Overall who was a better cricketer? Sachin Tendulkar or Imran Khan?

[Darkrai]

The GOAT Imran Khan shouldn't be compared to anyone. He was as complete of a cricketer as they come. His bowling alone makes him one of the greatest. When you add his batting, his leadership, what he did for the game by bringing in neutral umpires when the game desperately needed them, and what he left for his country, a great team and GOAT players, it's too much greatness. He is a unique individual, it would be unfair to others to be compared to him.

 

[Ayybee]

Because now you are serious about your players and you don’t start matches at 9 in the morning during June/July in UAE

 

[Monsee]

was pretty sure you would have picked Imran even before I opened the thread ...

This argument was settled last year through a Poll : http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...-the-greatest-ever-Asian-Test-cricketer/page3

On a predominantly Pakistani forum Tendulkar bagged equal votes as Imran did which is quite telling.

BTW Ashwin has comparable bowling stats to Imran in Test Cricket at this stage and is a better batsman than Imran ... so according to your logic Ashwin is prefered over Kohli who does not even bowl part time unlike Tendulkar ?

Anyhow Imran does not make it into many prestigious World XI sides like the Cricinfo World XI or Bradman's XI amongst many other things. Also never seen anyone rate imran as the best bowler ever. All discussed in that thread. Someone was even desperate enough to bring in fielding and still got owned ... lol

LOL, some posts just age so well and anyways the claim about Ashwin's batting alone being better than Imran is crazy; let's not even discuss the bowling bit as evidenced in the last few series how Ashwin might as well never be picked in an away series outside Asia and WI.

Imran's 1 test innings where he scored a century (123) against the best WI attack (ever) when rest of the Pak team was falling like nine pins is better than any innings Mr. Ashwin Bradman has ever played or will do in future! This does not mean Imran didn't play any other good/great innings, but that right there is something the batsman can never dream of achieveing.

As for bowling, I can't even bring myself to compare a bowler who won Pak games on his own in England, Australia, and WI (3 games, 3 10+ wicket hauls), let alone any other of his many bowling feats against a bowler who is actually dropped to pick a darter like Jadeja when outside his Indian Pitches (comfort) zone!

 

[Monsee]

Imran and it isn't even close. You get a fast bowler as good as anyone ever except Marshall, plus a test class batter, and excellent skipper. He was a pressure player too unlike SRT.

This!

/EOT/

 

[Hitman]

LOL, funny how Sachin makes it much ahead of Imran in so many of the lists compiled every time. From Christopher Martin Jenkins's list of 100 greatest cricketers to David Gower's (Imran's own contemporary) list of 50 greatest cricketers, ESPN Legends of cricket's top 25 cricketers, Sky's list of 100 greatest cricketers that they prepared in December last year.

I know whose opinion holds more merit.

 

[Hitman]

Not to mention that WISDEN didn't bother picking Imran when they prepared their All Time XI in 2013, but they did include Sachin in their team.

 

[Tusker]

Not to mention that WISDEN didn't bother picking Imran when they prepared their All Time XI in 2013, but they did include Sachin in their team.

This!!

/Thread

 

[Hitman]

This!!

/Thread

Funny how WISDEN's list of 100 greatest innings prepared by them in 2001 which doesn't have any of Sachin's innings is of so much importance to some fans. A lot of them keep harping about that. Yet the same WISDEN rating Sachin as the 2nd greatest Test and ODI batsman in 2002, and Sachin finding a place in their All Time XI doesn't really matter much

 

[Invincible Gujjar]

Imran everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.Imran was genius and a GOAT.

 

[Adijazz1706]

Imran obviously, is very good but is a league above

 

[Last Monetarist]

Of course, Imran every day and trois fois le vendredi, unless the weather was too hot in which case the poor lad would have to sit out the match in protest.

 

[Tusker]

From Wisden on the Australian tour of Pakistan in September 1988:



Can't imagine Tendulkar ever pulling a trick like that. For all his greatness, Imran had a sense of entitlement that made a mockery of ordinary people. Not playing a series because it was too hot, it's hilarious. If he was playing today, I reckon he won't have played a single test in the UAE.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[topspin]

Tendulkar's batting exceeds Imran Khan's class as a bowler which is why he deserves to be ranked higher. Kallis' batting is no match to the little master, which is why he's also ranked lower than him in the list of all time greatest cricketers.

But if we're asking who is the greater asset then I have to say Imran Khan because his batting alone was suffice to be in the team XI and he was an ATG captain as well. Dickie Bird who perhaps is the most well known cricketing umpire in cricketing history named his ATG XI and said he would be the skipper of his side. If you read what he says about IK you'll appreciate he wasn't just any leader, but a leader of all leaders in a cricket team.

 

[barah_admi]

This is where it gets tough ranking great cricketers, because a great batsman is a great batsman, but an allrounder, especially a great allrounder, is great across 2 disciplines. So, the question is, which is more valuable? Then comes in the question of decades, i.e. the time in which someone played. Imran Khan played in possibly the greatest generation of our sport ad he was arguably the greatest allrounder, one of the very best bowlers and a fine batsman.

I always think of it this way, who would I rather have in a team? I can replace Tendulkar's batting with Ponting, Viv, Lara and Bradman but who can I replace Khan with? Certainly not his contemporaries as he is almost always ranked above them. The only man left is Sobers and if sobers is your only competition, you must be essential to a team.

Add to that his captaincy, revival of leg spin and being one of the first few to concentrate on year round fitness and we have a cricketing revolutionary.

 

[WhenSultansBowled]

Depends what do you want for your team:

Prime SRT: Arguably GOAT batsman

Prime IK: Arguably GOAT all rounder

Due to nature of cricket ---> An all rounder is gold for a team. Likes of Kallis or Gilly are an example.

Personally speaking if I have to choose a batsman from any era to draft in Pakistan XI; I'd go with Lara. Not with Don or Viv or Sunny or SRT.

As far as AR position is concerned IMO IK is up there with the crem de la crem. Wouldn't switch him for anyone. Batsman or bowler or all rounder.

When it comes to captaincy/leadership; it's waste of time to debate.

All that said, having a beast like SRT in top order for a couple of decades is tempting but IK is the ultimate cricketer.

 

[Tusker]

I'm talking about how are you planning to equate the longevity, because the work load of a front line fast bowling all rounder who also captained for the majority of his carrier obviously differs from a batsman who happened to bowl part time. Your figures of 2.6 and 2.27 are redundant and prove nothing.

Another Bump ...


as I explained in the quoted post ... I dont owe you an explanation because it was your idea to claim that you would easily replace Tendulkar with Imran and not mine. Not my problem that you dont have facts to answer the obvious problem of longevity.

Its your problem if you did not factor the career length. Ohh wait you thought I would just take your word on this because Imran was a allrounder and in your miind thats 3 Cricketers lol. So explain away your reasoning for preferring Imran over Tendulkar whos overall cricketing achievements are so staggeringly way more than Imran.

