What's new

Kumar Sangakkara versus Sachin Tendulkar: Sangakkara outshines Tendulkar in numbers

FearlessRoar

FearlessRoar

T20I Star
Joined
Sep 11, 2023
Runs
30,521
Let's check out the numbers and compare two cricket legends, Kumar Sangakkara and Sachin Tendulkar.

Kumar Sangakkara:

Tests: 134 matches, 12,400 runs, Average 57.40, 38 centuries

ODIs: 404 matches, 14,234 runs, Average 41.98, 25 centuries

T20Is: 56 matches, 1,382 runs, Average 31.40

Sachin Tendulkar:

Tests: 200 matches, 15,921 runs, Average 53.78, 51 centuries

ODIs: 463 matches, 18,426 runs, Average 44.83, 49 centuries

T20Is: 1 match, 10 runs, Average 10

Now, here's the interesting bit. Despite playing fewer matches, Sangakkara's Test average is even better than Tendulkar's, showing his incredible consistency.

I'm not just throwing numbers at you, it's about Kumar Sangakkara's impact in fewer matches in comparison to Sachin Tendulkar. His averages in all formats speak volumes about the quality he brought to the game.

In my view, Kumar Sangakkara is a greater batter than Sachin Tendulkar, and Sachin is not near to him. What is your take on this?
 
FearlessRoar said:
Now, here's the interesting bit. Despite playing fewer matches, Sangakkara's Test average is even better than Tendulkar's, showing his incredible consistency.
Click to expand...
Is that really interesting? The longer you play your avg will come down.. it was actually incredible Sachin has 50+ avg despite playing 200 matches.. (and i remember seeing stats here in pp Sangakkara really feasted on minnows)
 
Sangakkara was a great player, one of the best ever, but I won’t rank him above Tendulkar in any format of the game.

His Test average is mightily impressive but we have to understand the context too. It is massively inflated by runs in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka, especially during the 2000s and early 2010s, produced some of the flattest wickets in the world.

Tendulkar on the other hand played his home Tests on relatively tougher wickets because the ball spins quite a bit in India and a lot earlier than it does in Sri Lanka where the ball doesn’t do much until the 4th and 5th day.

Sangakkara was mediocre in India, averaging a mere 35 while Tendulkar almost averaged 70 in Sri Lanka. Those numbers certainly add perspective to this comparison.

For me, the best way of comparing two players is to imagine how they would fair playing in the same team for a substantial period of time. I really don’t see Sangakkara out scoring Tendulkar much if they were playing together.
 
FearlessRoar said:
Let's check out the numbers and compare two cricket legends, Kumar Sangakkara and Sachin Tendulkar.

Kumar Sangakkara:

Tests: 134 matches, 12,400 runs, Average 57.40, 38 centuries

ODIs: 404 matches, 14,234 runs, Average 41.98, 25 centuries

T20Is: 56 matches, 1,382 runs, Average 31.40

Sachin Tendulkar:

Tests: 200 matches, 15,921 runs, Average 53.78, 51 centuries

ODIs: 463 matches, 18,426 runs, Average 44.83, 49 centuries

T20Is: 1 match, 10 runs, Average 10

Now, here's the interesting bit. Despite playing fewer matches, Sangakkara's Test average is even better than Tendulkar's, showing his incredible consistency.

I'm not just throwing numbers at you, it's about Kumar Sangakkara's impact in fewer matches in comparison to Sachin Tendulkar. His averages in all formats speak volumes about the quality he brought to the game.

In my view, Kumar Sangakkara is a greater batter than Sachin Tendulkar, and Sachin is not near to him. What is your take on this?
Click to expand...
Numbers don't lie. Sangakkara has even better test stats than Ponting, which prove he is clearly a greater batter than Ponting.
 
Smbhayi said:
Is that really interesting? The longer you play your avg will come down.. it was actually incredible Sachin has 50+ avg despite playing 200 matches.. (and i remember seeing stats here in pp Sangakkara really feasted on minnows)
Click to expand...
That is a myth too. Sangakkara was far from a minnow-basher.

let’s take a look at his average in the major cricket countries:


Pakistan - 87
Australia - 61
New Zealand - 61
England - 41
India - 36
South Africa - 35

Those are not the numbers of a minnow-basher. He only averages less than 40 in two major countries and those numbers in Australia and New Zealand are incredible for a subcontinent batsman.
 
