What's new

Sachin Tendulkar - The Ultimate Discussion

Bhaijaan

Bhaijaan

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Runs
69,457
Post of the Week
1
God bless this Youtuber for uploading Sachin's rarest and largely unseen knocks through the 90s. A MUST watch for teenagers on this forum to know more about the man the myth. What an absolute champion batsman. Already downloaded half the videos for future viewing. Feeling awesome and missing Sachin.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwD7wdklkB2o8Lt23FRypMw


Not from the channel, but check this rare beauty from Rob! First time Warnie bowling to Sach. Bowl's spinning yard and keeping low, Sachin in early trouble. :srt :warne

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ljkSq9quDNQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
All guns blazing in this one from 1997 vs NZ

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JI32Wq2U5Iw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Coming down the track against fast bowlers again and again. Shot at 3: 32 :bow:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Lx4UQeTZ1rc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Putting things in perspective. Hashim Amla has accumulated 60sh average with 20 hundreds in 130 games, rarely though he looks nearly as threatening as Tendulkar was in 90s. Tendulkar fit enough batting today would have been unbelievable.
 
Last edited:
freelance_cricketer said:
All guns blazing in this one from 1997 vs NZ

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JI32Wq2U5Iw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Coming down the track against fast bowlers again and again. Shot at 3: 32 :bow:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Lx4UQeTZ1rc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Putting things in perspective. Hashim Amla has accumulated 60sh average with 20 hundreds in 130 games, rarely though he looks nearly as threatening as Tendulkar was in 90s. Tendulkar fit enough batting today would have been unbelievable.
Click to expand...

What about <30 average in ODIs outside Asia in the 90's?
 
Sachin Could Have Averaged 65+ (TESTS) 55+ (ODI)

A discussion on my other thread has led me to believe that Sachin could have become a monster or a cricketer, perhaps the best of all time overtaking viv.

Sachin debuted when he was around 16-17, that is never the right age to debut, especially during the era of bowlers. This had drastically decreased his average.

Another reason was that he played way too many matches. He should have retired after the 2011 World Cup final when the Indians trashed the Sri Lankans and pak.

Sachin also had the immense pressure of being an Indian batsman. In a country where cricketers were worshipped, Sachin had to perform in every match to keep his country and fans happy, that explains why he got out in the 90s every so often.

Discuss
 
CricFan2012 said:
A discussion on my other thread has led me to believe that Sachin could have become a monster or a cricketer, perhaps the best of all time overtaking viv.

Sachin debuted when he was around 16-17, that is never the right age to debut, especially during the era of bowlers. This had drastically decreased his average.

Another reason was that he played way too many matches. He should have retired after the 2011 World Cup final when the Indians trashed the Sri Lankans and pak.

Sachin also had the immense pressure of being an Indian batsman. In a country where cricketers were worshipped, Sachin had to perform in every match to keep his country and fans happy, that explains why he got out in the 90s every so often.

Discuss
Click to expand...

All players have their average suffer at the end of their careers.
 
CricFan2012 said:
Yes but Sachin payed dearly for being an Indian. Indians worshipped him so he couldn't just quit like that.
Click to expand...

So did Viv Richards, Javed Miandad and Border to name a few. If you discount Tendulkar's career at the end, then you have to do it for others.
 
CricFan2012 said:
A discussion on my other thread has led me to believe that Sachin could have become a monster or a cricketer, perhaps the best of all time overtaking viv.

Sachin debuted when he was around 16-17, that is never the right age to debut, especially during the era of bowlers. This had drastically decreased his average.

Another reason was that he played way too many matches. He should have retired after the 2011 World Cup final when the Indians trashed the Sri Lankans and pak.

Sachin also had the immense pressure of being an Indian batsman. In a country where cricketers were worshipped, Sachin had to perform in every match to keep his country and fans happy, that explains why he got out in the 90s every so often.

Discuss
Click to expand...

Here is a well known but mind blowing statistic: From 1 Jan 1993 to 31 Dec 2010 (18 years), Sachin made 13447 runs at an average of 58.97 with 46 centuries. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/en...3;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting

This is including some of his terrible years due to injuries. Despite this there are certain people like [MENTION=132916]Junaids[/MENTION] who rate Sangakkara higher because of their averages.

Anyway it doesn't matter what his overall career statistics show. Anyone who has watched Sachin throughout his career knows how brilliant he was before the end of his career (especially in the 1990s).
 
Sachin136 said:
Having bad records for the starting and ending years is doubly worse than just having bad records at the end of your career.
Click to expand...

Yes but if you're going to discount the end of Sachin's career then you have to do it for all batsmen.

At no point have I commented on the start of his career.
 
miandadrules said:
Yes but if you're going to discount the end of Sachin's career then you have to do it for all batsmen.

At no point have I commented on the start of his career.
Click to expand...

Heres the thing though. Sachin was averaging 57 or thereabouts in Tests before the 2011 WC. He had already played more tests than other batsmen ever played over their entire careers. Doesn't that count for something?
 
miandadrules said:
Yes but if you're going to discount the end of Sachin's career then you have to do it for all batsmen.