Some things never change. The familiar and satisfyingly sweet sound of silence

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

In test matches it is a tough competition but in odis sachin anyday over imran.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

"the most complete batsman of all time"
Whenever i hear this sentence sachin automatically comes in my mind. He is the picasso of the art called batting.

Sachin is included in 80-85% of atg teams while imran is rarely there
In an atg x1
For an atg x1 you need three fast bowlers, marshall, mcgrath, ambrose etc are all better than him so he doesn't get in an atg x1 based on his bowling alone.

 

[Proactive_]

Some things never change. The familiar and satisfyingly sweet sound of silence

The longevity point was brought by you, not me. And now it's for months that you haven't explained exactly how are you planning to equate the longevity of a fast bowling all rounder cum captain with a batsman. Sweet sound of silence on that front indeed

 

[Bilal7]

Imran Khan is a far superior man than Sachin Tendulker, not just a superior cricketer. People should stop making a mockery of the great Teenda by comparing him to someone who has gone from being one of the top three cricketers of all-time - alongside Bradman and Sobers - to becoming the Prime Minister of his country.

Imran Khan > Sachin Tendulker. Then, Now, Forever. The End.

 

[Slim]

Tendulkar was a great batsman but thats where it stops.

Imran Khan was a great all rounder with leadership skills. The latter is what gives him an edge over Sachin as a cricketer.

Both are GOATs nonetheless.

 

[Dulex9]

Walsh is not an ATG for the same reason Anderson is not. Having 500 wickets in mostly favorable conditions is not impressive. Ambrose was an ATG but you can't expect a team to win with one performing bowler and batsman. Sachin did not have any MEMORABLE runs scored. His 175 against AUS, Chennai innings, WC Centuries against non-minnows, all ended in losses or ties. His only noteworthy performances are his 200 against SA and twin centuries in the Desert against AUS, one in which he lost. Imran has had unforgettable performances, 7-fer in WI, 7-fer in England that gave PAK 1-0 win, 7-fer against India, 40 wickets on dead flat tracks, match winnings 67 from 41 balls against Benjamin, Marshall, Ambrose, Bishop. IK made Pakistanis believe in aggressive fast bowling and contributed to the art of reverse-swing. What did SRT do? Make Indians want to become batsman? Never taught them how to win, how to be aggressive, how to be fitter, or any innovative shot either. IK's 11 5-fer's are better than SRT's 50 tons especially if you consider the occasions and opposition they came against. >

This shows your level of ignorance.

Those two Sharjah knocks vs Aus and in the final

World cup semi final 2011

A hundred in a final 1998 in Sri Lanka

100 CB series final 2008 vs Australia

98 vs Pak world cup 2003

140 odd vs Pak chasing 330 odd in odi

175 vs Aus chasing 350 odd

Scored 200 against Sa vs Steyn, very potent Sa attack

193 vs England Headingly 2002, won test match and leveled the series

Scored a hundred vs Warne, McGrath Chennai 2001 decided test match to win the test series

100 vs England chasing 380 in a test

155 vs Warne India 98 facing a deficit in a test

146 vs Steyn, Sa test match

116 vs Australia and man of the series in Australia

169 vs Sa 96 (when India were 54-5 against Donald)

134 vs Pak 99 (when India were 80 odd for 5 chasing 270 odd)

His hundred in Aus at Perth 92

Also Tendulkar played against Wasim, Waqur, Donald, Pollock, Steyn, Warne, McGrath, Murali, Amborse, Walsh. Even Marshall.

Tendulkar averaged 59 at the end of the 90s era (mistaken me if I'm wrong).

What do you say now Tendulkar does not have any memorable knocks?

 

[Sam99]

Unfair comparisons. How can anyone compare all rounder with a batsman? In terms of popularity Sachin is more popular cricketer than Imran khan. Don't tell me now after becoming prime minister. Talk about their popularity as cricketer. About better cricketer i can't really compare if i need batsman then Sachin if i need no 6 or 7 who can bowl long spells then Imran. Talking about fact the most atg teams have sachin not imran. If i have to pick all time xi then both will be making to my All Time XI.

Matthew Hayden
Sunil Gavaskar
Viv Richards
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Jacques Kallis
Adam Gilchrist
Imran Khan
Shane Warne
Malcolm Marshall
Glenn McGrath

 

[Bilal7]

Unfair comparisons. How can anyone compare all rounder with a batsman? In terms of popularity Sachin is more popular cricketer than Imran khan. Don't tell me now after becoming prime minister. Talk about their popularity as cricketer. About better cricketer i can't really compare if i need batsman then Sachin if i need no 6 or 7 who can bowl long spells then Imran. Talking about fact the most atg teams have sachin not imran. If i have to pick all time xi then both will be making to my All Time XI.

Matthew Hayden
Sunil Gavaskar
Viv Richards
Sachin Tendulkar
Brian Lara
Jacques Kallis
Adam Gilchrist
Imran Khan
Shane Warne
Malcolm Marshall
Glenn McGrath

India has over a billion people. Pakistan has considerably less. If you're talking about popularity outside of the subcontinent, then I suggest you read up on the Maria Sharapova controversy.

 

[Sam99]

India has over a billion people. Pakistan has considerably less. If you're talking about popularity outside of the subcontinent, then I suggest you read up on the Maria Sharapova controversy.

I know and i am talking about countries which play cricket will surely know sachin more than imran. Ask Maria Sharapova if she knows imran khan the cricketer.

 

[Bilal7]

I know and i am talking about countries which play cricket will surely know sachin more than imran. Ask Maria Sharapova if she knows imran khan the cricketer.

People from countries that play cricket will know both Imran Khan and Sachin Tendulker. Lol, if you're going on non-cricket factors like popularity, looks, influence, power, accomplishments outside cricket, etc. Imran Khan wins hands down.

At least from a purely cricketing POV, Sachin has a small argument going for him.

 

[Buffet]

Popularity wise no one will come close to SRT due to various reasons.

Leaders of countries like Indonesia, Pakistan or India don't really get anyone attention outside of their countries.

IK and SRT are at same level for me when it comes to cricketer. You can argue for both names, but popularity it's not even close. Simple reason is era they played. TV was much more popular in SRT's era and he played at top level for quarter of century. It's simply not comparable with most other players. IK was also popular, but we are not being fair to IK when comparing him to SRT.

 

[Sam99]

People from countries that play cricket will know both Imran Khan and Sachin Tendulker. Lol, if you're going on non-cricket factors like popularity, looks, influence, power, accomplishments outside cricket, etc. Imran Khan wins hands down.

At least from a purely cricketing POV, Sachin has a small argument going for him.

You are living in similar bubble in which Virat and Shastri lives and feels they are best side in last 20 years. World looks great from it.

 

[ManFan]

This shows your level of ignorance.