Smbhayi said:
Is that really interesting? The longer you play your avg will come down.. it was actually incredible Sachin has 50+ avg despite playing 200 matches.. (and i remember seeing stats here in pp Sangakkara really feasted on minnows)
Click to expand...
Kumar Sangakkara's Test batting averages vary against different top cricketing nations.

it's around 41.49 against Australia, approximately 57.40 against England, about 42.81 against South Africa, roughly 58.12 against Pakistan, approximately 52.00 against New Zealand, and about 67.61 against India.
 
Smith's decline is a testament of how difficult it is to maintain stats over quarter of a century, 200 tests.

Stats don't present full picture. Otherwise Miandad>Viv, Ashwin>Warne, Bumrah>Marshall, Samaraweera>Amla/VVS, Jayawardena>Clarke/KP etc.
 
Sachin averaged 57 after 175 tests, there's no comparison. And he didn't feast on zim and bang in those lankan roads.

I can't remember a single sanga innings except that Hobart one.

In odis, Sanga ain't the best lankan batsman. Jayasuriya was better than him
 
Mamoon said:
That is a myth too. Sangakkara was far from a minnow-basher.

let’s take a look at his average in the major cricket countries:


Pakistan - 87
Australia - 61
New Zealand - 61
England - 41
India - 36
South Africa - 35

Those are not the numbers of a minnow-basher. He only averages less than 40 in two major countries and those numbers in Australia and New Zealand are incredible for a subcontinent batsman.
Click to expand...
Sanga played most of his games in 2000s which was the flattest era in the history of test cricket, 20+ batsmen averaged above 50 in the 2000s compared to just 3 in the 90s, those 3 being Sachin (58), Lara (52) and Steve Waugh (50.5). Sachin and Lara had declined by 2000s while mediocrity from 90s like Kallis, Dravid, Ponting boosted their numbers. Statistically 80s, 90s and 2016 to present day are the toughest eras for batting.

Samaraweera, Dilshan, Mahela average more than Aravinda who is easily the second greatest batsman from Sri Lanka. Sehwag averages almost same as Gavaskar and much more than a technical master like Boycott, even he will be embarrassed if this stat gets brought up in front of the great Sunny G. Guys like Jayawardene, Yousuf average more than Kohli, Root, Inzi (played bulk of his cricket in 90s).

Likewise bowlers who played majority of their cricket in 2000s had it tougher.
 
Mamoon said:
That is a myth too. Sangakkara was far from a minnow-basher.

let’s take a look at his average in the major cricket countries:


Pakistan - 87
Australia - 61
New Zealand - 61
England - 41
India - 36
South Africa - 35

Those are not the numbers of a minnow-basher. He only averages less than 40 in two major countries and those numbers in Australia and New Zealand are incredible for a subcontinent batsman.
Click to expand...
His numbers in Australia are boosted by the 192 on a flat track against a poor Aussie attack
 
Sachin's greatness has more to do with his sheer longevity at the top level than it has to do with raw stats.

He made his Test debut in 1989 and was the no.1 ranked Test batter in the world in 2010. Try making a sense of it. If stats are to go by, there's nothing stopping someone from claiming that Adam Voges was a greater batter and Sachin was "not near to him". But things don't work like that in the real world.
 
Mesozoic said:
Sachin's greatness has more to do with his sheer longevity at the top level than it has to do with raw stats.

He made his Test debut in 1989 and was the no.1 ranked Test batter in the world in 2010. Try making a sense of it. If stats are to go by, there's nothing stopping someone from claiming that Adam Voges was a greater batter and Sachin was "not near to him". But things don't work like that in the real world.
Click to expand...
Sachin averaged 57 after 175 tests and 54 after 200. He had incredible numbers along with longevity too
 
Statpadder Inc said:
His numbers in Australia are boosted by the 192 on a flat track against a poor Aussie attack
Click to expand...
That is irrelevant. Every batsman’s record in a country is boosted by a selected few innings if not one.

It was a phenomenal innings against an attack that wasn’t extraordinary but was far from poor either.

Lee (who bowled superbly in that game), Johnson, Clark and MacGill is not a shabby attack at all.
 