At no point have I commented on the start of his career.
Click to expand...

So a 21 years career discounting a couple of his last years is the same as discounting last years of a 10 year career? That is not even close or in the same magnitude

The former will have 19 years of top performance. The later will have 8 years. Now just blindly comparing the average when the former did it for more than double of the later is lack of common sense IMO
 
Last edited:
Best batsman that I have ever seen bat. If someone wants a definition of complete batsman its Tendulkar.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
 
I think most top players aren't judged strictly on averages. Sachin's end average of 54-55 is pretty spectacular given its for 200 tests but you wouldn't be comparing to people averaging the same after 100 or even 150 tests because we know how things can get bad with longevity.
 
Sachin tendulkar is the greatest batsman of all time, No one has ever dominated both formats of cricket so consistently and for such a long time, Sachin averaged 57+ after 177 test matches, that is freaking insane, there is no match to him in odis of course
 
Walks out to bat for the last time:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uUtBqic1-Rk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Nikhil_cric said:
Heres the thing though. Sachin was averaging 57 or thereabouts in Tests before the 2011 WC. He had already played more tests than other batsmen ever played over their entire careers. Doesn't that count for something?
Click to expand...

The concentration of matches was greater in Sachin's era as opposed to past eras, meaning you got a greater return on a good return of form. Should that count against him?

We can keep going but it is disingenuous to use selective criteria for Sachin and no one else.
 
Indiafan said:
So a 21 years career discounting a couple of his last years is the same as discounting last years of a 10 year career? That is not even close or in the same magnitude

The former will have 19 years of top performance. The later will have 8 years. Now just blindly comparing the average when the former did it for more than double of the later is lack of common sense IMO
Click to expand...

The concentration of matches was also greater in Sachin's era than previous eras, meaning you got a greater return on good form. Let's also factor in the quality of the opposition and pitches.

Should we also factor in the vast majority of Sachin's matches played in Asia when normalising his average.

Did I say that the average was the sole criteria for judging a batsman?

The absurdity of the insecurity expressed by Indian fans with regards to Sachin is mind boggling. At the very least before you jump in to a tirade read the posts carefully and in context. That would be a "common sense" thing to do.
 
miandadrules said:
The concentration of matches was greater in Sachin's era as opposed to past eras, meaning you got a greater return on a good return of form. Should that count against him?

We can keep going but it is disingenuous to use selective criteria for Sachin and no one else.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with this.

Tendulkar did not play as many tests in the 90's as he did in the 2000's, when he was clearly not the same batsman.

He played 5 tests in 1998 when he was in the form of his life, correct me if i am wrong but he played only 2 tests in 1995 when he was in a magnificent run of form in 1993/1994.
 
Dead Ball said:
I would disagree with this.

Tendulkar did not play as many tests in the 90's as he did in the 2000's, when he was clearly not the same batsman.

He played 5 tests in 1998 when he was in the form of his life, correct me if i am wrong but he played only 2 tests in 1995 when he was in a magnificent run of form in 1993/1994.
Click to expand...

I meant a general trend. Greater concentration of matches in the 90's compare to the 70's?

Once again if you are going to segment careers then you have to do it for each great batsmen. Unless you're saying that Sachin is the only player in history not to maximise their good form?
 
miandadrules said:
I meant a general trend. Greater concentration of matches in the 90's compare to the 70's?

Once again if you are going to segment careers then you have to do it for each great batsmen. Unless you're saying that Sachin is the only player in history not to maximise their good form?
Click to expand...

Sachin is the only batsman who even after regressing was the best batsman in the world, just watch sachin before 2003 and after 2003, both are totally different batsman, no batsman in the world has reinvented himself like sachin, he dropped a lot of shots after 2003 and still managed to average 60 between 2007-2010, that puts him in a different league from all the batsmen from the past
 
miandadrules said:
The concentration of matches was greater in Sachin's era as opposed to past eras, meaning you got a greater return on a good return of form. Should that count against him?

We can keep going but it is disingenuous to use selective criteria for Sachin and no one else.
Click to expand...

You can't compare cricketers of different eras but you can make a case for him being a better,more consistent batsman than Ponting or Lara based on that IMO.
 
carrom_ball said:
Sachin is the only batsman who even after regressing was the best batsman in the world, just watch sachin before 2003 and after 2003, both are totally different batsman, no batsman in the world has reinvented himself like sachin, he dropped a lot of shots after 2003 and still managed to average 60 between 2007-2010, that puts him in a different league from all the batsmen from the past
Click to expand...
Infact he is the only batsman who never had a distinct peak. I mean we talk about great cricketers how they have picked for few years where they looked like world beaters. If you analyze Tendulkars career and I have posted this on PP before as well, 18 out of his 25 years were peak years. If you exclude his first 3 years (even then he was scoring test centuries in Perth, Sydney, Manchester etc.), 1 year where he was struggling for tennis elbow and the last 1.5 years all his years were peak. Yes he changed his batting style from an attacking opener to a grinder when he got partners like Sehwag with him, yes he was even moved to no.4 in ODIs, yes he could not play many shots during his later years because his back almost given up but one thing he never allowed to dip is his performance. There were hardly any series where India is touring and sachin does not have a century. Hence when people compare modern batsman especially Kohli with him I do not agree. No modern players can show the kind of consistency and dedication for 25 years that Sachin did. Imagind he faced liked of Malcom Marshal, Imran Khan etc. in his initial days and also faced liked of Amir, Southee etc. in his hay days. We are talking about that big a career and that amount of consistency. He is to me the greatest batsman. Few may argue there was an ex Australian legend who is the best ever but I would prefer someone batted in more that 2 countries :)

