leading Batsman in the world against it. The Australian giant Jack Gregory had been virtually unplayable in his early years, averaging just 16 or 17 with the ball in first-class cricket until his knee injury in 1922/23. Hobbs casually took four first-class centuries off him, two in Tests. He also scored heavily off Ted McDonald, Harold Larwood, and others in English cricket, and he averaged over 100 against the four-pronged pace attacks the West Indies toured with, which were a very good attack that got put completely to the sword.

All in all, Hobbs in the first half of his career reached an unprecedented peak, and in the second half achieved the unheard-of feat of remaining the best—or second-best—batsman in the world well into his forties.

All in all, Hobbs' first half and his prime has a level of dominance only exceeded by the Don himself, his second half gives him unprecedented longevity that is not challenged by anyone but Tendulkar, the feat of being the world's best Batsman when that age and having health issues is something no one else has achieved. It's a prime of Viv combined with the longevity of Tendulkar, that's why I said he should be number two.

Again, completely different eras. Also, all the 2000s bats have inflated their stats via Post-Walsh West Indies who were worse than Bangladesh and absolutely god awful in bowling stocks. Ponting and Kallis filled their pockets well by bashing that pathetic attack at home and on roads, It's no coincidence Kallis made 712 runs in 6 innings against them at home when Vasbert Drakes and Adam Sanford were some of their main bowlers.

Ponting definitely had a higher peak than Root but was also a batsman who came with a time limit given how reliant he was on his reflexes while Root is a technician thus have a higher spell of sustained excellence. Away isn't much of a point for Ponting considering he had the most embarrassing series any Great Batsman ever had, in 2001. His India series is god awful, and he didn't do well in 2001 or 2005 English Ashes either and was generally inconsistent. Two of his three Lankan tours were also bang average though he has a great hundred against Saqlain in Sri Lanka. All in all, they're both very close, it's peak vs sustained excellence.

Yes Hobbs was relatively above the level of his contemporaries but the difference was not as huge as Bradman and I do not rate players from older era just on the basis of peer comparison, because there is more than enough chance of it being the case that others weren’t really that good.


As for Joe Root and comparison with Ponting, Kallis etc. I know they batted on flat tracks for a good part of their career but the thing is that despite this era being more bowler friendly the likes of Smith and Kohli still had memorable peaks where they averages 70+ and 65+ respectively for more than three years. There is no reason why Root cannot replicate that.

Root also has gotten enough flat pitches, the recent series vs India was one of the most batters friendly series of all time. Bazball pitches have been good for the batters on top of that he played a series in Pakistan on absolute pattas and then another match last year where he scored 260+.

The runs per wicket in England since Bazball era is 32-33 which is even higher than the runs/wkt in 2000s on the same pitches.

I don’t think that Root had a great peak ever in his career, atleast not comparable to other ATG batsman. I have always felt this and I do have the stats too to argue about it. He has an average of 54 since 2020, thats less than career averages of ATG.

So there is absolutely way I can justify rating him amongst the Goats or greater than someone like Ponting. I am not biased here, I just don’t think he is that good.

 

[atreus]

Yes Hobbs was relatively above the level of his contemporaries but the difference was not as huge as Bradman and I do not rate players from older era just on the basis of peer comparison, because there is more than enough chance of it being the case that others weren’t really that good.


As for Joe Root and comparison with Ponting, Kallis etc. I know they batted on flat tracks for a good part of their career but the thing is that despite this era being more bowler friendly the likes of Smith and Kohli still had memorable peaks where they averages 70+ and 65+ respectively for more than three years. There is no reason why Root cannot replicate that.

Root also has gotten enough flat pitches, the recent series vs India was one of the most batters friendly series of all time. Bazball pitches have been good for the batters on top of that he played a series in Pakistan on absolute pattas and then another match last year where he scored 260+.

The runs per wicket in England since Bazball era is 32-33 which is even higher than the runs/wkt in 2000s on the same pitches.