Swashbuckler said:
Sanga played most of his games in 2000s which was the flattest era in the history of test cricket, 20+ batsmen averaged above 50 in the 2000s compared to just 3 in the 90s, those 3 being Sachin (58), Lara (52) and Steve Waugh (50.5). Sachin and Lara had declined by 2000s while mediocrity from 90s like Kallis, Dravid, Ponting boosted their numbers. Statistically 80s, 90s and 2016 to present day are the toughest eras for batting.

Samaraweera, Dilshan, Mahela average more than Aravinda who is easily the second greatest batsman from Sri Lanka. Sehwag averages almost same as Gavaskar and much more than a technical master like Boycott, even he will be embarrassed if this stat gets brought up in front of the great Sunny G. Guys like Jayawardene, Yousuf average more than Kohli, Root, Inzi (played bulk of his cricket in 90s).

Likewise bowlers who played majority of their cricket in 2000s had it tougher.
Click to expand...
Whilst it is true that Test batting was easier in the 2000s than it is today, but the bit about Dravid, Kallis and Ponting is not correct.

These players would average 50+ in any era. Their numbers got better in the 2000s not because of the pitches but because they entered their peak years.

All three were in their mid 20s before the millennium and most batsmen peak in their late 20s and early 30s.
 
Mamoon said:
Whilst it is true that Test batting was easier in the 2000s than it is today, but the bit about Dravid, Kallis and Ponting is not correct.

These players would average 50+ in any era. Their numbers got better in the 2000s not because of the pitches but because they entered their peak years.

All three were in their mid 20s before the millennium and most batsmen peak in their late 20s and early 30s.
Click to expand...
All 3 are almost same age as Sachin, 48-51. In fact Dravid is elder to Sachin by 15 months.

Dravid was a serial failure in the 90s especially against tough bowling attacks like Aus, SA, WI and Pak. You can't deny the change in nature of pitches worldwide starting around 2002/03. Also many legendary bowlers had retired or declined by then, allowing these other guys to make merry. Dravid wouldn't average 50+ in the 80s, 90s or even today, he isn't a patch on Kohli, Root, both these modern greats average below 50. Even Viv averages just above 50 and he is leagues above the 3 names you mentioned. I agree with most of your takes but your assertion that they would average 50+ in any era, I can't agree with that.
 
Here is a interesting bit of information. Sanga's avg in Australia is inflated by one innings of 192. Thats also his only test century against Australia. No centuries against Warne or McGrath.

He also avgs in 30s in 3 countries. SA,India,WI.

Hardly comparable to Tendulkar.

Secondly the more you play, more chances that your avg may go down.

This discussion has been done to death on PP. Old threads can be searched.
 
Statpadder Inc said:
Sachin averaged 57 after 175 tests and 54 after 200. He had incredible numbers along with longevity too
Click to expand...

Yes ofcourse. You don't play 200 Tests for a top team without having incredible numbers.

My point was that, longevity takes precedence when comparing two cricketers with excellent but similarish stats
 
Swashbuckler said:
All 3 are almost same age as Sachin, 48-51. In fact Dravid is elder to Sachin by 15 months.

Dravid was a serial failure in the 90s especially against tough bowling attacks like Aus, SA, WI and Pak. You can't deny the change in nature of pitches worldwide starting around 2002/03. Also many legendary bowlers had retired or declined by then, allowing these other guys to make merry. Dravid wouldn't average 50+ in the 80s, 90s or even today, he isn't a patch on Kohli, Root, both these modern greats average below 50. Even Viv averages just above 50 and he is leagues above the 3 names you mentioned. I agree with most of your takes but your assertion that they would average 50+ in any era, I can't agree with that.
Click to expand...
Agree with your post completely, but didn't dravid do well in the Caribbean in 97/98
 
These Sachin comparison threads keep popping up on PP every few months.

That in itself shows Sachin is the benchmark for batsmanship since every half decent batsman is compared to him by random stat nitpicking.
 
It's also down to who played more in tough alien conditions.

As example, Jadeja averages 43 with bat in Australia and 21 with bowl in Australia after 4 tests. But if he plays more tests in Australia, do you really think he would maintain that 43 with bat and 21 with bowl numbers?

So, similarly, if you look at the number of proportion of games Sachin has played overseas and compare it to the proportion that Sanga or Younis have played, the difference is pretty big which is why you simply can't rate one batsman over other based on pure averages.