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Sachin seemed to have a better run in the 90's then in the 2000's
 
Indian_Supporter said:
Infact he is the only batsman who never had a distinct peak. I mean we talk about great cricketers how they have picked for few years where they looked like world beaters. If you analyze Tendulkars career and I have posted this on PP before as well, 18 out of his 25 years were peak years. If you exclude his first 3 years (even then he was scoring test centuries in Perth, Sydney, Manchester etc.), 1 year where he was struggling for tennis elbow and the last 1.5 years all his years were peak. Yes he changed his batting style from an attacking opener to a grinder when he got partners like Sehwag with him, yes he was even moved to no.4 in ODIs, yes he could not play many shots during his later years because his back almost given up but one thing he never allowed to dip is his performance. There were hardly any series where India is touring and sachin does not have a century. Hence when people compare modern batsman especially Kohli with him I do not agree. No modern players can show the kind of consistency and dedication for 25 years that Sachin did. Imagind he faced liked of Malcom Marshal, Imran Khan etc. in his initial days and also faced liked of Amir, Southee etc. in his hay days. We are talking about that big a career and that amount of consistency. He is to me the greatest batsman. Few may argue there was an ex Australian legend who is the best ever but I would prefer someone batted in more that 2 countries :)

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Exactly, even in odis some people make a case for viv but sachin was easily better, sachin played in the toughest era of odi cricket against the best odi bowlers and dominated them. Who did viv face? Most great bowlers were in his own team and he had trouble against spin, if qadir was running webs around him imagine what murali and warne would've done. Viv was a great player no doubt but sachin was better in my humble opinion :)
 
carrom_ball said:
Exactly, even in odis some people make a case for viv but sachin was easily better, sachin played in the toughest era of odi cricket against the best odi bowlers and dominated them. Who did viv face? Most great bowlers were in his own team and he had trouble against spin, if qadir was running webs around him imagine what murali and warne would've done. Viv was a great player no doubt but sachin was better in my humble opinion :)
Click to expand...

The fact that Viv never wore a helmet makes him better to Sachin for several people including myself.Yet he had a str:rate of 69.28 and 50.23 avg: in tests.
In one dayers too 47+ avg: & 90 str:rate. So only in test avg: was Sachin better.Sachin had much better longevity in both forms of the game, Sachin faced far better varied set of great bowlers in both formats, Sachin had to cope with far better pressure of expectations etc etc.All agreed. But that single factor of 'non helmat' makes Viv better to Sachin for me.
 
Tendulkar completely eclipsed Viv like way back in 2007-08. Some people really need to update themselves on cricket.
 
Great batsman, don't know why people can't see that. Wanted him out asap when we faced him, had his fair share of luck though, but made it count and was a menace.
 
It will possibly take many more years for any batsmen to break his records in any of the formats.The best part is that with longevity he has such impressive stats in both the formats and that also after playing against world class bowlers all over the world.
 
Lets do a bit of dissecting:

Only once did Mcgrath have REAL success against SRT and that was in 2004, Yeap the Tennis Elbow series, the series in which SRT didnt take part in the whole 4 test matches due to injury. In that series Mcgrath was king, he owned SRT left right and center, mind you, you would need both your arms to hold the bat properly and let alone when facing an ATG fast bowler :angel:, Otherwise, a fit and match ready SRT avged what 46 vs Mcgrath. I think we can forgive him for not performing when he was injured and not fit....







P.S. I do agree Sanga is the greatest batsmen of all time, in planet Plutto which is ruled by Busharaff...
 
Last edited:
[MENTION=976]bashar[/MENTION]

Tendulkar's dominated every bowler you've mentioned. WHat are you talking about? None of them ever played the game as bigger stars than him. They would bow their heads down seeing Sachin mostly.
 
Never thought I would ever see a day when a legend Tendulkar is compared to a player like Sangakarra.
You know a person is a troll or a 10 year old kid when he starts comparing a player like :sachin to Sangakarra.
Also someone said Sachin might have played T20 better if it was invented in 1990's. BTW he at the fag end of his career was the highest run scorer in IPL for continuous 4 or 5 years if I am not wrong. Also Master has retired from IPL long back still he is the 15th highest run scorer in the IPL.
This newbie kids who just now started watching cricket don't know what a classy batsman Sachin was. He was a aggressive batsman and used to bat at more than 100% strike rates during 1990's while most batsmen used to bat at 60, 70 strike rate. Also it's very sad to see people saying Kohli is better batsman than Sachin. According to me, Kohli is good player and he has cashed in his chances on pitches which are flat everywhere these days, poor international bowlers and power plays. Look at his performance against swinging bowlers on better pitches. It's not Kohli's fault but he is no way better batsman than Sachin.
 
