What's new

Kumar Sangakkara versus Sachin Tendulkar: Sangakkara outshines Tendulkar in numbers

DeadlyVenom said:
On this point specifically many of those 50+ average had other strings to their bow.

Whether it's successful and ruthless captaincy ( Ponting, Lara, Waugh), wicket keeping ( Sanga) or hundreds of test wickets (Kallis) they have better records than Tendulkar in their primary role but have substantial achievements in other fields that he doesn't have.
Click to expand...
There are extremely strong parallels between Sachin and Anderson as Test batsman and bowler and Indians aren’t ready for this conversation.
 
Mamoon said:
There are extremely strong parallels between Sachin and Anderson as Test batsman and bowler and Indians aren’t ready for this conversation.
Click to expand...
A test player's greatness has always been categorised by his ability to master all conditions. Sachin leaves anderson in dust in that criterion.
 
Mamoon said:
You will get this response from Chat GPT if you ask a loaded question “Why Sangakkara was better than Tendulkar in Tests?”

However, if you ask in an impartial manner “Who was better in Test - Sangakkara or Tendulkar?” it will lean towards Tendulkar. See the conclusion below:

Conclusion

In Test cricket, both players were exceptional, but Tendulkar is often considered better due to his consistent performances in all conditions over a much longer period. Sangakkara boasts a higher average and more double centuries, but Tendulkar’s ability to score in challenging conditions outside Asia, his longevity, and his impact on the global stage arguably give him the edge in the Test cricket comparison.

———————-

This is one of the issues with Chat GPT. It will give you the answer that you’re looking for based on the bias in your question.
Click to expand...
Of course - it all depends on your prompts! This was just an example.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
If you look at Sanga average as a keeper and not as a keeper you can see a massive difference.

The burden of keeping took a toll on him at times. Look at his record when he was not playing as a keeper ( players with minimum 60 matches) and its just frightening.

View attachment 146996
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree to a degree which is why I feel Sanga is a better batsmen than Lara.
 
anikrc1 said:
A test player's greatness has always been categorised by his ability to master all conditions. Sachin leaves anderson in dust in that criterion.
Click to expand...
A batsman who masters all conditions will average a lot more than 53.
 
Mamoon said:
A batsman who masters all conditions will average a lot more than 53.
Click to expand...
There is only one batsmen who can make that claim per what you are saying and that is Steve Smith and he avgs 56.

Steve Smith has an unbeatable avg everywhere he has toured, however the quality of bowling he has faced is a lot inferior to SRT.

If Steve Smith breaks SRT's record for most runs, then imo he is the second greatest bat of all time unlike a inferior batsmen like Joe Root.
 
Mamoon said:
There are extremely strong parallels between Sachin and Anderson as Test batsman and bowler and Indians aren’t ready for this conversation.
Click to expand...
I am, Shoot fire away...


Lets get this conversation happening 🍿
 
@DeadlyVenom - brother if we Sanatanis ask you to rate these batters, how would you rank them:

Sachin
Viv
Ponting
Lara
Dravid
Sanga
Root
Virat
Inzy
Kallis

:kp
 
worldlife92 said:
That's a bit too harsh.
Lara who is considered as a Test ATG by almost everyone averages less than 53.
Click to expand...
Tendulkar’s status as an ATG Test batsman is not even up for date. It is a given. There are 0 questions about it.

However, the statement that he mastered all conditions is factually incorrect. If he did, he wouldn’t have had a significant higher average.

Same applies to Lara. A magnificent batsman but not so magnificent in countries like India and NZ.
 
Rajdeep said:
@DeadlyVenom - brother if we Sanatanis ask you to rate these batters, how would you rank them:

Sachin
Viv
Ponting
Lara
Dravid
Sanga
Root
Virat
Inzy
Kallis

:kp
Click to expand...
Hard to rank all the way down the list but a few in each format.