Those two Sharjah knocks vs Aus and in the final

World cup semi final 2011

A hundred in a final 1998 in Sri Lanka

100 CB series final 2008 vs Australia

98 vs Pak world cup 2003

140 odd vs Pak chasing 330 odd in odi

175 vs Aus chasing 350 odd

Scored 200 against Sa vs Steyn, very potent Sa attack

193 vs England Headingly 2002, won test match and leveled the series

Scored a hundred vs Warne, McGrath Chennai 2001 decided test match to win the test series

100 vs England chasing 380 in a test

155 vs Warne India 98 facing a deficit in a test

146 vs Steyn, Sa test match

116 vs Australia and man of the series in Australia

169 vs Sa 96 (when India were 54-5 against Donald)

134 vs Pak 99 (when India were 80 odd for 5 chasing 270 odd)

His hundred in Aus at Perth 92

Also Tendulkar played against Wasim, Waqur, Donald, Pollock, Steyn, Warne, McGrath, Murali, Amborse, Walsh. Even Marshall.

Tendulkar averaged 59 at the end of the 90s era (mistaken me if I'm wrong).

What do you say now Tendulkar does not have any memorable knocks?

I mentioned a few of the knocks you mention and if you look earlier into the conversation, I mention why his WC knocks are not worth mentioning despite being the leading run-scorer in the competition twice in 96' and 03'.

His two truly great knocks were the Chennai knock and the Mumbai knock where ones where in the former he got out needing 20 odd to win, leading to a famous collapse (choke) and the latter where he had a comfortable platform set by the Man of the Match, Virender Sehwag.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Anyone who calls it a matter of ‘it’s not even close’ is a disgrace of the highest order and should not be taken seriously from here on unless you already don’t take their opinions seriously.

We are talking about two of the greatest and most iconic players of all time. It is close. It is as close as it gets and there is probably no clear answer. It is purely a subjective call.

Few facts that nobody has to agre in though :-

1) Imran as an all rounder will appeal more to people who feel ARs are worth more than specialists. Not all people think that way and you can’t change that. In India opinions will be divided over who’s the greater player between Gavaskar and Kapil. Same goes for Garry Sobers vs Lara, Smith vs Kallis, As good as Kallis, Sobers AR stats are a lot of people will pick Smith, Lara in their teams ahead of Kallis, Sobers. Bottom line is that nt all people are AR obsessed or consider their more valuable.

It is also worth noting AR stats are one thing and delivering great AR performances are another. Many players have decent to great AR stats but the actual AR performances are few.

AR stats are also heavily boosted by bashing weak opponents. Ashwin and Afridi have conjured great AR stats by bullying weak teams with their secondary skill.

2) Imran is clearly way more renowned as a leader. Case closed. I am one of the people who don’t hate Sachin as a captain. I can’t see any great leader doing anything spectacularly different with the team Tendulkar had. But Imran clearly turner the Pakistan team into world beaters. All credit goes to him. Clear winner as a captain. Greatest captain from subcontinent closely followed by Tiger Pataudi.

2) Sachin features more prominently in batting discussions than Imran does in bowling discussions. I need to learn why Imran suffers from Shaun Pollock syndrome or maybe Shaun Pollock suffers from Imran Khan syndrome that they both don’t feature much in bowling discussions despite clearly having ATG level bowling stats. Tendulkar for instance just cannot stay out in the most unrelated batting discussions. It seems anything to do with batting invariably has to end up turning into a Sachin Tendulkar discussion. Wasim Akram features more prominently than Imran in fact in bowling discussions. Also Imran the LOI player isn’t as special as Imran the rest player. Tendulkar dominates both formats. He is clearly the more popular specialist player of the two.

 

[Dulex9]

I mentioned a few of the knocks you mention and if you look earlier into the conversation, I mention why his WC knocks are not worth mentioning despite being the leading run-scorer in the competition twice in 96' and 03'.

His two truly great knocks were the Chennai knock and the Mumbai knock where ones where in the former he got out needing 20 odd to win, leading to a famous collapse (choke) and the latter where he had a comfortable platform set by the Man of the Match, Virender Sehwag.

Yes you did say mention those, I wanted to edit however you cannot edit after 2 minutes.

I've given you all the other memorable knocks to answer "Sachin did not have any memorable runs scored". Quite blatantly he has and I've just proved you wrong with my last post.

You stated in a previous post of yours "But what was Sachin's impact besides scoring mountains of runs to no memorable victory"?

I've answered this too, it just makes no sense.

 

[Dulex9]

You take away the sheer mountain of runs (a lot of them useless as well), a huge chunk scored on the Indian Patta roads or on pitches 'Made Easy' for staying in the good books of the Indian board, so that they continue to tour in future as well and hence allowing for the host country's board to keep making good profits...you are looking at a batsman who just had to go and score some buffet type runs while conditions (pitch, bounce, grass etc.) were custom made and delivered for his style of play!

Not taking away from the fact that he was an excellent run scoring machine but there is more to his career than just his contributions, other people have a lot of credit in it as well.

Don't wanna take my word for it, just watch for the matches where conditions were absolutely unplayable or there was a lot of pressure to perform and watch Tendulkar end up being almost invisible while Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman etc. rising to the occassion!

P.S. I am not your or Teenda's servent, so do dig up the stats/exmaples yolurself, I have said my piece of mind.

Tendulkar averages superior away from home:

http://howstat.com/cricket/Statistics/Players/PlayerHomeAway.asp?PlayerID=1735

These stats along with the below knocks proves your "runs scored or on easy pitches" wrong. His 114 at Perth 92, 116 vs Australia vs McGrath, Warne, Lee (who got 5-fer in that test) and more.

What are talking about Tendulkar being invisible, I'll mention some knocks again which proves that argument wrong:

Those two Sharjah knocks vs Aus and in the final

World cup semi final 2011, 1996

Titan cup final against Donald

A hundred in a final 1998 in Sri Lanka

100 CB series final 2008 vs Australia

98 vs Pak world cup 2003

140 odd vs Pak chasing 330 odd in odi

175 vs Aus chasing 350 odd

Scored 200 against Sa vs Steyn, very potent Sa attack

193 vs England Headingly 2002, won test match and leveled the series

Scored a hundred vs Warne, McGrath Chennai 2001 decided test match to win the test series

100 vs England chasing 380 in a test

155 vs Warne India 98 facing a deficit in a test

146 vs Steyn, Sa test match

116 vs Australia and man of the series in Australia when the pressure was on against the best side, bowling attack in the world

169 vs Sa 96 (when India were 54-5 against Donald)

134 vs Pak 99 (when India were 80 odd for 5 chasing 270 odd)

His hundred in Aus at Perth 92 and Sydney 92m yes that quick bouncy Perth 92

His other 140 odd knock in Sa

Also Tendulkar played against Wasim, Waqur, Donald, Pollock, Steyn, Warne, McGrath, Murali, Amborse, Walsh. Even Marshall. So Tendulkar never had it easy. Which also nullifies your argument even more.