Nevertheless, Sanga can play what is infront of him and hence with that avg of 58, he is definitely one of the greatest batsman of all-time.
 
big_gamer007 said:
These Sachin comparison threads keep popping up on PP every few months.

That in itself shows Sachin is the benchmark for batsmanship since every half decent batsman is compared to him by random stat nitpicking.
Click to expand...
He is the bench mark because he has 1 billion backers who keep pushing the Sachin cult on the rest of us.
 
big_gamer007 said:
These Sachin comparison threads keep popping up on PP every few months.

That in itself shows Sachin is the benchmark for batsmanship since every half decent batsman is compared to him by random stat nitpicking.
Click to expand...

You see there are threads about how good Bumrah is as a fast bowler. Its bound to hurt a few egos.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
He is the bench mark because he has 1 billion backers who keep pushing the Sachin cult on the rest of us.
Click to expand...
The opinion of those 1 billion followers hardly matter. What matters is the opinion of the fraternity of ex cricketers, cricketing pundits, and true legends and greats of the game who have always rated him sky high right from his debut till now.
 
Sanga kept improving his batting with time and retired when he was still at the top of his game. (4 consecutive centuries in his last 5 innings). Didn't want to play the last 4 tests vs Pak and Ind in 2015 but the board convinced him into doing so.

It's not a secret that Sachin's apetite for runs waned considerably after the wc 2011. He was a shadow of himself afterwards even though he did score that 100th century in 2012. Ponting had a similar decline after 2008. Even though he had one great series in his final test year (vs India 2012), he was was done by 2010.

Ponting, Tendulkar and Dravid all could have retired with a 55-58 batting average had they retired a few years earlier.

But to say Sanga isn't one of the best of all time is a travesty. Sanga has 9 doubles i think, the second most after Bradman's 12.
 
BunnyRabbit said:
Sanga kept improving his batting with time and retired when he was still at the top of his game. (4 consecutive centuries in his last 5 innings). Didn't want to play the last 4 tests vs Pak and Ind in 2015 but the board convinced him into doing so.

It's not a secret that Sachin's apetite for runs waned considerably after the wc 2011. He was a shadow of himself afterwards even though he did score that 100th century in 2012. Ponting had a similar decline after 2008. Even though he had one great series in his final test year (vs India 2012), he was was done by 2010.

Ponting, Tendulkar and Dravid all could have retired with a 55-58 batting average had they retired a few years earlier.

But to say Sanga isn't one of the best of all time is a travesty. Sanga has 9 doubles i think, the second most after Bradman's 12.
Click to expand...
Sangakkara has 11 double hundreds, the second most in history.
 
Tendulkar's debut at the tender age of 16 was perhaps premature; his performance in the first three years of his career reflected this, with a rather lackluster average. Furthermore, many argue that he should have gracefully retired after the 2011 World Cup, instead of prolonging his career in pursuit of personal milestones such as his 100th century and 200th Test match.

However, a closer examination of his career spanning from 1992 to 2010, a remarkable 18 years encompassing 163 Tests, reveals an astonishing average of 58.26, a testament to his brilliance with the bat.
______________________________________________

On the other hand, it's not difficult to comprehend why Sachin isn't as highly regarded in Pakistan. His performances against them were not as remarkable as one might expect, with only two centuries scored in 18 Tests, averaging just 44.

In contrast, Sangakkara's dominance over Pakistan is legendary. In 23 Tests, he boasts an average close to 75, including three double centuries and several near misses, leaving any opposition in awe of his batting prowess.

Even Ponting, when compared to Tendulkar, holds a higher esteem in Pakistan. With five centuries in just 15 Tests, at an impressive average of 66.0, Ponting's performances against Pakistan stand out as exemplary."
_____________________________________________

Sangakkara, in my opinion, stands as an all-time great Sri Lankan batsman, quite possibly the greatest in their cricketing history. When comparing him with Tendulkar, I can discern numerous arguments both in favor and against each batsman. Thus, attempting to definitively prove one as superior to the other would undoubtedly be a laborious and time-consuming endeavor, for which I lack the motivation

____________________________________________
So I will conclude Sangakkara = Tendulkar in Tests. :sachin:sanga
 
Kumar Sangakara was a classy and stylish batter while Sachin did not had these attributes.
 