I don’t think that Root had a great peak ever in his career, atleast not comparable to other ATG batsman. I have always felt this and I do have the stats too to argue about it. He has an average of 54 since 2020, thats less than career averages of ATG.

So there is absolutely way I can justify rating him amongst the Goats or greater than someone like Ponting. I am not biased here, I just don’t think he is that good.

actually the perception back then was that Hobbs' age (Golden Era) was superior to Bradman's era (Interwar period) and even post Second World-War because it was widely believed the two world wars pushed Cricket back. The cause was not only Hobbs saying he found scoring much easier after the First War, but also Woolley and Rhodes thinking English Cricket never recovered from the war all the way until Bodyline, Barnes came back at 50+ for some First class games and both Learie Constantine and Len Hutton thought he was even better than the leading English pacers of the time.

On Root...

First thing, Smith is better than Root, better than Ponting, better than Kallis and better than Sangakkara and that is not remotely close and I can't really expect Root to redo his prime.

Now moving on, The last England vs India series was really flat, especially old Trafford and Edgbaston but Root didn't cash in at Edgbaston, instead he made two really, really high class hundreds on a slow, uneven and swingy Lord's wicket and an oval greentop. Root is probably the weakest ATG Batsman when it comes to truly cashing in. Plus, this series aside, from 2013 to 2025, the overall batting average in England is 29.6, for reference – in Ponting's era the batting average in Australia was 32.7, in Kallis's era the batting average in South Africa was 29.48.

Kallis and Root had substantially tougher home conditions than Ponting. Another factor is the batting support, Ponting played for the greatest batting line-up assembled since the Invincibles, Kallis had a stellar batting unit, Root on the other hand has had to carry England for a very large amount of time, in a similar vein to how Lara had to carry Windies many times. Brook and Duckett are only recent developments.

Regarding peak, Root averages 56.63 since 2021, he averaged 57 from 2014 to early 2018. He has been very consistent throughout, the reason Kallis and Ponting achieved such huge peaks was because after Walsh bowed out, West Indies was one of the worst bowling units around and as bad as likely modern day Afganistan. Kallis averaged 71 for his peak but he achieved so on some unfathomable minnow bashing, he made 2000 runs against Windies/Zim/Ban at 158 average. His average against Test standard attacks was 58. Much more in the mortal range.

All in all, Ponting had more issues than Root, He was mediocre for a very long patch. Ponting also failed in the majority of his Asia tours, having the worst series any Batsman of his stature ever had in 2001. Even in his peak he dissapointed in England against a weak unit and had the worst Ashes by a great Batsman ever in 2010/11 where England won 3-0 in Australia. He was great at his peak but he just has way too many issues, technically and statistically, to make it ahead of Root.

 

[Ab Fan]

Yes, I do find Ponting overrated due to his OdI exploits.

Ponting has inferior away average to Dravid and Kallis both. But somehow he gets rated higher than him.

 

[RexRex]

Just came across this pic. What a God. When will Root perform against cricket's gold standard aka Australia ?

 

[mominsaigol]

Just came across this pic. What a God. When will Root perform against cricket's gold standard aka Australia ?


View attachment 157404

Dude Sachin is obviously a better odi player then root? Who claimed otherwise .

This is about Test. The fact remains that both Root and Sachin have the exact same avg and similar country by country record aka 51.

Sachin overall avg is 53 due to that insane 136 avg stat padding vs Bangladesh otherwise against top teams they avg exactly the same.

Infact Root and Sachin vs Top teams are similar. Root has been avg 56 vs top teams for years since 2019 with Sachin's golden period sitting at 57 which is slightly higher.

Sachin is however better then Root in Tests due to Australia avg + his peak is slightly higher.

I have no issues with people putting Sachin > Root.

The issue is you guys for some reason bash root to the point that you guys view him as some sort of crap batsmen.

Their so many posts from posters who either dont view him as an ATG or believe that the gulf between him and someone like samga, Kallis, Ponting is so massive and they use this tactic to boost sachin and downplay root.