He's scored what 6 100's and 2 200's in Australia.

Tendulkar averaged 59 at the end of the 90s era (mistaken me if I'm wrong). The bowling era.

 

[ManFan]

Yes you did say mention those, I wanted to edit however you cannot edit after 2 minutes.

I've given you all the other memorable knocks to answer "Sachin did not have any memorable runs scored". Quite blatantly he has and I've just proved you wrong with my last post.

You stated in a previous post of yours "But what was Sachin's impact besides scoring mountains of runs to no memorable victory"?

I've answered this too, it just makes no sense.

In the seventeen examples you gave, seven of them led to either a loss or a draw.

Part of the reason why Tendulkar is regarded as not having been a match-winner is because a number of his centuries resulted in either a Loss, Draw, and or No Result.

Test: 30/51
ODI: 16/49

That's 46/100 (nearly 50% or half) of his international centuries.

Not taking anything away from him as a player alone but as a match-winner and a memorable one at that, he is overshadowed by other giants of the game.

 

[Dulex9]

In the seventeen examples you gave, seven of them led to either a loss or a draw.

Part of the reason why Tendulkar is regarded as not having been a match-winner is because a number of his centuries resulted in either a Loss, Draw, and or No Result.

Test: 30/51
ODI: 16/49

That's 46/100 (nearly 50% or half) of his international centuries.

Not taking anything away from him as a player alone but as a match-winner and a memorable one at that, he is overshadowed by other giants of the game.

Your argument is not improving I'm afraid.

You and everyone knows India had a inferior bowling attack to everyone else and bowlers win test matches. In the 90s India was a one man team depending entirely on Tendulkar.

To quote the commentator when McGrath got Tendulkar out for 0 in 1999 wc QF "is it the end of India?" India were just 1 wicket down and that's what masses of Indian fans felt in the 90s with Tendulkar.

What about Lara? How many of his hundreds came in winning causes?

I regard Lara very highly and one of the best in the era.

 

[troodon]

Sachin > Imran Khan.

Not up for Discussion on this.

Even Kallis > Imran Khan for me.

 

[Hitman]

Your argument is not improving I'm afraid.

You and everyone knows India had a inferior bowling attack to everyone else and bowlers win test matches. In the 90s India was a one man team depending entirely on Tendulkar.

To quote the commentator when McGrath got Tendulkar out for 0 in 1999 wc QF "is it the end of India?" India were just 1 wicket down and that's what masses of Indian fans felt in the 90s with Tendulkar.

What about Lara? How many of his hundreds came in winning causes?

I regard Lara very highly and one of the best in the era.

Just 8 of his 34 Test centuries.

 

[Dulex9]

[MENTION=143937]ManFan[/MENTION],

I respect your opinion however you haven't even answered my posts properly ignoring everything and putting "Sachin did not have any memorable runs scored".

I've already replied with many memorable runs. You're discounting most of them and then attack my argument with stats which are just useless anyway and I'll give you two reasons:

Can you blame Tendulkar in Australia in 99 for being man of the series if the rest of the batsman were poor and you know India throughout the 90s was a very poor team with an inferior bowling attack.

Your argument is so silly and poor even Lara has 8 match winning innings out of 34 a lower percentage than Tendulkar.

You've just come up "chennai knock and the Mumbai knock where ones where in the former he got out needing 20 odd to win, leading to a famous collapse (choke) and the latter where he had a comfortable platform set by the Man of the Match, Virender Sehwag."

What about:

155 vs Warne India 98 facing a deficit in a test

146 vs Steyn, Sa test match

116 vs Australia and man of the series in Australia when the pressure was on against the best side, bowling attack in the world

169 vs Sa 96 (when India were 54-5 against Donald)

His hundred in Aus at Perth 92 and Sydney 92 yes that quick bouncy Perth 92

His other 140 odd knock in Sa

 

[ManFan]

Your argument is not improving I'm afraid.

You and everyone knows India had a inferior bowling attack to everyone else and bowlers win test matches. In the 90s India was a one man team depending entirely on Tendulkar.

To quote the commentator when McGrath got Tendulkar out for 0 in 1999 wc QF "is it the end of India?" India were just 1 wicket down and that's what masses of Indian fans felt in the 90s with Tendulkar.

What about Lara? How many of his hundreds came in winning causes?

I regard Lara very highly and one of the best in the era.

Compared with Lara who had an equally bad team (better bowlers + better batsmen than Tendulkar for the first half of his career as compared to Tendulkar who had the opposite)

Test: 27/34
ODI: 3/19

So out of a total of 53, 30 of Lara's centuries resulted in a loss or draw.

That is ~57% of his centuries but the reason he is rated higher as a match-winner is because of his 153* at Bridgetown which Wisden regarded as the second greatest Test knock of all time.

That's the only major difference that seems to be the reason Lara is rated higher than Tendulkar although in ODI's, he trumps Tendulkar by a large margin.

 

[Dulex9]

In the seventeen examples you gave, seven of them led to either a loss or a draw.

Part of the reason why Tendulkar is regarded as not having been a match-winner is because a number of his centuries resulted in either a Loss, Draw, and or No Result.

Test: 30/51
ODI: 16/49

That's 46/100 (nearly 50% or half) of his international centuries.

Not taking anything away from him as a player alone but as a match-winner and a memorable one at that, he is overshadowed by other giants of the game.

I respect your opinion however you haven't even answered my posts properly ignoring everything and putting "Sachin did not have any memorable runs scored".

I've already replied with many memorable runs. You're discounting most of them and then attack my argument with stats which are just useless anyway and I'll give you two reasons:

Can you blame Tendulkar in Australia in 99 for being man of the series if the rest of the batsman were poor and you know India throughout the 90s was a very poor team with an inferior bowling attack.

Your argument is poor even Lara has 8 match winning innings out of 34 a lower percentage than Tendulkar.

That's why it's silly to bring up the match winning stat.

You've just come up "chennai knock and the Mumbai knock where ones where in the former he got out needing 20 odd to win, leading to a famous collapse (choke) and the latter where he had a comfortable platform set by the Man of the Match, Virender Sehwag."

What about these other memorable runs?:

155 vs Warne India 98 facing a deficit in a test

146 vs Steyn, Sa test match in Sa

116 vs Australia and man of the series in Australia when the pressure was on against the best side, bowling attack in the world

169 vs Sa 96 (when India were 54-5 against Donald)

His hundred in Aus at Perth 92 and Sydney 92 yes that quick bouncy Perth 92

His 155 vs Sa in Sa, rescuing India from a precarious situation

 

[ManFan]

[MENTION=143937]ManFan[/MENTION],

I respect your opinion however you haven't even answered my posts properly ignoring everything and putting "Sachin did not have any memorable runs scored".

I've already replied with many memorable runs. You're discounting most of them and then attack my argument with stats which are just useless anyway and I'll give you two reasons:

Can you blame Tendulkar in Australia in 99 for being man of the series if the rest of the batsman were poor and you know India throughout the 90s was a very poor team with an inferior bowling attack.