Chromeuser said:
Never thought I would ever see a day when a legend Tendulkar is compared to a player like Sangakarra.
You know a person is a troll or a 10 year old kid when he starts comparing a player like :sachin to Sangakarra.
Also someone said Sachin might have played T20 better if it was invented in 1990's. BTW he at the fag end of his career was the highest run scorer in IPL for continuous 4 or 5 years if I am not wrong. Also Master has retired from IPL long back still he is the 15th highest run scorer in the IPL.
This newbie kids who just now started watching cricket don't know what a classy batsman Sachin was. He was a aggressive batsman and used to bat at more than 100% strike rates during 1990's while most batsmen used to bat at 60, 70 strike rate. Also it's very sad to see people saying Kohli is better batsman than Sachin. According to me, Kohli is good player and he has cashed in his chances on pitches which are flat everywhere these days, poor international bowlers and power plays. Look at his performance against swinging bowlers on better pitches. It's not Kohli's fault but he is no way better batsman than Sachin.
Click to expand...
They only compare Sachin with Sanga/AB etc due to 2 reasons:

A) Young fans who have started watching cricket in late 2000s and have not followed Sachin's career closely enough.

B) He is an Indian...hence general bias.

As I said many times before no modern batsman is as complete a batsman Tendulkar was. Not even close.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
 
Still gives stomach bugs to Pakistanis. For God's sake, move on.
 
Biggest boogeyman for Pakistan. Doorstoppers have been written about this man even after he is gone.

I would say that in case of PPers, even Freddy Krueger would tip his burnt hat to SRT and deem him the greatest villain.
 
The claims that Sachin was not good vs ATG bowlers is far from truth.
Here are some details.

Sachin in his career faced some 12 ATG bowlers.By ATG I mean bowlers with great avg: & longevity combined.
They are Hadlee,Imran,Wasim,Waqar,Ambrose,Walsh,Donlad,Pollock,Steyn,Mcgrath,Warne,Murali.
The above said are the details of those inns where atleast any one of these ATG bowlers played.

Out of these he avg:Ed a respectable 46.44 vs SAF in SAF.That means though he was not great(definitely
very good) vs AD or SP,he more than made up for it by having the upper hand over Steyn.
In IND too he got out only 3 times in 15 inns to either one of them.So all in all he was good against
AD,very good vs Pollock & more than great vs Steyn.

He avg:Ed 56.125 in AUS & 51.88 in IND when either GM or SW or both were playing.All in all GM got him
6 times in 18 inns.But Sachin's high avg:s shows that he indeed was atleast good vs GM.But he virtually
owned the other great SW and made up for it.

Against Pak in PAK, Imran got him out 2 out of 6 inns.His avg: of 35.83 shows Imran had the upper hand
over him.But the 2 Ws could get him out only 2 out of 12 inns in both PAK & IND.More over he didn't get
out even once to the other great Hadlee in 4 INNS.That means all together he was atleast 'great' vs the
4 great bowlers combined.

In WI, Ambrose & Walsh could never get him out.He avg:Ed 57.8 there.That means he owned them.In IND too
though Walsh got him out 2 out of 6 times, he avg:ed a mammoth 67.That means Sachin was undoubtedly
more than great vs the 2 great bowlers.

In SL Murali got him out 5 out of 12 times.But Sachin had very good 45.67 avg:.Yet it can be said that
Murali was better in SL vs Sachin.But Sachin more than made up for that by avg:ing 51.38 in IND. 3 out of
14 means he won the battle in IND.

So Sachin scored 2779 runs @ 46.32 in 65 INNS vs all these 12 great bowlers abroad. Of these they could get
him out only 22 times in 65 inns.In India Sachin scored 2563 runs @ 46.6 vs them in 58 inns. Of these they could
get him out only 13 times.All in all 5342 runs @ 46.45 in 123 inns.Performing that good vs 12 ATG bowlers
means there is no truth at all in what some posters try to convey.
 
Ignore my previous post.

The claims that Sachin was not good vs ATG bowlers is far from truth.
Here are some details.

vs AD or SP or DS in SAF
28 3 1161 46.44 9 times out to either of 3 - 3AD,4SP,2DS


vs GM or SW in AUS
9 1 449 56.125 4 times out to either of 2 - 2GM,2SW

VS IK,2WS in PAK
6 0 215 35.83 4 times out to either of 3 - 2IK,1WA,1WY



VS 2CS in WI
6 1 289 57.80 0 times out to either of 2

VS RH in NZL
4 0 117 29.25 0 times out to RH

vs MM in SL
12 0 548 45.67 5 times out to MM

vs AD or SP or DN in IND
15 1 483 34.5 3 times out to either of 3 - 2AD,1DN

vs GM or SW in IND
17 1 830 51.88 5 times out to either of 2 - 4GM,1SW

VS 2WS in IND
6 0 180 30.00 0 times out to either of 2

VS 2CW in IND
6 0 402 67.00 2 times out to cw

vs MM in IND
14 1 668 51.38 3 times out to MM

Sachin in his career faced some 12 ATG bowlers.By ATG I mean bowlers with great avg: & longevity combined.
They are Hadlee,Imran,Wasim,Waqar,Ambrose,Walsh,Donlad,Pollock,Steyn,Mcgrath,Warne,Murali.
The above said are the details of those inns where atleast any one of these ATG bowlers played.