Swashbuckler said:
All 3 are almost same age as Sachin, 48-51. In fact Dravid is elder to Sachin by 15 months.

Dravid was a serial failure in the 90s especially against tough bowling attacks like Aus, SA, WI and Pak. You can't deny the change in nature of pitches worldwide starting around 2002/03. Also many legendary bowlers had retired or declined by then, allowing these other guys to make merry. Dravid wouldn't average 50+ in the 80s, 90s or even today, he isn't a patch on Kohli, Root, both these modern greats average below 50. Even Viv averages just above 50 and he is leagues above the 3 names you mentioned. I agree with most of your takes but your assertion that they would average 50+ in any era, I can't agree with that.
Click to expand...
Tendulkar was a prodigy, he was Test class at an age where most quality batsmen can barely perform in domestic cricket. Not fair to compare his career growth and trajectory with Dravid, Kallis and Ponting.

All three peaked in their late 20s and early 30s like vast majority of batsmen. None of them were better than Tendulkar though, that much I agree with.
 
Mamoon said:
Tendulkar was a prodigy, he was Test class at an age where most quality batsmen can barely perform in domestic cricket. Not fair to compare his career growth and trajectory with Dravid, Kallis and Ponting.
Click to expand...

Tendulkar's test stats do him injustice.

India played criminally low numbers of tests a year in the 90s when Sachin was at his youthful carefree best. There was one year when India played 3 tests lol.
 
if Sangakkara had played as many games as Tendulkar played he might have scored more runs than him.
 
Cricket Warrior said:
if Sangakkara had played as many games as Tendulkar played he might have scored more runs than him.
Click to expand...
But he didn't. Because he didn't have enough enough drive to play close to half of total tests he played during his career.

That's why longevity is such a crucial factor in sports. Not everyone can perform for such a long period of time.
 
MP2011 said:
That's why longevity is such a crucial factor in sports. Not everyone can perform for such a long period of time.
Click to expand...
134 test matches is not a small number. Nations like Pakistan and Sri Lanka used to play fewer test matches than india and still today, you can see the number of matches for each team. still Kumar was a class apart, Tendulkar might edge over kumar in overall stats including test and ODIs only, but Kumar was a better player in tets format.
 
BouncerGuy said:
134 test matches is not a small number. Nations like Pakistan and Sri Lanka used to play fewer test matches than india and still today, you can see the number of matches for each team. still Kumar was a class apart, Tendulkar might edge over kumar in overall stats including test and ODIs only, but Kumar was a better player in tets format.
Click to expand...
Agree to disagree.
 
BouncerGuy said:
134 test matches is not a small number. Nations like Pakistan and Sri Lanka used to play fewer test matches than india and still today, you can see the number of matches for each team. still Kumar was a class apart, Tendulkar might edge over kumar in overall stats including test and ODIs only, but Kumar was a better player in tets format.
Click to expand...
You may not know but Tendulkar played far fewer tests in his heydays ('90s) than his contemporaries like Lara and Steve Waugh. But he still shone brighter than the other two.

So Sanga playing lesser number of tests is just an excuse. Even Sanga won't ever admit in private that he is better than Tendulkar in tests
 
MP2011 said:
Sanga won't ever admit in private
Click to expand...
No player will admit that he is better than Tendulkar. Tendulkar has earned a name for himself and every cricket fan respects him for his achievements but overall, Kumar has better stats and more control in red ball format.
 
BouncerGuy said:
No player will admit that he is better than Tendulkar. Tendulkar has earned a name for himself and every cricket fan respects him for his achievements but overall, Kumar has better stats and more control in red ball format.
Click to expand...
Stats is a misleading term when used in cricket. What stats does cricket use apart from the arithmetic mean? Let alone using sabermetrics, it fails to even use basic traditional measures.
 
CricketCartoons said:
Stats is a misleading term when used in cricket. What stats does cricket use apart from the arithmetic mean? Let alone using sabermetrics, it fails to even use basic traditional measures.
Click to expand...
So stats of sachin are misleading as well??
 
A normal cricket fan has no idea what sabermetrics is and what statistical analysis means and how it is done. They just see the number and judge,
 
BouncerGuy said:
A normal cricket fan has no idea what sabermetrics is and what statistical analysis means and how it is done. They just see the number and judge,
Click to expand...
A normal cricket fan watches the games which give a better picture than spreadsheet numbers.
 