This is why atreus and naryana were blessings to this forumn and debunked that myth.

Root and Ponting have similar avg yet root playing for a weaker batting lineup surpassed ponting in runs playing an innings less, has better country records as well. Ponting has a slightly higher peak then Root though.

But this root downplay needs to stop by you, jnaveen and others who have no idea about the game.

Sachin is in the league of Steve smith, Sunil Gavaskar but slightly below Gary Sobers and significantly below Jack Hobbs and eons below Bradman.

While Root is in the league of Ponting and Kallis but below Lara and obviously below Smith, Sachin and others.

Lets normalise rankings and remove agendas from PP and end Pakistani and Indian racism thanksm

 

[RexRex]

Dude Sachin is obviously a better odi player then root? Who claimed otherwise .

This is about Test. The fact remains that both Root and Sachin have the exact same avg and similar country by country record aka 51.

Sachin overall avg is 53 due to that insane 136 avg stat padding vs Bangladesh otherwise against top teams they avg exactly the same.

Infact Root and Sachin vs Top teams are similar. Root has been avg 56 vs top teams for years since 2019 with Sachin's golden period sitting at 57 which is slightly higher.

Sachin is however better then Root in Tests due to Australia avg + his peak is slightly higher.

I have no issues with people putting Sachin > Root.

The issue is you guys for some reason bash root to the point that you guys view him as some sort of crap batsmen.

Their so many posts from posters who either dont view him as an ATG or believe that the gulf between him and someone like samga, Kallis, Ponting is so massive and they use this tactic to boost sachin and downplay root.

This is why atreus and naryana were blessings to this forumn and debunked that myth.

Root and Ponting have similar avg yet root playing for a weaker batting lineup surpassed ponting in runs playing an innings less, has better country records as well. Ponting has a slightly higher peak then Root though.

But this root downplay needs to stop by you, jnaveen and others who have no idea about the game.

Sachin is in the league of Steve smith, Sunil Gavaskar but slightly below Gary Sobers and significantly below Jack Hobbs and eons below Bradman.

While Root is in the league of Ponting and Kallis but below Lara and obviously below Smith, Sachin and others.

Lets normalise rankings and remove agendas from PP and end Pakistani and Indian racism thanksm

Stop whining and bow down before the legend that is Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar.

 

[mominsaigol]

Stop whining and bow down before the legend that is Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar.

I'm not whining, if you would sit and actually listen to me for once and read my posts even if their slightly long you'd realise I'm not always aggressive with others.

It is posts such as these aka the ones you type that makes me mad and causes me to terrorise you lot.

Otherwise I have no intentions of bringing in singapore and nationalism and Hindu gods into things for no reason

 

[mominsaigol]

Stop whining and bow down before the legend that is Sachin Ramesh Tendulkar.

Also it is against my religion to bow to men moron.

I bow to one God. How many space monkey's do you bow to

 

[RexRex]

I bow to one God. How many space monkey's do you bow to

I don't bow to a monkey. Hoewever I do read a lot of one particular millenias old holy book, which was then plagiarised by...

You know what I mean.

 

[mominsaigol]

I don't bow to a monkey. Hoewever I do read a lot of one particular millenias old holy book, which was then plagiarised by...

You know what I mean.

Actually no i don't know what you mean, Speak Louder Monkey

 

[Narayana59]

Never seen a better minnows basher than Sachin Tendulkar in Test cricket.

Sachin is undoubtedly the undisputed greatest batter against depleted bowling attack,
but the likes of Joe Root and Viv Richards are among the wrost batter against minnows.

 

[Narayana59]

There is a drastic difference between the pitches and the bowling quality both sachin and root faced.

No wonder why not only sachin tendulkar but Kallis, Sangakkara also used to average 55+ AVG after 150+160+ tests.