In tests probably, Lara from that list Lara is well ahead. For the rest of the list you can make up between Kallis, Sanga, Ponting, Sir Viv - depending on the individual metric you can make some adjustments to the positions. Difficult for me to group them into an order but if I spend some time i will be able to.

ODI its a bit easier - Viv, Kohli, Ponting. When Kohli was his peak he was exceptional and Viv was comfortably ahead of his peers too.

How about you?
 
Romali_rotti said:
There is only one batsmen who can make that claim per what you are saying and that is Steve Smith and he avgs 56.

Steve Smith has an unbeatable avg everywhere he has toured, however the quality of bowling he has faced is a lot inferior to SRT.

If Steve Smith breaks SRT's record for most runs, then imo he is the second greatest bat of all time unlike an inferior batsmen like Joe Root.
Click to expand...
Indian fans should be the last fans on earth to look down on Joe Root as an inferior batsman.

He has 10 hundreds vs India in just 30 matches. He owns India, including their GOAT bowling attack led by the GOAT Bumrah.

India’s greatest bowling attack of all time went to England in 2021-2022 and Root averaged 100+ against them.

If Root ends up overtaking Tendulkar, which he most likely will, Indian fans should only blame their bowlers because they played a huge part in him getting there.
 
Mamoon said:
Indian fans should be the last fans on earth to look down on Joe Root as an inferior batsman.

He has 10 hundreds vs India in just 30 matches. He owns India, including their GOAT bowling attack led by the GOAT Bumrah.

India’s greatest bowling attack of all time went to England in 2021-2022 and Root averaged 100+ against them.

If Root ends up overtaking Tendulkar, which he most likely will, Indian fans should only blame their bowlers because they played a huge part in him getting there.
Click to expand...
Joe Root has no 100s in Aus..

He still has time to correct the above.

If he ends his career with zero 100s in Aus it makes him look even worst.

Joe Root is a typical bat that when the wicket is easy it is chucky cheese dunkin donuts last test match is proof of this thay he needs an easy wicket to look good otherwise its bye bye.

Joe Root if he breaks the record barring a lot of Pakistanis majority of rest of the world would still rate SRT ahead...

It's kinda sad Pakistanis have to go and big up any player from an opposition cause none of their batsmen are good enough to be compared with SRT...

Steve Smith however if he breaks SRTs record rightfully should be voted the second best bat of all time.
 
Romali_rotti said:
Yeah I agree to a degree which is why I feel Sanga is a better batsmen than Lara.
Click to expand...
You are of course entitled to your feelings and opinion. I disagree because I think some of the heights that Lara touched in his career and the innings he played have not been touched since.

However, I respect your opinion. Sanga is a statistical monster and a case can be made for sure. Regardless we should be able to have this conversation without resorting to insults and abusive comments as is often the case from the Indian aside and you have my respect for not going down this route.
 
Mamoon said:
Tendulkar’s status as an ATG Test batsman is not even up for date. It is a given. There are 0 questions about it.

However, the statement that he mastered all conditions is factually incorrect. If he did, he wouldn’t have had a significant higher average.

Same applies to Lara. A magnificent batsman but not so magnificent in countries like India and NZ.
Click to expand...

I get your point but then every other cricketer has a chink in his armour statistically except maybe Bradman/McGrath

I agree with your argument of Sachin being ordinary vs Pakistan in Test as he averages 40 with the bat.
But then, even Sanga averages 34 in WI, 36 in India, 36 in SA and 41 in England.
How does he get away with that without the nitpicking?
 
Romali_rotti said:
Joe Root has no 100s in Aus..

He still has time to correct the above.

If he ends his career with zero 100s in Aus it makes him look even worst.

Joe Root is a typical bat that when the wicket is easy it is chucky cheese dunkin donuts last test match is proof of this thay he needs an easy wicket to look good otherwise its bye bye.

Joe Root if he breaks the record barring a lot of Pakistanis majority of rest of the world would still rate SRT ahead...