Your argument is so silly and poor even Lara has 8 match winning innings out of 34 a lower percentage than Tendulkar.

You've just come up "chennai knock and the Mumbai knock where ones where in the former he got out needing 20 odd to win, leading to a famous collapse (choke) and the latter where he had a comfortable platform set by the Man of the Match, Virender Sehwag."

What about:

155 vs Warne India 98 facing a deficit in a test

146 vs Steyn, Sa test match

116 vs Australia and man of the series in Australia when the pressure was on against the best side, bowling attack in the world

169 vs Sa 96 (when India were 54-5 against Donald)

His hundred in Aus at Perth 92 and Sydney 92 yes that quick bouncy Perth 92

His other 140 odd knock in Sa

1) Won.

2) Drawn.

3) Lost.

4) Lost.

5) Lost.

Out of your five examples off the top of your head, Tendulkar won just one.

Compare him with say Kallis (23/45 in Test and 4/17 in ODI) and its quite clear.

And I'm saying this as someone who prefers Tendulkar over Kallis!

 

[PakLFC]

Imran Khan could bowl much better then Teenda as we all know where as the little one is easily the best batsman in modern times if not overall. Teenda is the better fielder in my opinion, IK was always reluctant to get his whites dirty. I would pick IK in my side if I had to choose.

 

[Dulex9]

1) Won.

2) Drawn.

3) Lost.

4) Lost.

5) Lost.

Out of your five examples off the top of your head, Tendulkar won just one.

Compare him with say Kallis (23/45 in Test and 4/17 in ODI) and its quite clear.

And I'm saying this as someone who prefers Tendulkar over Kallis!

Lara has only a few hundreds in test's that resulted in a win.

Azhar Mahmood has a memorable hundred featured in that Wisden selection, is Azhar Mahmood a great batsman? As you said, Tendulkar has no memorable innings.

You're entire argument against Tendulkar is he doesn't have any memorable knocks which I've proved he has and also in odi's and the stats you show for match winning hundreds which doesn't make sense since Lara too has an inferior match winning hundred record in test.

 

[jeeteshssaxena]

1) Won.

2) Drawn.

3) Lost.

4) Lost.

5) Lost.

Out of your five examples off the top of your head, Tendulkar won just one.

Compare him with say Kallis (23/45 in Test and 4/17 in ODI) and its quite clear.

And I'm saying this as someone who prefers Tendulkar over Kallis!

No asian batsman has more than 2 centuries in winning cause in SENA.
Making centuries in those countries and that to winning ones is not a child's play.
Which asian batsman do you consider as a better match winner than srt?

 

[ManFan]

Lara has only a few hundreds in test's that resulted in a win.

Azhar Mahmood has a memorable hundred featured in that Wisden selection, is Azhar Mahmood a great batsman? As you said, Tendulkar has no memorable innings.

You're entire argument against Tendulkar is he doesn't have any memorable knocks which I've proved he has and also in odi's and the stats you show for match winning hundreds which doesn't make sense since Lara too has an inferior match winning hundred record in test.

I stated quite clearly that Lara has an inferior record as match-winner when compared to Tendulkar in Tests but superior in ODI's.

Azhar Mahmood had a great knock but is not a great batsman because of his batting average and number of centuries scored.

 

[ManFan]

No asian batsman has more than 2 centuries in winning cause in SENA.
Making centuries in those countries and that to winning ones is not a child's play.
Which asian batsman do you consider as a better match winner than srt?

Gavaskar who had two in Australia and one in New Zealand.

 

[Dulex9]

@ManKad,

You said "Sachin did not have any MEMORABLE runs scored"

What about these other memorable runs?:

155 vs Warne India 98 facing a deficit in a test

146 vs Steyn, Sa test match in Sa

116 vs Australia and man of the series in Australia when the pressure was on against the best side, bowling attack in the world

169 vs Sa 96 (when India were 54-5 against Donald)

His hundred in Aus at Perth 92 and Sydney 92 yes that quick bouncy Perth 92

His 155 vs Sa in Sa, rescuing India from a precarious situation

So you don't think these knocks are memorable?

Then you come up with stats, arguments that reveal these knocks resulted in win/loss/draw which once again makes no sense.

It's not easy to win a test match over there, how many asian teams have won test's in Australia and South Africa?

 

[ManFan]

@ManKad,

You said "Sachin did not have any MEMORABLE runs scored"

What about these other memorable runs?:

155 vs Warne India 98 facing a deficit in a test

146 vs Steyn, Sa test match in Sa

116 vs Australia and man of the series in Australia when the pressure was on against the best side, bowling attack in the world

169 vs Sa 96 (when India were 54-5 against Donald)

His hundred in Aus at Perth 92 and Sydney 92 yes that quick bouncy Perth 92

His 155 vs Sa in Sa, rescuing India from a precarious situation

So you don't think these knocks are memorable?

Then you come up with stats, arguments that reveal these knocks resulted in win/loss/draw which once again makes no sense.

It's not easy to win a test match over there, how many asian teams have won test's in Australia and South Africa?

For the tenth time, I stated that I was wrong on "he did not have any memorable knocks that did not result in a victory" but the ratio is poor when compared to others or that the circumstances are not found to be as dramatic.

You keep bringing up the same examples out of which half result in losses or draws.

 

[Dulex9]

Compared with Lara who had an equally bad team (better bowlers + better batsmen than Tendulkar for the first half of his career as compared to Tendulkar who had the opposite)

Test: 27/34
ODI: 3/19

So out of a total of 53, 30 of Lara's centuries resulted in a loss or draw.

That is ~57% of his centuries but the reason he is rated higher as a match-winner is because of his 153* at Bridgetown which Wisden regarded as the second greatest Test knock of all time.

That's the only major difference that seems to be the reason Lara is rated higher than Tendulkar although in ODI's, he trumps Tendulkar by a large margin.

in odi's Tendulkar is superior. Lara didn't play well in important WC knock out games such as 92, 96, 99, 03 and in odi finals. Compare Tendulkar's odi final record to him.

I rate Lara very highly and he is one of the best of the era by the way.

 

[Dulex9]

For the tenth time, I stated that I was wrong on "he did not have any memorable knocks that did not result in a victory" but the ratio is poor when compared to others or that the circumstances are not found to be as dramatic.

You keep bringing up the same examples out of which half result in losses or draws.

Ok fair enough.

 

[ManFan]

Lara doesn't have a hundred against Wasim, Waqur or Donald. Tendulkar averaged 59 approaching the year 2000.

in odi's Tendulkar is superior. Lara didn't play well in important WC knock out games such as 92, 96, 99, 03 and in odi finals. Compare Tendulkar's odi final record to him.

I rate Lara very highly and he is one of the best of the era by the way.

Lara has no centuries against the Two W's and Donald. That is 100% True.