CricketCartoons said:
A normal cricket fan watches the games which give a better picture than spreadsheet numbers.
Click to expand...
When it comes to comparisons later oni then numbers pop up for them and that is what matters for a guy who has not watched them play.
 
BouncerGuy said:
When it comes to comparisons later oni then numbers pop up for them and that is what matters for a guy who has not watched them play.
Click to expand...
Your argument is that a lay person does not know better, so we must use their ignorance as truth? How do the average person makes comparisons across eras, across pitches, quality of bowlers, strength of the rest of the team etc etc? Or do they think the arithmetic mean accounts for all those factors.

Will you say Sanga (avg 57.40) is a far better test batsman than Ricky Ponting (avg 51.85)?
 
CricketCartoons said:
Your argument is that a lay person does not know better, so we must use their ignorance as truth? How do the average person makes comparisons across eras, across pitches, quality of bowlers, strength of the rest of the team etc etc? Or do they think the arithmetic mean accounts for all those factors.

Will you say Sanga (avg 57.40) is a far better test batsman than Ricky Ponting (avg 51.85)?
Click to expand...
People who have not watched them play, how can they judge them then ?
 
BouncerGuy said:
People who have not watched them play, how can they judge them then ?
Click to expand...
ok, let me wear the average person hat, and make judgements based on "stats".
Ashwin is superior bowler to Warne.
Mushfiqur Rahim is a better test batsman than Stokes.
Khawaja is a better batsman than Gilchrist.

If I have not watched them play, and go and check at "stats", you think my judgement is correct?
 
CricketCartoons said:
ok, let me wear the average person hat, and make judgements based on "stats".
Ashwin is superior bowler to Warne.
Mushfiqur Rahim is a better test batsman than Stokes.
Khawaja is a better batsman than Gilchrist.

If I have not watched them play, and go and check at "stats", you think my judgement is correct?
Click to expand...
I have watched them play and "IMO" Kumar is better because his record is phenomenal, he had an average team to support him apart from Mahela. Had to do most of the work on his own.
 
BouncerGuy said:
I have watched them play and "IMO" Kumar is better because his record is phenomenal, he had an average team to support him apart from Mahela. Had to do most of the work on his own.
Click to expand...
Sanga is an ATG. I am not debating his class. I am debating the futility of using basic unsophisticated numbers to judge who is a better player.
 
CricketCartoons said:
unsophisticated numbers to judge
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, this kind of comparison goes down this road every time. So it does not matter much in the end and just becomes a dead end. Kumar and Tendulkar are once-in-a-generation types of players. No doubt both of them will find a spot in any playing 11 any day.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
I don't think its any bitterness or anti Indian feeling

Pakistanis in general rate Gavaskar and Kohli very highly for example.
Click to expand...

It is subconcious bitterness though which you perhaps don't realize as it is not intentional. There is absolutely no other reason to rate likes of Kallis or Sanga over SRT. Bradman himself rated Sachin as the greatest batsman he has seen bat and so did late great Richie Benaud.

Don Bradman will always remain the epitome of batsman ship but after him SRT is the most complete batsman the cricket world has seen. Playing for 24 years, facing bowlers from cross era starting from Marshal to Amir, facing ATG spinners and yet avg 50+ in test cricket and other records in white ball games is simply amazing. Sachin is the only batsman who never had a loss of form for an extended period ever. Even in his last WC he was batting like a champion. Likes of Sanga, Punter or even modern greats like Kohli etc are no where close to the great man.
 
Hitman said:
Here's both of them outside the subcontinent (outside Asia) -


Sachin Tendulkar -

Runs - 6007; Ave - 50.9; 100's - 18; 50's - 28



Kumar Sangakkara -

Runs - 2764; Ave - 44.58; 100's - 7; 50's - 6
Click to expand...

That pretty much sums up every thing. It is very hard to rate the Kiwi, Pakistani, Sri Lankan players over the Australian,Indian, English and Saffer players simply because these guys play far more tough tests and produce far more tougher performances as compared to the players of the former team.

Sangakkara, nevertheless, is one of the best players of all-time because there is hardly any chink in his CV either. It's just that it is hard to rate him over the Tendulkar's, Lara's and Ponting 's.
 