It's kinda sad Pakistanis have to go and big up any player from an opposition cause none of their batsmen are good enough to be compared with SRT...

Steve Smith however if he breaks SRTs record rightfully should be voted the second best bat of all time.
Click to expand...
Another interesting parrallel between Smith and Tendulkar is that they are the only notorious ball tamperers in the 10k club ( Smith will inevitably reach this milestone).

Aussies hung Smith out to dry while the whole of India backed Tendulkar and threatened the ICC to revoke the decision.

If Smith hadn't lost some time out of his peak then he would be even higher up the list as he is now.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
You are of course entitled to your feelings and opinion. I disagree because I think some of the heights that Lara touched in his career and the innings he played have not been touched since.

However, I respect your opinion. Sanga is a statistical monster and a case can be made for sure. Regardless we should be able to have this conversation without resorting to insults and abusive comments as is often the case from the Indian aside and you have my respect for not going down this route.
Click to expand...
My opinion to rate Sanga ahead is based on Lara avging much below Sanga in Aus and India...

Also having seen both batsmen bat live at the stadium here in Aus looking down from upper story with a clear view of the wicket from the center and not the side.. Sanga had an amazing technique and so much elegance was so pleasing to the eye, whilst Lara played some out of the world shots his technique was ugly and he moved around too much in the crease for my liking..
 
Romali_rotti said:
I am, Shoot fire away...


Lets get this conversation happening 🍿
Click to expand...
Both are players whose greatness is directly linked to their longevity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All in all, it is fair to say that Tendulkar was a slightly juiced up batting version of Anderson, or Anderson was a slightly inferior bowling version of Tendulkar.

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

Tendulkar is extremely comparable to almost every 50+ averaging batsman in history just like Anderson is extremely comparable to every 22-28 averaging bowler in history.
 
DeadlyVenom said:
Another interesting parrallel between Smith and Tendulkar is that they are the only notorious ball tamperers in the 10k club ( Smith will inevitably reach this milestone).

Aussies hung Smith out to dry while the whole of India backed Tendulkar and threatened the ICC to revoke the decision.

If Smith hadn't lost some time out of his peak then he would be even higher up the list as he is now.
Click to expand...


A man of SRTs stature doesn't need to tamper any balls, he didn't have a waqar Younis or wasim Akram in his side who could take advantage of the tampered ball. Instead he had India's fastest spinner Venkatesh Prasad lol.

It is painful for a lot of Pakistanis that SRT is Indian, however you can't change that, you need to let it go, SRT has been compared to Bradman no one else has been compared as such, just appreciate that we all got to witness the great man play.....

Let it go..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
worldlife92 said:
I get your point but then every other cricketer has a chink in his armour statistically except maybe Bradman/McGrath

I agree with your argument of Sachin being ordinary vs Pakistan in Test as he averages 40 with the bat.
But then, even Sanga averages 34 in WI, 36 in India, 36 in SA and 41 in England.
How does he get away with that without the nitpicking?
Click to expand...
He shouldn’t. The reason why Tendulkar gets picked on is because of his fanatical fans who call him the god of Test batting and pretend that comparing him to anyone else is a crime.

If someone puts Sangakkara on a similar pedestal then people will point out the holes in his career as well.

Matter of fact is that apart from Sir Don, all great Test batsmen in history are very much comparable including Tendulkar who doesn’t stand alone on any podium and neither is he the clear cut best since Don. He might be the best in some aspects but not so much in others.
 
Romali_rotti said:
A man of SRTs stature doesn't need to tamper any balls, he didn't have a waqar Younis or wasim Akram in his side who could take advantage of the tampered ball. Instead he had India's fastest spinner Venkatesh Prasad lol.

It is painful for a lot of Pakistanis that SRT is Indian, however you can't change that, you need to let it go, SRT has been compared to Bradman no one else has been compared as such, just appreciate that we all got to witness the great man play.....