Tendulkar may have a higher average and runs in WC's but not one of his centuries in a WC resulted in a win against a non-minnow.

Where as Lara had two (both against SA) in 96' and 03' (very underrated knock).

 

[ManFan]

Lara has no centuries against the Two W's and Donald. That is 100% True.

Tendulkar may have a higher average and runs in WC's but not one of his centuries in a WC resulted in a win against a non-minnow.

Where as Lara had two (both against SA) in 96' and 03' (very underrated knock).

And the 96' knock was a quarter-final.

 

[Majid Khan]

Look at it this way, if you are talking about test cricket than a great fast bowler will win you more matches than a great batsman, even one who plays cover drives as elegantly as Sachin. Not to mention Imran wasn't exactly a mug with the bat either and nor the worst guy to have around for captain

 

[Dulex9]

And the 96' knock was a quarter-final.

Oh yes Lara's 96 wc qf knock put them in the semi final in the first place and I remember the 03 knock vs Sa which WI accelerated to 270 odd which was an underrated knock.

I do remember Lara scoring 169 in an odi in Australia which was quite scintillating.

There was a series where Lara scored most of WI runs against Sri Lanka and he's 213 and 153 vs Aus was very memorable. He's peak from 92-96 was quite phenomenal.

 

[RainMan_]

Compared with Lara who had an equally bad team (better bowlers + better batsmen than Tendulkar for the first half of his career as compared to Tendulkar who had the opposite)

Test: 27/34
ODI: 3/19

So out of a total of 53, 30 of Lara's centuries resulted in a loss or draw.

That is ~57% of his centuries but the reason he is rated higher as a match-winner is because of his 153* at Bridgetown which Wisden regarded as the second greatest Test knock of all time.

That's the only major difference that seems to be the reason Lara is rated higher than Tendulkar although in ODI's, he trumps Tendulkar by a large margin.

Lara isn't fit enough to hold a candle in front of the great little master. As far as ODIs r concerned he is inferior to sachin from every possible angle. Only batsman who's comparable to sachin in ODIs is the great viv. Apart from him, Tendulkar is a league above every one else. But if u consider both tests and ODIs, Tendulkar will come up as the greatest cricket player to ever grace the cricket field. He isn't just a cricketer, he is the god of records, a role model to the millions of followers of this game and a global brand. Players like lara or Imran can only dream to have a stature that Tendulkar has in cricket.

Lara has a pathetic record in odi tournament finals where he averages only 24 with the bat whereas the God of cricket has the second highest average in tournament finals in the history of cricket. He holds the record of scoring the most number of runs, centuries and half centuries in the most important tournament of cricket ie World Cup.

He has the second best average in the knockout matches of icc world cup, was the first batsman to ever score a double ton ODIs, smashed legendry pak bowlers in icc world cup for fun and has won mom 3 times out of the 5 times he played against his arch rival Pakistan in WC.

What is lara's record compared to this? I ain't disrespecting lara, he was one of the greater test players of all time. But overall he is no match for Tendulkar as a cricketer and when it comes to Lois Tendulkar is in a league of his own and he wipes the floor with lara in this format. Lara trumps Tendulkar only in the world where pigs fly.

 

[RainMan_]

Imran was a great allrounder and he did well in his time by leading pak to win their one and only world cup. But as a cricket figure he is nothing in front of the cricket god, the greatest batsman of all time, the one and only sachin Tendulkar.

Tendulkar and cricket r almost synonymous.

 

[Buffet]

Imran was a great allrounder and he did well in his time by leading pak to win their one and only world cup. But as a cricket figure he is nothing in front of the cricket god, the greatest batsman of all time, the one and only sachin Tendulkar.

Tendulkar and cricket r almost synonymous.

You can rate SRT higher, but the bold part is hogwash.

 

[ManFan]

Lara isn't fit enough to hold a candle in front of the great little master. As far as ODIs r concerned he is inferior to sachin from every possible angle. Only batsman who's comparable to sachin in ODIs is the great viv. Apart from him, Tendulkar is a league above every one else. But if u consider both tests and ODIs, Tendulkar will come up as the greatest cricket player to ever grace the cricket field. He isn't just a cricketer, he is the god of records, a role model to the millions of followers of this game and a global brand. Players like lara or Imran can only dream to have a stature that Tendulkar has in cricket.

Lara has a pathetic record in odi tournament finals where he averages only 24 with the bat whereas the God of cricket has the second highest average in tournament finals in the history of cricket. He holds the record of scoring the most number of runs, centuries and half centuries in the most important tournament of cricket ie World Cup.

He has the second best average in the knockout matches of icc world cup, was the first batsman to ever score a double ton ODIs, smashed legendry pak bowlers in icc world cup for fun and has won mom 3 times out of the 5 times he played against his arch rival Pakistan in WC.

What is lara's record compared to this? I ain't disrespecting lara, he was one of the greater test players of all time. But overall he is no match for Tendulkar as a cricketer and when it comes to Lois Tendulkar is in a league of his own and he wipes the floor with lara in this format. Lara trumps Tendulkar only in the world where pigs fly.

Once again, missing the point.

Nobody is disputing who is more popular, has had greater influence on the game, scored more runs, and is the better cricketer overall.

The discussion was about being a match-winner where Tendulkar does better than Lara in Tests while Lara does better than Tendulkar in ODI’s.

It’s just that simple.

 

[Buffet]

Lara has no centuries against the Two W's and Donald. That is 100% True.

Lara also has only 4-5 test tons in victory against non-minnows despite having ATG bowlers. Many poster claim Lara as a big match winner, but when you look at reality it's different.

 

[ManFan]

Lara also has only 4-5 test tons in victory against non-minnows despite having ATG bowlers. Many poster claim Lara as a big match winner, but when you look at reality it's different.

Yes and one would assume that he would have been more effective in Tests rather than ODIs.

 

[Dulex9]

Lara also has only 4-5 test tons in victory against non-minnows despite having ATG bowlers. Many poster claim Lara as a big match winner, but when you look at reality it's different.

To be fair on Lara, he has played some outstanding knocks in test, such as the 213 and 153 vs Aus 99. The 170 odd when the series was still alive vs Aus and completely dominated a test series in Sri L.

West Indies were on the decline as soon as Ambrose and Walsh retired.

 

[shaz619]

A joke comparison, it's a joke to even compare SRT to IK as a cricketer; it is more logical to use Dev, but IK is compatibly better then both. Cricket's first global superstar who was not just immensely popular in the subcontinent and an extraordinary batsman, bowler and captain at the Test level, not to mention leading his country to their only World Cup victory.

IK was simply too big for cricket, he was so big that he would become a PM while his peers remain old yellers trying their best to keep occupied after hanging up their gloves when that spotlight was turned off. IK was and is a special human being, the best there was, the best there is and the best there ever will be; he is the original [MENTION=133315]Hitman[/MENTION] personified and a human being of his calibre comes once in a life time, there is simply no comparison, the machismo, the intelligence, the sporting prowess, all the beautiful women that would die for him WOO! the good looks and never say die attitude which have ensured his greatness in every facet of life, he is a MAN personified. SRT is an ATG batsman no doubt but no comparison to the GREAT GREAT Imran Khan.