Rajdeep said:
It is subconcious bitterness though which you perhaps don't realize as it is not intentional. There is absolutely no other reason to rate likes of Kallis or Sanga over SRT. Bradman himself rated Sachin as the greatest batsman he has seen bat and so did late great Richie Benaud.

Don Bradman will always remain the epitome of batsman ship but after him SRT is the most complete batsman the cricket world has seen. Playing for 24 years, facing bowlers from cross era starting from Marshal to Amir, facing ATG spinners and yet avg 50+ in test cricket and other records in white ball games is simply amazing. Sachin is the only batsman who never had a loss of form for an extended period ever. Even in his last WC he was batting like a champion. Likes of Sanga, Punter or even modern greats like Kohli etc are no where close to the great man.
Click to expand...

Why is there no 'subconscious bitterness' towards Kohli, Gavaskar, Dhoni, Yuvraj, Azharudin, Dravid etc who Pakistanis admire greatly?

Tendulkar done very little that captured the imagination of the non Indian fan.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
Why is there no 'subconscious bitterness' towards Kohli, Gavaskar, Dhoni, Yuvraj, Azharudin, Dravid etc who Pakistanis admire greatly?

Tendulkar done very little that captured the imagination of the non Indian fan.
Click to expand...
They are admired mostly because of the tummy ache that Sachin Tendulkar's international reputation gave Pakistani fans for more than 2 decades.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DeadlyVenom said:
Why is there no 'subconscious bitterness' towards Kohli, Gavaskar, Dhoni, Yuvraj, Azharudin, Dravid etc who Pakistanis admire greatly?

Tendulkar done very little that captured the imagination of the non Indian fan.
Click to expand...

That is bcoz none of those batters were absolutely best of all time. It is difficult to praise Sachin bcoz unanimously he has been approved as the greatest batsman since Bradman and hence the bitterness.

And LOL at Tendulkar has done very little. His record speaks for himself at what he has done.

On a lighter note, you can criticize any Indian batter for all we care but Sachin is our emotion. So any criticism of him hurt us immensely :cry:
 
Hitman said:
They are admired mostly because of the tummy ache that Sachin Tendulkar's international reputation gave Pakistani fans for more than 2 decades.
Click to expand...
So you think those players are all admired because we are jealous of Sachin?

That's a really odd take to be honest.

Being quite honest most Pakistanis didn't really care too much about Sachin to be so triggered.

To add further perspective, growing up in the UK the main foreign cricketer known at the time was Lara. We had Brian Lara cricket games on playstation and Brian Lara bats....not just Pakistanis btw.
 
Rajdeep said:
That is bcoz none of those batters were absolutely best of all time. It is difficult to praise Sachin bcoz unanimously he has been approved as the greatest batsman since Bradman and hence the bitterness.

And LOL at Tendulkar has done very little. His record speaks for himself at what he has done.

On a lighter note, you can criticize any Indian batter for all we care but Sachin is our emotion. So any criticism of him hurt us immensely :cry:
Click to expand...
Kohli is arguably best LOI batter of all time. Between him and Viv and maybe some others. So that argument doesn't hold. He has smashed us more than Tendulkar yet Pakistanis still respect him more.

I understand regarding the emotion part so I will try not to hurt you further brother.
 
Sangas own family wouldn't consider him to be better than sachin.

Sanga doesn't even make it to 99℅ of all time xis by former cricket greats and writers, journalists etc

Srt, lara, dravid, kallis and ponting were all better than sanga
 
DeadlyVenom said:
So you think those players are all admired because we are jealous of Sachin?

That's a really odd take to be honest.

Being quite honest most Pakistanis didn't really care too much about Sachin to be so triggered.

To add further perspective, growing up in the UK the main foreign cricketer known at the time was Lara. We had Brian Lara cricket games on playstation and Brian Lara bats....not just Pakistanis btw.
Click to expand...
Wasn't warne more popular than lara in the UK. Atleast that's what I heard from my family there
 
DeadlyVenom said:
So you think those players are all admired because we are jealous of Sachin?

That's a really odd take to be honest.

Being quite honest most Pakistanis didn't really care too much about Sachin to be so triggered.