Let it go..
Click to expand...
By Bradman himself. He said SRT played just like him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mamoon said:
Both are players whose greatness is directly linked to their longevity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All in all, it is fair to say that Tendulkar was a slightly juiced up batting version of Anderson, or Anderson was a slightly inferior bowling version of Tendulkar.

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

Tendulkar is extremely comparable to almost every 50+ averaging batsman in history just like Anderson is extremely comparable to every 22-28 averaging bowler in history.
Click to expand...
Nice post.

Only issue is Anderson was bad to below avg in almost all the countries he toured.

Whilst SRT was above avg to Great when playing in foreign countries, that is what settles this comparison.
 
Playing for 24 years and yet maintaining an avg of 53 in test cricket is a high class effort. Again, the comparison drawn with Anderson makes no sense as Anderson did well only on one code i.e Test cricket. Sachin Tendulkar was equally good in both Test and ODI cricket, stacking up most runs and centuries in both formats, highest run getter of all in world cups, first man to get 200 in ODI cricket etc. So this comparison with Anderson is also flawed.

Next one pls...
 
aboveandbeyond said:
Lara at his sublime best, made Tendulkar look predictable, and no way Bradman would look better on the eye than Brian Charles Lara
Click to expand...

Kuldeep Yadav also looks good while batting and so did Sunil Joshi. Not kidding, check few videos of Joshi's batting. However looking good has no relevance on who is the better batsman. Lara was definitely a better batsman that Kuldeep and Joshi when on song but comparing with SRT is illogical.
 
Anderson comparison makes me think, is there a bowler version of Tendulkar in cricket history? That is ATG in both Test and white ball cricket?

Steyn, Anderson etc. were all good in one format.

Akram and Waqar were ODI greats but has less wickets than Harbhajan in test cricket.

Maybe Mcgrath and Marshal comes close to being Bowling Tendulkar?
 
Rajdeep said:
Anderson comparison makes me think, is there a bowler version of Tendulkar in cricket history? That is ATG in both Test and white ball cricket?

Steyn, Anderson etc. were all good in one format.

Akram and Waqar were ODI greats but has less wickets than Harbhajan in test cricket.

Maybe Mcgrath and Marshal comes close to being Bowling Tendulkar?
Click to expand...

McGrath definitely for me a absolute champion in test cricket. Phenomenal bowler. For this reason I would take his opinion the best he faced in tests between Tendulkar and Lara as facts.

www.wisden.com

Lara was harder to bowl at than Tendulkar, says McGrath

“I would go with Lara just from my experience”
www.wisden.com www.wisden.com
 
aboveandbeyond said:
Lara at his sublime best, made Tendulkar look predictable, and no way Bradman would look better on the eye than Brian Charles Lara
Click to expand...
Not sure why Lara is in this conversation. Sure Lara is stylish. But Bradman is Bradman. A country mile ahead of anyone else.
 
Mamoon said:
Both are players whose greatness is directly linked to their longevity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All in all, it is fair to say that Tendulkar was a slightly juiced up batting version of Anderson, or Anderson was a slightly inferior bowling version of Tendulkar.

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

Tendulkar is extremely comparable to almost every 50+ averaging batsman in history just like Anderson is extremely comparable to every 22-28 averaging bowler in history.
Click to expand...
Sachin averages 54.74 with bat away from home which is better than his career avg and better away averages than his peers like Lara, Ponting, Kallis, Sangakkara etc.

Meanwhile Anderson is perhaps the only ATG bowler who averages more than 30 with ball away from home.

The comparison ends here.

Nice try tho 👍.
 
In terms of absolute peak, taking all factors into consideration which player was truly best in test cricket?

Steve Smith??
 
Romali_rotti said:
Nice post.

Only issue is Anderson was bad to below avg in almost all the countries he toured.