 

[Narayana59]

Root vs Top 5 teams of 2020s - 4012 runs at 53.49 AVG with 14 centuries https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...0;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

Sachin vs top 5 teams of 90s - 2748 runs at 46.57 with 9 centuries. https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...9;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

 

[mominsaigol]

Root vs Top 5 teams of 2020s - 4012 runs at 53.49 AVG with 14 centuries https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...0;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting

Sachin vs top 5 teams of 90s - 2748 runs at 46.57 with 9 centuries. https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/e...9;spanval1=span;template=results;type=battingView attachment 157729

@Narayana59 cooking 24/7 with such posts. Can already feel the heat from the gang lol

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

There is a drastic difference between the pitches and the bowling quality both sachin and root faced.

No wonder why not only sachin tendulkar but Kallis, Sangakkara also used to average 55+ AVG after 150+160+ tests.
View attachment 157648View attachment 157647

Nah, Sachin played in the 90s too, the likes of Sanga and Kallis padded their stats a lot in the flat era of the 2000s.

Sachin faced better bowling lineups than JoeRoot in the 90s, there is absolutely no comparison.

 

[Narayana59]

Nah, Sachin played in the 90s too, the likes of Sanga and Kallis padded their stats a lot in the flat era of the 2000s.

Sachin faced better bowling lineups than JoeRoot in the 90s, there is absolutely no comparison.

That's 90s era is highly overrated for Sachin the fact is that india played most of the matches against toothless sl ,eng, nz in 90s where Sachin averaged 76 inflated his overall stats to 58 in 90s era.

 

[Narayana59]

1997– feb 1999 period was more batting friendly than 2016–feb 2018 period.



It means Sachin’s peak also came when pitches becomes batting friendly towards the late 90s era.

Interestingly Sachin fan's thinks that only Smith peak came in batting friendly era lol

 

[Sachin fan]

Oh, you don't need waffle after waffle, paragraph after paragraph, quote after quote, just to defend Tendulkar.

Greatness can be defended in a line, but the only line Tendulkar will end on is a footnote.

Just admit you are unable to read actual points and move on. People who are capable of debating and providing actual points from both sides are doing so.

You can keep crying about Sachin like you always do

 

[Sachin fan]

1997– feb 1999 period was more batting friendly than 2016–feb 2018 period.



It means Sachin’s peak also came when pitches becomes batting friendly towards the late 90s era.

Interestingly Sachin fan's thinks that only Smith peak came in batting friendly era lol


View attachment 157730View attachment 157731View attachment 157732View attachment 157733

Yet Sachin outscored his opponents way before his peak, lol lol.

This is the prime example of how stats can be manipulated by cleverly leaving out he was outscoring everyone else even before this period.

And using less than 2 years data to prove anything in a 20+ year old career. Any statistician will laugh you out of the room

 

[BouncerGuy]

PLEASE STAY ON TOPIC

 

[Sachin fan]

I challenge Indians to list unique Sachin records that are not tied to longevity.

What does this mean? How does one off records matter more than entire career if someone?

That's like saying Afridi hitting the fastest 100 makes him the best ODI batsman or Sachin scoring the first 200 ever in ODIs makes him the best ODI batter which is not true either.

When you talk about greatness of entire career why would you even care for one off individual records? How are the two related?

Poor argument.

 

[Narayana59]

Yet Sachin outscored his opponents way before his peak, lol lol.

This is the prime example of how stats can be manipulated by cleverly leaving out he was outscoring everyone else even before this period.

And using less than 2 years data to prove anything in a 20+ year old career. Any statistician will laugh you out of the room

Lol Steve waugh was averaging 61 when pitches were actually tough
Lara 56
Sachin wasn't not able to maintain 50+ career AVG till mar 1997 when pitches used to be spicy.
Sachin Tendulkar's peak came in 1997-2000 period.
I didn't included 1999-2000 because 2018 was the most bowling friendly year in test cricket history so it will not give accurate results for Steve Smith.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

@Naryana59 should be given the honorary title of Chairman of cricket forum.

 

[Narayana59]

Steve waugh was the actual best batsman of 90s era
Sachin was competiting with md Azharuddin when pitches used to tough.