Out of these he avg:Ed a respectable 46.44 vs SAF in SAF.That means though he was not great(definitely
very good) vs AD or SP,he more than made up for it by having the upper hand over Steyn.
In IND too he got out only 3 times in 15 inns to either one of them.So all in all he was good against
AD,very good vs Pollock & more than great vs Steyn.

He avg:Ed 56.125 in AUS & 51.88 in IND when either GM or SW or both were playing.All in all GM got him
6 times in 18 inns.But Sachin's high avg:s shows that he indeed was atleast good vs GM.But he virtually
owned the other great SW and made up for it.

Against Pak in PAK, Imran got him out 2 out of 6 inns.His avg: of 35.83 shows Imran had the upper hand
over him.But the 2 Ws could get him out only 2 out of 12 inns in both PAK & IND.More over he didn't get
out even once to the other great Hadlee in 4 INNS.That means all together he was atleast 'great' vs the
4 great bowlers combined.

In WI, Ambrose & Walsh could never get him out.He avg:Ed 57.8 there.That means he owned them.In IND too
though Walsh got him out 2 out of 6 times, he avg:ed a mammoth 67.That means Sachin was undoubtedly
more than great vs the 2 great bowlers.

In SL Murali got him out 5 out of 12 times.But Sachin had very good 45.67 avg:.Yet it can be said that
Murali was better in SL vs Sachin.But Sachin more than made up for that by avg:ing 51.38 in IND. 3 out of
14 means he won the battle in IND.

So Sachin scored 2779 runs @ 46.32 in 65 INNS vs all these 12 great bowlers abroad. Of these they could get
him out only 22 times in 65 inns.In India Sachin scored 2563 runs @ 46.6 vs them in 58 inns. Of these they could
get him out only 13 times.All in all 5342 runs @ 46.45 in 123 inns.Performing that good vs 12 ATG bowlers
means there is no truth at all in what some posters try to convey.
 
Tendulkar's taken everyone apart as far as i remember in his peak.
 
Feroz Rawther said:
Ignore my previous post.

The claims that Sachin was not good vs ATG bowlers is far from truth.
Here are some details.

vs AD or SP or DS in SAF
28 3 1161 46.44 9 times out to either of 3 - 3AD,4SP,2DS


vs GM or SW in AUS
9 1 449 56.125 4 times out to either of 2 - 2GM,2SW

VS IK,2WS in PAK
6 0 215 35.83 4 times out to either of 3 - 2IK,1WA,1WY



VS 2CS in WI
6 1 289 57.80 0 times out to either of 2

VS RH in NZL
4 0 117 29.25 0 times out to RH

vs MM in SL
12 0 548 45.67 5 times out to MM

vs AD or SP or DN in IND
15 1 483 34.5 3 times out to either of 3 - 2AD,1DN

vs GM or SW in IND
17 1 830 51.88 5 times out to either of 2 - 4GM,1SW

VS 2WS in IND
6 0 180 30.00 0 times out to either of 2

VS 2CW in IND
6 0 402 67.00 2 times out to cw

vs MM in IND
14 1 668 51.38 3 times out to MM

Sachin in his career faced some 12 ATG bowlers.By ATG I mean bowlers with great avg: & longevity combined.
They are Hadlee,Imran,Wasim,Waqar,Ambrose,Walsh,Donlad,Pollock,Steyn,Mcgrath,Warne,Murali.
The above said are the details of those inns where atleast any one of these ATG bowlers played.

Out of these he avg:Ed a respectable 46.44 vs SAF in SAF.That means though he was not great(definitely
very good) vs AD or SP,he more than made up for it by having the upper hand over Steyn.
In IND too he got out only 3 times in 15 inns to either one of them.So all in all he was good against
AD,very good vs Pollock & more than great vs Steyn.

He avg:Ed 56.125 in AUS & 51.88 in IND when either GM or SW or both were playing.All in all GM got him
6 times in 18 inns.But Sachin's high avg:s shows that he indeed was atleast good vs GM.But he virtually
owned the other great SW and made up for it.

Against Pak in PAK, Imran got him out 2 out of 6 inns.His avg: of 35.83 shows Imran had the upper hand
over him.But the 2 Ws could get him out only 2 out of 12 inns in both PAK & IND.More over he didn't get
out even once to the other great Hadlee in 4 INNS.That means all together he was atleast 'great' vs the
4 great bowlers combined.

In WI, Ambrose & Walsh could never get him out.He avg:Ed 57.8 there.That means he owned them.In IND too
though Walsh got him out 2 out of 6 times, he avg:ed a mammoth 67.That means Sachin was undoubtedly
more than great vs the 2 great bowlers.

In SL Murali got him out 5 out of 12 times.But Sachin had very good 45.67 avg:.Yet it can be said that
Murali was better in SL vs Sachin.But Sachin more than made up for that by avg:ing 51.38 in IND. 3 out of
14 means he won the battle in IND.