To add further perspective, growing up in the UK the main foreign cricketer known at the time was Lara. We had Brian Lara cricket games on playstation and Brian Lara bats....not just Pakistanis btw.
Click to expand...
You got me wrong. It's because of the extreme devotion and love Indians have for Tendulkar which makes Pakistani fans dislike him, and admire other Indian cricketers instead. Add to that the extreme plaudits and recognition he has achieved throughout his career.
 
Cricket Warrior said:
if Sangakkara had played as many games as Tendulkar played he might have scored more runs than him.
Click to expand...
BouncerGuy said:
134 test matches is not a small number. Nations like Pakistan and Sri Lanka used to play fewer test matches than india and still today, you can see the number of matches for each team. still Kumar was a class apart, Tendulkar might edge over kumar in overall stats including test and ODIs only, but Kumar was a better player in tets format.
Click to expand...
People fail to realize that Tendulkar was able to play 200 Test matches because he was good enough to do so and others didn’t play that many matches because they were not good enough.

Tendulkar made his Test debut at 16 because he was good enough to play at the highest level at that age. Most players are barely qualified to play domestic cricket at that age.

Sangakkara made his Test debut at the age of 23. If he was good enough for Test cricket at 16, he would have made his debut 7 years earlier and come very close to the 200 Test match mark.

This applies to pretty much all the batsman who are compared with Tendulkar but made their debuts at 21/22. It is not Tendulkar’s problem that he was good enough at 16 and others weren’t.
 
Sachin is to cricket as Pele is to football, Schumacher is to F1, Sampras is to tennis and Jordan is to NBA.

There are other footballers, F1 drivers, tennis or basketball players who can stake a claim to match the greatness of those mentioned but the people I mentioned won't ever get their reputation tarnished because a new player in a newer Era scored more goals, drove faster, won more Slams or made more baskets.

Sachin defines cricket.

There will be plenty more Kohlis and Sanggakkaras in cricket.

But their won't be a 16 year old to face the fastest bowlers of all time and handling them with skill and expertise.

Just like their won't be another left armer with ability to bowl 6 different balls with similar action.
 
Sangakkara is once in a generation batsman better than De Silva and other Sri Lankan batters.
 
Tendulkar was great but Sanga was more impactful. I personally feel Sanga has won SL more games than Tendulkar did for India. Sanga was a finisher like Bevan, Dhoni etc.
 
sweep_shot said:
Tendulkar was great but Sanga was more impactful. I personally feel Sanga has won SL more games than Tendulkar did for India. Sanga was a finisher like Bevan, Dhoni etc.
Click to expand...


You don't need to go by feel.

SRT has 33 tons in wins
Sanga hs 18 tons in wins.

Sanga has not won more games for SL. I mean in test, Sanga was top tier, but in ODI he was nowhere close to the top tier. He was a bang-average batsman in ODI in 00s. Only in the last few years, he was world-class in ODI.

2000-2009 Sanga played 262 ODis at avg of 35 and SR of 74. That's just very ordinary for the entire decade. He was no one in ODI in 00s.
 
Buffet said:
You don't need to go by feel.

SRT has 33 tons in wins
Sanga hs 18 tons in wins.

Sanga has not won more games for SL. I mean in test, Sanga was top tier, but in ODI he was nowhere close to the top tier. He was a bang-average batsman in ODI in 00s. Only in the last few years, he was world-class in ODI.

2000-2009 Sanga played 262 ODis at avg of 35 and SR of 74. That's just very ordinary for the entire decade. He was no one in ODI in 00s.
Click to expand...

Tendulkar was an opener.

Sanga batted down the order.

Tendulkar also played more games. Sanga had keeping duty also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ab Fan
Joe Root versus Ricky Ponting versus Kumar Sangakkara in Tests
2 3
Replies
175
Views
6K
shamaan
S
MenInG
Comparison between Babar Azam, Sachin Tendulkar & Virat Kohli at the same point in their ODI careers
2 3
Replies
189
Views
14K
AMSS
A
MenInG
Sachin Tendulkar names Wasim Akram in his all-time best playing-XI
Replies
50
Views
8K
Mainul
Mainul
Unbiased-Fan
Best Asian XI to travel SENAW
Replies
46
Views
7K
SL_Fan
SL_Fan
King_Kohli
Rahul Dravid beats Sachin Tendulkar in Wisden India's poll
2 3
Replies
170
Views
122K
mominsaigol
mominsaigol
Back
Top