Whilst SRT was above avg to Great when playing in foreign countries, that is what settles this comparison.
Click to expand...
This is why I would view Tendulkar as a juiced up batting version of Anderson. Anderson does get some additional brownie points for completely owning Tendulkar in H2H battle though.
 
starpain said:
Sachin averages 54.74 with bat away from home which is better than his career avg and better away averages than his peers like Lara, Ponting, Kallis, Sangakkara etc.

Meanwhile Anderson is perhaps the only ATG bowler who averages more than 30 with ball away from home.

The comparison ends here.

Nice try tho 👍.
Click to expand...
Overall record matters, not selective stats. Tendulkar’s overall average of 53 is nothing special and has been bettered by so many batsmen. I have listed several reasons in my previous post which is explain how Tendulkar lacked dominance.

Furthermore, Anderson completely dominated Tendulkar H2H which needs to be considered as well.

Overall, it is fair to say that Tendulkar was the batting version of Anderson, albeit a superior one. I would agree to that.
 
Mamoon said:
Overall record matters, not selective stats. Tendulkar’s overall average of 53 is nothing special and has been bettered by so many batsmen. I have listed several reasons in my previous post which is explain how Tendulkar lacked dominance.

Furthermore, Anderson completely dominated Tendulkar H2H which needs to be considered as well.

Overall, it is fair to say that Tendulkar was the batting version of Anderson, albeit a superior one. I would agree to that.
Click to expand...
Away record definitely matters otherwise Ashwin> Warne by your logic only.
 
Ab Fan said:
Away record definitely matters otherwise Ashwin> Warne by your logic only.
Click to expand...
Ashwin has enjoyed the greatest home advantage in history so it doesn’t count. He wouldn’t have a career if he was non-Indian.
 
Mamoon said:
Anderson has enjoyed the greatest home advantage in history so it doesn’t count. He wouldn’t have a career if he was non-English
Click to expand...
Corrected because he is also a #11 with bat.
 
Mamoon said:
So the GOAT Indian bowling attack allowed Root to average 100+ in the most bowling friendly conditions in the world? 🤡
Click to expand...
No where did I said it is a GOAT bowling attack?

Point here is away record matters too just like overall record and hence Sanga/Anderson/ Ashwin fall well behind Tendulkar/McGrath/Warne in that aspect.

However, you are showing your hypocrisy by trying to demean Ashwin as beneficiary of home conditions but putting Anderson at the level of all format all condition greats like Tendulkar or McGrath even though he adds nothing more apart from his bowling which is relatively more conducive in home conditions than away conditions as he is a proper #11 while Ashwin has 6 test tons.
 
Mamoon said:
This is why I would view Tendulkar as a juiced up batting version of Anderson. Anderson does get some additional brownie points for completely owning Tendulkar in H2H battle though.
Click to expand...
Nsh not really you are now drifting.

One player sucks I'm foreign countries while the other doesn't.

Ain't nothing parallel about it.
 
Romali_rotti said:
Nsh not really you are now drifting.

One player sucks I'm foreign countries while the other doesn't.

Ain't nothing parallel about it.
Click to expand...
It’s just hypocrisy. Anderson’s away record is not a problem but for Ashwin it is.

Anderson becomes equal to Tendulkar despite poor away record and being a no.11 with bat.

Ashwin despite hitting 6 tons won’t have a career if he was not an Indian lol.

The delusion is simply unreal.
 
I wouldn’t compare the great Sangakara with the thing which cannot be polished.
 
Steve smith in his golden years and Sanga without gloves are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sachin.

Sachin overall due to longetivity is > Those 2 as samga's keeping took its toll amd Smith post 2020 declined a bit.

As I said, various batters in their golden years have been > Sachin, Lara and Pointing included.

Hopefully one day a steve smith shows up that performs till the age of retirement.

Also Sachin is a stat padder and has played match losing innings as well. I'm sick of Indian fans ignoring this.

Sachin has Match winning innings, but dont pretend that he doesn't have match losing one or stat pad ones or selfish ones.