So Sachin scored 2779 runs @ 46.32 in 65 INNS vs all these 12 great bowlers abroad. Of these they could get
him out only 22 times in 65 inns.In India Sachin scored 2563 runs @ 46.6 vs them in 58 inns. Of these they could
get him out only 13 times.All in all 5342 runs @ 46.45 in 123 inns.Performing that good vs 12 ATG bowlers
means there is no truth at all in what some posters try to convey.
Click to expand...

All these averages versus x, y and z bowlers etc are pretty much useless. They are not head-to-head numbers.
 
Here's how the 10k club bats have fared against above median (ie stronger) attacks. This was done a couple of years back.

The median bowling strength for a Test innings from 1877 to 2014 (including the Sydney Test of the 2013-14 Ashes) was found to be 31.54.

The bowling strength for a particular team innings is simply the weighted average of each bowler in a bowling line-up at the start of the said innings. Weights are assigned according to the share of the bowling for each bowler in this innings. Bowlers on Test debut are assigned the median figure.

Attacks with bowling strength better than the median are counted as strong attacks and the rest as weak attacks. An attack including the exact same bowlers can have two different strength measures in different Tests. For example, a South African attack playing in Sri Lanka, where Nicky Boje would bowl a lot of overs, would have a weaker strength measure than the same attack bowling in South Africa, where Boje's share of the bowling would be much smaller.
Click to expand...

178705.jpg


178707.jpg


178709.jpg
 
SL_Fan said:
All these averages versus x, y and z bowlers etc are pretty much useless. They are not head-to-head numbers.
Click to expand...


i am fully aware of it .But to term it as useless makes no sense. For instance take the record vs Ambose & Walsh.
total of 691 runs @ 62.82 vs them & getting dismissed only twice to only Walsh means he had no avg: vs Ambrose,
more than 50 avg: vs Walsh & definitely more than 50 vs both these bowlers combined.

Like wise the data gives a strong indication that SRT avg:ed atleast 35 to 55 vs all other bowlers baring perhaps Imran.
 
Feroz Rawther said:
i am fully aware of it .But to term it as useless makes no sense. For instance take the record vs Ambose & Walsh.
total of 691 runs @ 62.82 vs them & getting dismissed only twice to only Walsh means he had no avg: vs Ambrose,
more than 50 avg: vs Walsh & definitely more than 50 vs both these bowlers combined.

Like wise the data gives a strong indication that SRT avg:ed atleast 35 to 55 vs all other bowlers baring perhaps Imran.
Click to expand...

Those numbers don't really show any thing meaningful. Say a batsman scores a hundred against an attack comprising of bowlers x and y but only faced a handful of overs from x and y and/or only scored just a few runs off them. Now if you look at the average of that batsman against x and y for that match it'll show that he averaged hundred. Obviously far off the mark.
 
Good batsmen, but had attitude problem. Wouldve achieved more if he was humble about his tailunt.

Sent from pone
 
SL_Fan said:
Here's how the 10k club bats have fared against above median (ie stronger) attacks. This was done a couple of years back.



178705.jpg


178707.jpg


178709.jpg
Click to expand...

don't know much about this complex formula and its results. But definitely knows one thing. A player like Sanga never faced 12 ATG bowlers almost uniformely(home & abroad) with such longevity as Sachin did.
Even then Sanga's avg: abroad are not at all uniformly distributed as that of Sachin.
 
Feroz Rawther said:
don't know much about this complex formula and its results. But definitely knows one thing. A player like Sanga never faced 12 ATG bowlers almost uniformely(home & abroad) with such longevity as Sachin did.
Even then Sanga's avg: abroad are not at all uniformly distributed as that of Sachin.
Click to expand...

Sanga should not even be in the discussion when talking about sachin lara and viv
 
SL_Fan said:
Those numbers don't really show any thing meaningful. Say a batsman scores a hundred against an attack comprising of bowlers x and y but only faced a handful of overs from x and y and/or only scored just a few runs off them. Now if you look at the average of that batsman against x and y for that match it'll show that he averaged hundred. Obviously far off the mark.
Click to expand...


So the basic of what you are saying is that all these 12 great bowlers despite having great avg: & longevity combined(that is the reason they turned out to be great bowlers) might have been under utilized
thru out their careers than those mere ordinary to good bowlers in general. isn't it?
Sorry i can't take such theory.
As far as my cricket common sense goes it is the ATGs that are more used in prcatical match situations
than others in general.
 
Feroz Rawther said:
don't know much about this complex formula and its results. But definitely knows one thing. A player like Sanga never faced 12 ATG bowlers almost uniformely(home & abroad) with such longevity as Sachin did.
Even then Sanga's avg: abroad are not at all uniformly distributed as that of Sachin.
Click to expand...