 

[Narayana59]

I believe Lara is the most overrated batsman of 90s, he was only a home track bully with an terrible average of 33-35 against top 5 teams in away condition.
Wtc era Kane Williamson type performance.

 

[Sachin fan]

@Naryana59 should be given the honorary title of Chairman of cricket forum.

For manipulating stats over a 20 year old career.t eh same arguments have been done to death since the 90s and such people were always laughed off

 

[Sachin fan]

Steve waugh was the actual best batsman of 90s era
Sachin was competiting with md Azharuddin when pitches used to tough.
View attachment 157735

This is the perfect example of how, while the common man can pull data from any source, they don't have the capability on how to analysis data vs just see corelation or random patterns and conclusion.


Which is why data scientists are paid 10 or more times than a database guy.

If you intentionally remove years based on your bias, you can make Bradman average lower.

All of a sudden pitches become better when Sachin did well but if I remove waughs best years he will do the same

As I said, these kind of tactics have been used to put Sachin down since the 90s, it was laughable then and is laughable now

Despite all your pathetic attempts Sachin will always be remembered as greater than waugh no matter how many people cry on this forum

 

[mominsaigol]

This is the perfect example of how, while the common man can pull data from any source, they don't have the capability on how to analysis data vs just see corelation or random patterns and conclusion.


Which is why data scientists are paid 10 or more times than a database guy.

If you intentionally remove years based on your bias, you can make Bradman average lower.

All of a sudden pitches become better when Sachin did well but if I remove waughs best years he will do the same

As I said, these kind of tactics have been used to put Sachin down since the 90s, it was laughable then and is laughable now

Despite all your pathetic attempts Sachin will always be remembered as greater than waugh no matter how many people cry on this forum

Bradman's avg can't be lowered more then 70. Infact Bradman's actual avg is indeed somewhere around 85-91.

He avg 74 vs WI i believe, 91 vs England, and . Pre ww2 he was consistently in the 85-91 range vs England.

His avg got boosted to 99 due to India and SA who were rubbish in that era and he managed to avg 200+ against both sides.

If you look at Bradman's entire career his avg was mostly 83. It's his 974 run which included a 336 bashing that upped it to 91.

Otherwise he was a consistent 80+ avg batter so still massively > everyone in his era but likes of Sutcliff and hobbs never got to bash india and SA dueing their prime.

If they did then Bradman would have avg 99 but Sutcliff and Hobbs would reach 80-82

 

[Narayana59]

Yet Sachin outscored his opponents way before his peak, lol lol.

This is the prime example of how stats can be manipulated by cleverly leaving out he was outscoring everyone else even before this period.

And using less than 2 years data to prove anything in a 20+ year old career. Any statistician will laugh you out of the room

This is the perfect example of how, while the common man can pull data from any source, they don't have the capability on how to analysis data vs just see corelation or random patterns and conclusion.


Which is why data scientists are paid 10 or more times than a database guy.

If you intentionally remove years based on your bias, you can make Bradman average lower.

All of a sudden pitches become better when Sachin did well but if I remove waughs best years he will do the same

As I said, these kind of tactics have been used to put Sachin down since the 90s, it was laughable then and is laughable now

Despite all your pathetic attempts Sachin will always be remembered as greater than waugh no matter how many people cry on this forum

Didn't i provided the actual stats of bowling AVG and batting AVG involving Sachin When he peaked,?
No one is saying Steve waugh is better than Sachin overall, it's just that Steve waugh was the best batsman of 90s and it's a fact.


in fact not only sachin, newbie player Rahul Dravid started to average 60-65 in away conditions in those late 90s pitches.

No one will point out these holes if Sachin fan's will start to realise that his peak also came when batting becomes easier.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

I challenge Indians to list unique Sachin records that are not tied to longevity.

I challenge you to list unique Root records that are not tied to longevity.

 

[Hitman]

Just admit you are unable to read actual points and move on. People who are capable of debating and providing actual points from both sides are doing so.

You can keep crying about Sachin like you always do

Chodo, yaar! Why even debate.