 

[Buffet]

Once again, missing the point.

Nobody is disputing who is more popular, has had greater influence on the game, scored more runs, and is the better cricketer overall.

The discussion was about being a match-winner where Tendulkar does better than Lara in Tests while Lara does better than Tendulkar in ODI’s.

It’s just that simple.

How exactly?

Indians won 234 times when SRT played. He scored 33 tons on those 234 wins. Ratio is 7.09

WI won 139 times when Lara played. He scored 16 tons in those 139 wins. Ratio is 8.6



Now tons many not always indicate dominating performance in win so let's look at MOM.

Out of 234 wins by India, SRT had MOM in 62 - Ratio is 3.7

Out of 139 wins by WI, Lara had MOM in 30 - 4.6

I only counted instances when their teams had won so it doesn't matter how often their team won. Lara had a inferior batting line up with him so he should have out-shined his teammates more often in wins, but that's not the case. It's actually reverse. Despite having superior batting line up, SRT out-shined his teammates more often when India won.

How does it make Lara a bigger match winner in ODI? Facts suggest otherwise. I already knew the answer, but me simply saying that SRT was a bigger match winner would have been wrong.

 

[RainMan_]

Once again, missing the point.

Nobody is disputing who is more popular, has had greater influence on the game, scored more runs, and is the better cricketer overall.

The discussion was about being a match-winner where Tendulkar does better than Lara in Tests while Lara does better than Tendulkar in ODI’s.

It’s just that simple.

It's a poor logic.

Cricket isn't a individual sport where one or two brilliant knock will win u the match. The caliber of a player or his greatness shouldn't be judged based on the result of the match rather it should be judged based on the performance of that specific player in that particular match.

Kohli has been the most dominant player in the recently finished test series between Ind and England and he was head and shoulder above everyone else in that series.

But still he had to suffer a shambolic defeat due to his mediocre teammates. Apart from this I haven't seen any player to play with such dominance on such difficult wickets for quite some time. It would be realty naive of u if u dismissed the great performance of kohli just because he failed to win the series.


Similarly, Tendulkar has performed everywhere in every types of situation. If his teammates failed to provide enough support with their bat and ball and eventually failed to win the match that's their fault. Why should Tendulkar be judged based on the lackluster performance of his mediocre teammates?

 

[Buffet]

Yes and one would assume that he would have been more effective in Tests rather than ODIs.

He did go berserk against Murali, but had no support.

 

[Dulex9]

You're better off comparing Imran Khan with Dev or Botham and Tendulkar to Viv or someone else.

Imran Khan was an exceptional fast bowler, a good batsman who developed his batting the second part of his career and a great leader.

Tendulkar was a brilliant batsman who an bowl part time spin.

Imran Khan was the greatest all rounder according to many in the 80s quartet of all rounders and led his country to world cup victory in 92 batting sensibly to score 70. People forget even in world cup 87 semi final at 30 odd for 3 under chasing under extreme pressure he scored a vital 50. He is highly regarded by his peers. He has the education to boot. he Adelaide hundred came under pressure and he turned Pakistan into a supreme force where they almost beat a full strength undefeated WI side.

Imran Khan led Pak victory in India and England 1987

Were Tendulkar has the most records being the highest run scored in tests, odi's. The highest number of hundreds scored by a batsman in odi's and tests. The most man of the match awards, most world cup runs scored, scored runs all over the world and against very good attacks. He has a great odi final average to boost too.

Tendulkar features in many world 11's including Donald Bradman's 11, Wisden and ranked 7th in the ESPN all time greats out of 25 list. Sachin is the only cricketer to appear on cover of time's magazine correct me if I'm wrong.

So both phenomenal cricketers.

 

[Buffet]

To be fair on Lara, he has played some outstanding knocks in test, such as the 213 and 153 vs Aus 99. The 170 odd when the series was still alive vs Aus and completely dominated a test series in Sri L.

West Indies were on the decline as soon as Ambrose and Walsh retired.

True, but impression that he was a big match winner is simply based on 2-3 memorable knocks. Lara wasn't consistent enough to to be a bigger match winner.

 

[ManFan]

How exactly?

Indians won 234 times when SRT played. He scored 33 tons on those 234 wins. Ratio is 7.09

WI won 139 times when Lara played. He scored 16 tons in those 139 wins. Ratio is 8.6



Now tons many not always indicate dominating performance in win so let's look at MOM.

Out of 234 wins by India, SRT had MOM in 62 - Ratio is 3.7

Out of 139 wins by WI, Lara had MOM in 30 - 4.6

I only counted instances when their teams had won so it doesn't matter how often their team won. Lara had a inferior batting line up with him so he should have out-shined his teammates more often in wins, but that's not the case. It's actually reverse. Despite having superior batting line up, SRT out-shined his teammates more often when India won.

How does it make Lara a bigger match winner in ODI? Facts suggest otherwise. I already knew the answer, but me simply saying that SRT was a bigger match winner would have been wrong.

So Lara had a higher MOM ratio and win to ton ratio?

I concluded that based on the fact that out of his 17 centuries in ODIs, 14 of them resulted in a win.

As far Tendulkar, it was 33/49.

It was 82% vs. 67%.

 

[ManFan]

It's a poor logic.

Cricket isn't a individual sport where one or two brilliant knock will win u the match. The caliber of a player or his greatness shouldn't be judged based on the result of the match rather it should be judged based on the performance of that specific player in that particular match.

Kohli has been the most dominant player in the recently finished test series between Ind and England and he was head and shoulder above everyone else in that series.

But still he had to suffer a shambolic defeat due to his mediocre teammates. Apart from this I haven't seen any player to play with such dominance on such difficult wickets for quite some time. It would be realty naive of u if u dismissed the great performance of kohli just because he failed to win the series.


Similarly, Tendulkar has performed everywhere in every types of situation. If his teammates failed to provide enough support with their bat and ball and eventually failed to win the match that's their fault. Why should Tendulkar be judged based on the lackluster performance of his mediocre teammates?

The same excuse used for Tendulkar during his first half can be used for Lara’s second half.

 

[Buffet]

It's a poor logic.

Cricket isn't a individual sport where one or two brilliant knock will win u the match. The caliber of a player or his greatness shouldn't be judged based on the result of the match rather it should be judged based on the performance of that specific player in that particular match.

Kohli has been the most dominant player in the recently finished test series between Ind and England and he was head and shoulder above everyone else in that series.

But still he had to suffer a shambolic defeat due to his mediocre teammates. Apart from this I haven't seen any player to play with such dominance on such difficult wickets for quite some time. It would be realty naive of u if u dismissed the great performance of kohli just because he failed to win the series.