It's about the strength of attacks these batsmen faced not about the strength of individual bowlers (for that you will need head to head data which is tough to find). Nothing complex about it. Just a lot of data mining :))
 
Feroz Rawther said:
So the basic of what you are saying is that all these 12 great bowlers despite having great avg: & longevity combined(that is the reason they turned out to be great bowlers) might have been under utilized
thru out their careers than those mere ordinary to good bowlers in general. isn't it?
Sorry i can't take such theory.
As far as my cricket common sense goes it is the ATGs that are more used in prcatical match situations
than others in general.
Click to expand...

Ok let me put it in another way so you understand what I'm trying to say

Batsman A 100
Scored 5 off 5 overs from bowler x
Scored 10 off 5 overs from bowler y

Now if you just look at the ave of batsman A against x and y it'll show 100
However head to head only 15 runs off 10 overs were scored off them
 
carrom_ball said:
Don't know about bradman but they all are a league above sanga, that's for sure
Click to expand...

What some imaginary league you have come up with is it? Bradman now he's a league above. Rest not much between them actually. In the real world.
 
SL_Fan said:
What some imaginary league you have come up with is it? Bradman now he's a league above. Rest not much between them actually. In the real world.
Click to expand...

The league is very real for those who have watched cricket in the 80s and 90s
 
Those from the 80s and 90s have their own league now do they.
 
SL_Fan said:
Ok let me put it in another way so you understand what I'm trying to say

Batsman A 100
Scored 5 off 5 overs from bowler x
Scored 10 off 5 overs from bowler y

Now if you just look at the ave of batsman A against x and y it'll show 100
However head to head only 15 runs off 10 overs were scored off them
Click to expand...
i already understood what u told in the first post itself.But just take this 691 runs @ 62.82 vs Amb/Wal.
Usually the common strategy that has been followed thru out in test cricket is that 4 main bowlers will bowl
the majority of overs.And even then the share of 4rth bowler in general will be lower. A 5th bowler(ususally
a part timer) will have a few overs(much lowers than than the other 4).This is the case in general.
That means it is not just a mere 5 overs from 'x' and 'y' if they are the main bowlers of the team as you

mentioned.They would bowl a major proportion in general because they are the ATG str: bowlers.

In SRT vs AMB/WAL , even if we assume that only 200 runs out of 691 were consumed by AMB/WAL(there is every
chance of this being much more than 200) since WaLsh dismissed SRT only twice, the combined avg: vs AMB/WAL
comes to 200/2 = 100.
 
SL_Fan said:
It's about the strength of attacks these batsmen faced not about the strength of individual bowlers (for that you will need head to head data which is tough to find). Nothing complex about it. Just a lot of data mining :))
Click to expand...

what strength? From the data you put i didn't trace out any thing regarding the strength of bowlers.I only
found some tables with several batsmen and their avg:es.Infact nothing in those data which shows the strength of bowlers.
 
If I have to classify the ATGs or greats , it would go like this:

1) Bradman

2)Sobers/Viv/Sachin/Lara

3)Chapell/Gavaskar/Ponting

4)Border/Dravid/Kallis/ Sangakkara/Waugh

5)Smith/Hayden/Chanderpaul/KP and so on(greats but not ATG)
 
Last edited:
The only batsman that is somewhat comparable or eligible to be mentioned alongside Sachin is Bradman.
 
Feroz Rawther said:
i already understood what u told in the first post itself.But just take this 691 runs @ 62.82 vs Amb/Wal.
Usually the common strategy that has been followed thru out in test cricket is that 4 main bowlers will bowl
the majority of overs.And even then the share of 4rth bowler in general will be lower. A 5th bowler(ususally
a part timer) will have a few overs(much lowers than than the other 4).This is the case in general.
That means it is not just a mere 5 overs from 'x' and 'y' if they are the main bowlers of the team as you

mentioned.They would bowl a major proportion in general because they are the ATG str: bowlers.

In SRT vs AMB/WAL , even if we assume that only 200 runs out of 691 were consumed by AMB/WAL(there is every
chance of this being much more than 200) since WaLsh dismissed SRT only twice, the combined avg: vs AMB/WAL
comes to 200/2 = 100.
Click to expand...

Not sure how else I can explain it to you. You are only making assumptions. Those numbers don't mean much. You need head to head data if you want to properly analyse what so and so batsman has done against so and so bowlers. Otherwise it's meaningless.
 
Feroz Rawther said:
what strength? From the data you put i didn't trace out any thing regarding the strength of bowlers.I only
found some tables with several batsmen and their avg:es.Infact nothing in those data which shows the strength of bowlers.
Click to expand...

As explained the guy who carried out the analysis used weighted average to determine the strength of the attacks these batsmen faced going through all of their innings one by one. He also found out the median by going through and doing the same for all Test matches in order to divide them into stronger (below median) and weaker (above median) attacks.

See here for more info

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...gainst-the-best-bowlers&p=6519482#post6519482

Paints a much more accurate picture of things than those meaningless numbers you and some others were posting.
 
Feroz Rawther said:
i already understood what u told in the first post itself.But just take this 691 runs @ 62.82 vs Amb/Wal.
Usually the common strategy that has been followed thru out in test cricket is that 4 main bowlers will bowl
the majority of overs.And even then the share of 4rth bowler in general will be lower. A 5th bowler(ususally
a part timer) will have a few overs(much lowers than than the other 4).This is the case in general.
That means it is not just a mere 5 overs from 'x' and 'y' if they are the main bowlers of the team as you

mentioned.They would bowl a major proportion in general because they are the ATG str: bowlers.