Having only complete innings hasn't been possible for anyone minus Bradman.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheSultan said:
1. Richie’s greatest hits (not Lionel)
2. Gower’s 100 fine wines
3. Bradman’s shorter twin
Click to expand...
Indians overrate everyone. It's nothing new.

1) Sachin is the best in Longetivity only, but Indians feel the need to believe he's the best in every era and is essentially bradman when in reality steve smith during his golden years and kumar Sangakara without gloves is far far superior to Sachin at his absolute peak.

2) Then Bumrah isn't even top 10 bowlers of all time but Indians want to crown him as superior to everyone such as Mcgrath and wasim but when you claim this to them, they get defensive and start throwing the whole, But we respect aussie cricket you aussie wannabe.

3) Similarly narratives for Laxman being crises man enter such as deapite playing 86 odi's which is longer then most careers, Indians feel the need to use The excuse that laxman just wasn't suited when he clearly was rubbish and wanted to play odi. Then in test, if youre not avergaing 50 as a Specialist, Key word specialist in one format then you're garbage, But Indians feel the need to nitpick certain innings and dub him as a crises man, When in reality he was a rubbish odi player, a rubbish opener who was made to open cause he wasn't good enough to fit in the middle order and finally misbah his way in to the middle eventually.

These narratives don't ever end
 
Sanga played with a mediocre team having no big name apart from Jayawardne. Tendulkar had a GOAT team around him.
 
BouncerGuy said:
What 90s??? where I mentioned??
Click to expand...

India in 90s was all about Sachin and Sachin was all Indian cricket had. It was one man army and no GOAT team. The moment he got out, India was done as well. This was the case for a long time until Ganguly & Dravid arrived.

Sanga when he made his debut had a star studded team of Jayasuriya, De Silva etc. along with likes of Jayawardene coming up with him. SL cricket was never a minnow in the entire career span of Sangakkara.
 
Rajdeep said:
India in 90s was all about Sachin and Sachin was all Indian cricket had. It was one man army and no GOAT team. The moment he got out, India was done as well. This was the case for a long time until Ganguly & Dravid arrived.
Click to expand...
That match fixing scoundrel Azharuddin was the second best batsman of the team with an away average of 36 in Test cricket :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

As for our bowlers, the less said the better.
 
Just Imagine if Sangakkara had also played 200 Tests like Sachin then Joe Root would have been after his record in Test.
 
The Bald Eagle said:
Just Imagine if Sangakkara had also played 200 Tests like Sachin then Joe Root would have been after his record in Test.
Click to expand...
The only difference between Tendulkar and other great batsmen is number of Tests played. Tendulkar only holds records that are dependent on number of matches played. This is why he is batting version of Anderson.

If he was truly the best, he would have had the highest average, highest score, best ratio of MOM/MOS etc., but he doesn’t have those records because he wasn’t the best. Hey just played for the longest period.

He played until 2013 but since 2000, he was never in contention for being the best Test batsman in the world.
 
Mamoon said:
The only difference between Tendulkar and other great batsmen is number of Tests played. Tendulkar only holds records that are dependent on number of matches played. This is why he is batting version of Anderson.

If he was truly the best, he would have had the highest average, highest score, best ratio of MOM/MOS etc., but he doesn’t have those records because he wasn’t the best. Hey just played for the longest period.

He played until 2013 but since 2000, he was never in contention for being the best Test batsman in the world.
Click to expand...
This is why once Joe Root passes Tendulkar in terms of runs at least. He won't be remembered much.

Right now mostly people remember Tendulkar mostly because of his number of runs and centuries
 
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
173
Views
3K
kron
K
MenInG
Comparison between Babar Azam, Sachin Tendulkar & Virat Kohli at the same point in their ODI careers
2 3
Replies
189
Views
10K
AMSS
A
MenInG
Sachin Tendulkar names Wasim Akram in his all-time best playing-XI
Replies
50
Views
7K
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
166
Views
11K
Cover Drive Six
Cover Drive Six
Back
Top