Similarly, Tendulkar has performed everywhere in every types of situation. If his teammates failed to provide enough support with their bat and ball and eventually failed to win the match that's their fault. Why should Tendulkar be judged based on the lackluster performance of his mediocre teammates?

You can judge SRT vs Lara even with this logic, and SRT will come ahead. Better Idea is to simply look at how many times they contributed when their teams won. Did their teams win due to main contribution by SRT or main contribution by Lara? If yes, then how often?

SRT comes out ahead.

 

[Buffet]

So Lara had a higher MOM ratio and win to ton ratio?

You are reading it wrong. It's other way around. Lower the ratio, more frequently you are out-shining your teammates in wins.

234 wins by India - SRT scored ton in every 7th win.
139 wins by WI - Lara scored ton in every 8.5 wins.

Clearly, SRT was scoring tons at faster rate.

Same is true for MOM.

SRT was winning MOM after every 3.7 wins by India.
Lara was winning MOM after every 4.6 wins by WI.


Simply said, SRT was scoring in won matches more often and a faster rate.

 

[ManFan]

You are reading it wrong. It's other way around. Lower the ratio, more frequently you are out-shining your teammates in wins.

234 wins by India - SRT scored ton in every 7th win.
139 wins by WI - Lara scored ton in every 8.5 wins.

Clearly, SRT was scoring tons at faster rate.

Same is true for MOM.

SRT was winning MOM after every 3.7 wins by India.
Lara was winning MOM after every 4.6 wins by WI.


Simply said, SRT was scoring in won matches more often and a faster rate.

Got it.

Thanks for the explaination.

 

[Tusker]

The longevity point was brought by you, not me.

Because a cricketers achievements ( read the OP ) are a function of his career span. unless you think players like Adam Voges, Kambli >> Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Dravid.

And I bought that up to save us from your post vomit and preserve some bandwidth by stopping you in your tracks which is exactly what happened.

Get it ?

And now it's for months that you haven't explained exactly how are you planning to equate the longevity of a fast bowling all rounder cum captain with a batsman. Sweet sound of silence on that front indeed

I don't need to .... its your job to enlighten us how you will account for the large disparity in matches played while claiming Imran > SRT. Just because you dont consider Playing 200 tests and 450+ ODIs as an achievement doesn't mean everyone in the world dances to your tune. Reality is that very very few players play for that long. It is unlikely that anyone will even come remotely close to matching Tendulkars mind boggling longevity.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

I would put Tendulkar ahead simply because of ODI factor.

In Tests Imran might have shaded it because of his additional leadership skills, but his ODI record sells him short as a full package.

Claims like Prime Minister, leader of Pakistan are nonsense and irrelevant and are made to show off and brag but have nothing to do with his cricketing acumen.

 

[Proactive_]

Because a cricketers achievements ( read the OP ) are a function of his career span. unless you think players like Adam Voges, Kambli >> Tendulkar, Lara, Ponting, Dravid.

And I bought that up to save us from your post vomit and preserve some bandwidth by stopping you in your tracks which is exactly what happened.

Get it ?

So by this hilarious logic, Donald Bradman at 52 Tests doesn't get to even be in the discussion for greatest batsmen since many batsmen have played 125+ matches? Besides, in a couple of years then you would be claiming Stuart Broad to be a better than Imran Khan cuz "longevity"?

I don't need to .... its your job to enlighten us how you will account for the large disparity in matches played while claiming Imran > SRT. Just because you dont consider Playing 200 tests and 450+ ODIs as an achievement doesn't mean everyone in the world dances to your tune. Reality is that very very few players play for that long. It is unlikely that anyone will even come remotely close to matching Tendulkars mind boggling longevity.

There's nothing to enlighten. Playing 88 Tests for a fast bowling all rounder who also captained his side for the majority of his career makes a pretty substantial career span, accounting the fact that he didn't bowl for 3 years due to injury in the prime of his career. Not to mention his FC span lasted for 20+ years with close to 400 FC games. You are just clutching at straws here. I hope to see you proclaiming Stuart Broad to be one of the greatest fast bowlers of all time by your twisted logic if/when he reaches 500+ wickets.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Very interested in reading views of people posting in this thread on Kallis-Akram comparison.

One Pakistani involved but roles are reversed.

Now the Pakistani is specialist popular player being compared to an all rounder with ATG stats.

 

[Ab Fan]

My ranking of these four would be:-Wasim/Tendulkar
Imran
Kallis

Ofcourse, Imran after being a legendary cricketer, is now the PM of Pakistan and hence his popularity has no match.

Unfortunate but there are people like us who struggle to achieve greatness in one field but Imran has done it as a cricketer and now as a politician as well.

 

[SL_Fan]

Imran quite comfortably for mine. Longevity aside there will be/have been plenty of batsmen as good as if not better than Sachin. Players like Imran tho don’t come along too often. ATG fast bowler, ATG leader and a very good batsman. A humongous asset to any team.

 

[Dr_Bassim]

Imran quite comfortably for mine. Longevity aside there will be/have been plenty of batsmen as good as if not better than Sachin. Players like Imran tho don’t come along too often. ATG fast bowler, ATG leader and a very good batsman. A humongous asset to any team.

Better?

So how many batsmen average 40 plus against test playing nations and then 40 plus in ODI's too ?

Cricket is played beyond tests as well.

So tell me the heroics Imran performed in ODI's ?

You are entitled to your opinion and you can consider Imran better than Sachin (that is fine by me) but at least the reasons should make sense.


Imran Test player >Sachin if leadership included, you have a case.

Imran ODI player > Sachin?

 

[SL_Fan]

Yes better cricketer. Easily.

In Tests someone like Imran would be invaluable. I honestly don't think we'll see a fast bowling all-rounder of his class in Tests ever again. Then you add his leadership skills into the mix as well and that's one heck of a cricketer.

In LOIs yeah you could say Sachin is ahead but in terms of what they bring to the table overall as cricketers I don't think the gap is that huge. Sachin for instance would have never managed to pull off a '92 like Imran did. That's the stuff of legends.

 

[Dulex9]

Sachin for me.

He is an iconic cricketer who has the most test, odi runs as well as the most test, odi hundreds and the most world cup runs. He also is features in many 11's such as Donald Bradman's Wisden's, R Benued's and the only cricketer ever to be on the front page on the Time magazine and gets number 7 in the ESPN list of 25 greats. Man of the series in Aus 99 and man of the tournament twice in world cup's. He's won many finals for India too.

He was the only man for India in the 90s in a one man team and did very well against all the great attacks. He averaged 59 correct me if I'm wrong at the end of 99 in a era of great bowlers, that is no mean feat.

With Sachin India would not have made it to world cup final of 03 and 011.

Imran is a great, great all rounder, a excellent bowler, a good batsman who developed his batting in the second phase of his career. A great captain who did play some pressure knocks with the bat.

I'd give it to Sachin.