In SRT vs AMB/WAL , even if we assume that only 200 runs out of 691 were consumed by AMB/WAL(there is every
chance of this being much more than 200) since WaLsh dismissed SRT only twice, the combined avg: vs AMB/WAL
comes to 200/2 = 100.
Click to expand...

Here's an example (from the same analysis)

Sachin's 146 at Cape Town in 2011

Sachin Tendulkar made 146 in this Test in Cape Town and had a memorable battle with Dale Steyn. But South Africa's bowling attack as a whole was not particularly strong. The table below shows the calculation of bowling strength for the South African attack. The individual averages are the bowler's averages at the start of the Test innings. Tendulkar made 123 in 231 balls against Morkel, Tsotsobe and Harris, and 23 in 83 against Steyn.
Click to expand...

178703.jpg
 
So rather than looking at head to head data if you simply just look up what Sachin averaged that innings "against" Steyn it'll show up as 146. But in reality he only scored 23 of those off Steyn. Hopefully you get the point now.
 
SL_Fan said:
So rather than looking at head to head data if you simply just look up what Sachin averaged that innings "against" Steyn it'll show up as 146. But in reality he only scored 23 of those off Steyn. Hopefully you get the point now.
Click to expand...

Steyn's not looked more lethal than that. I don't you understand the game when you say stuff like that. You're supposed to preserve your wicket against the best bowlers and target the weaker ones. Steyn was bowling banana outswing that match, unplayable stuff. Watching him tame Steyn there was a sight to behold, those who followed the mach back then would testify to it [MENTION=1842]James[/MENTION] knows whati'm talking about regarding that match and battle between Sach and Steyn.
 
freelance_cricketer said:
The only batsman that is somewhat comparable or eligible to be mentioned alongside Sachin is Bradman.
Click to expand...

Pray tell how does one compare a batsman from the 30's/40's to a batsman in the 90's/00's ? What specific parameters do you use and what qualitative analysis is used to come to this conclusion of yours?

Out of Sachin's 51 test centuries in 200 games only 20 games have resulted in wins. 10% LOL!!
Out of Bradman's 29 test centuries in 52 matches 22 of them have resulted in wins. 42.3% (or to make it easier for you to understand 4 times more than Sachin)

But yes Sachin is a bigger match winner than Bradman :))

But even the above comparison dosn't hold much water seeing as they played 60+ years apart from each other and the 2 players have nothing in common other than the fact they played test cricket.

Please take the time to respond in a detailed manner (instead of your usual one-liners) what methods you used to determine Sachin is on Bradman's level.
 
SL_Fan said:
Here's an example (from the same analysis)

Sachin's 146 at Cape Town in 2011



178703.jpg
Click to expand...

:facepalm: That's why these stats are meaning less, anyone who watched that match would know it is not the runs off steyn that mattered, Steyn was bowling an absolute dream spell and tendulkar countered him and shielded the other batsman, steyn would have ripped through the Indian order if sachin had got out, it was an absolute joy to watch sachin vs steyn in that match, go to youtube and hear what steyn has to say about that spell vs sachin, these things don't translate into stats, that's why you actual have to watch cricket to know the difference in stature of sachin and sanga.
 
The best way to compare players is the ICC historical ranking as it takes into account the best players of the time playing and ranks accordingly. As well as more points for wins etc.
Sachin is no where near Bradman. Even Dravid is better than Tendulker when it comes to test cricket Tendulker might be a great player who played at a high level for a long time but quite a few players have been better than him at their peaks or through their careers.

Sent from my SM-G925I
 
Couch Cricketer said:
The best way to compare players is the ICC historical ranking as it takes into account the best players of the time playing and ranks accordingly. As well as more points for wins etc.
Sachin is no where near Bradman. Even Dravid is better than Tendulker when it comes to test cricket Tendulker might be a great player who played at a high level for a long time but quite a few players have been better than him at their peaks or through their careers.

Sent from my SM-G925I
Click to expand...

Dravid was terrible against bounce and an inferior to sachin vs spin, he was better than sachin vs swing though, it's funny how everyone who tries to micro-analyze sachin's stats doesn't do the same for other cricketers then you would know that the faults you try to find in sachin are much bigger in other players who you claim to be better
 
First Pakistanis were like:

Ponting, Ponting, Ponting

They they were like:

Kallis Kallis Kallis

Now they are like:

Sanga Sanga Sanga...



Ahhh the hold SRT has over some Pakistanis is truly scary...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Slog
"Sachin Tendulkar is OK. I don't consider him amongst top rank (of batsmen)": Danish Kaneria (2006)
Replies
36
Views
3K
pillionrider
P
Bhaijaan
Project - A tribute to love | The greatest and most ultimate playlist
Replies
2
Views
366
Michael Chopra
Michael Chopra
A
[VIDEO] Sachin Tendulkar is a singer now
Replies
12
Views
1K
Hitman
Hitman
Back
Top