The league of Sachin Tendulkar and Brian Lara | Does any other modern era batsman belong in it?

[Bhaijaan]

Btw should mention that 52 Tests/70 dismissals relates to Bradman. Hence The Bradman standard

Goodness

 

[Sachin136]

Even if the 52 tests are not a very good benchmark it is still obvious that Ponting had one of the best peaks for any batsman ever.

 

[Stallion__]

Bradman's 52 tests were over a 20 year span. For modern players it is only four or five years of cricket. A minimum of 100 tests (assuming the player has played so many matches) can be considered as a legitimate sample for modern players.

We are talking about peak here.

100 tests is a good enough sample to measure consistency.

 

[Haroon786]

Insecurities galore.

 

[SL_Fan]

Bradman's 52 tests were over a 20 year span. For modern players it is only four or five years of cricket. A minimum of 100 tests (assuming the player has played so many matches) can be considered as a legitimate sample for modern players.

50+ Tests more than sufficient when talking about peaks tho. 100+ Tests that's pretty much an entire career. That too for a select few

 

[TheNightWatchman]

Is Kevin Pietersen > Inzi ??

 

[Stallion__]

Is Kevin Pietersen > Inzi ??

[MENTION=133315]Hitman[/MENTION] is the best person to ask this question.

 

[IndianWillow]

50+ Tests more than sufficient when talking about peaks tho. 100+ Tests that's pretty much an entire career

That is around 70% of modern greats. Any modern batsman who didn't play significantly more than 100 tests did not enjoy a full career and either started late or retired around 33/34. In Ponting's case those 50 tests were barely 4 years of cricket because Australia play a lot of test cricket.

 

[Bilal7]

Sachin fans are the most insecure people in the world. Ex-cricketers should start selling their "All-Time Test XI" lists, with Sachin as the highest rated player. They'll make millions.

In my opinion, Sachin, Lara, Ponting, Sanga, Dravid and Kallis were all on the same level. The duo of Amla and de Villiers can end up on that same level, depending on how they end their careers.

Some of these guys were certainly better than the others but they were all ATGs and there was little to separate between them. Would a team really be that much poorer if it had Dravid as it's star batsman, instead of Sachin?

 

[SL_Fan]

[MENTION=133315]Hitman[/MENTION] is the best person to ask this question.

This should be interesting

 

[SL_Fan]

That is around 70% of modern greats. Any modern batsman who didn't play significantly more than 100 tests did not enjoy a full career and either started late or retired around 33/34. In Ponting's case those 50 tests were barely 4 years of cricket because Australia play a lot of test cricket.

As Stallion said 100+ Tests is a good measure of consistency. But a 100+ Test peak now that would be Bradmanesque.

 

[Bhaijaan]

Is Kevin Pietersen > Inzi ??

Yes.

 

[Sachin136]

Sachin fans are the most insecure people in the world. Ex-cricketers should start selling their "All-Time Test XI" lists, with Sachin as the highest rated player. They'll make millions.

In my opinion, Sachin, Lara, Ponting, Sanga, Dravid and Kallis were all on the same level. The duo of Amla and de Villiers can end up on that same level, depending on how they end their careers.

Some of these guys were certainly better than the others but they were all ATGs and there was little to separate between them. Would a team really be that much poorer if it had Dravid as it's star batsman, instead of Sachin?

It looks like everyone’s favourite pastime here is to call anyone who engages in a debate and defends Sachin insecure. If you do not want to discuss the topic of Sachin in comparison with Ponting with these supposedly insecure people then why reply in the first place?

 

[IndianWillow]

Sachin fans are the most insecure people in the world. Ex-cricketers should start selling their "All-Time Test XI" lists, with Sachin as the highest rated player. They'll make millions.

In my opinion, Sachin, Lara, Ponting, Sanga, Dravid and Kallis were all on the same level. The duo of Amla and de Villiers can end up on that same level, depending on how they end their careers.

Some of these guys were certainly better than the others but they were all ATGs and there was little to separate between them. Would a team really be that much poorer if it had Dravid as it's star batsman, instead of Sachin?

Most sensible answer.

The differences are small enough to eliminate classification into tier A and tier B in the case of these batsmen. ODI cricket has much to do with influencing these decisions - in test cricket there is little to separate the players you mentioned if entire careers are considered. Each player have their strengths and weaknesses, but only marginal difference will remain after we have evened out the relative strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Scrolln]

I strongly disagree that all the batsmen are at the same level.

There are a few things, in my opinion, that separate a tier 1 batsman from a tier 2 batsman. 1 - performances against the strongest teams of the era, 2 - peer appreciation, 3 - the ability to draw crowds/entertain

Dravid/Kallis arguably or inarguably have better performances against mediocre/good attacks, but Lara/SRT stood tall against the best of the era. Did Dravid/Kallis dominate Murali like Lara, or take on Warne like Tendulkar? How many ATG bowlers consider Dravid/Kallis/Sanga as the best they've ever faced? In comparison you'll find almost every ATG bowler over the last two decades single out Lara or Tendulkar as the best they've faced.

This is true for every era and you'll find a similar case for Viv as the best batsman of the 70's/80's despite the likes of Miandad and Border having vastly superior records to him throughout the 80's.

This is the same reason i rate Imran Khan as the best all rounder ever.

 

[IndianWillow]

I strongly disagree that all the batsmen are at the same level.

There are a few things, in my opinion, that separate a tier 1 batsman from a tier 2 batsman. 1 - performances against the strongest teams of the era, 2 - peer appreciation, 3 - the ability to draw crowds/entertain

Dravid/Kallis arguably or inarguably have better performances against mediocre/good attacks, but Lara/SRT stood tall against the best of the era. Did Dravid/Kallis dominate Murali like Lara, or take on Warne like Tendulkar? How many ATG bowlers consider Dravid/Kallis/Sanga as the best they've ever faced? In comparison you'll find almost every ATG bowler over the last two decades single out Lara or Tendulkar as the best they've faced.

This is true for every era and you'll find a similar case for Viv as the best batsman of the 70's/80's despite the likes of Miandad and Border having vastly superior records to him throughout the 80's.

This is the same reason i rate Imran Khan as the best all rounder ever.

You can put forth arguments against the likes of Sachin, such as - he never played outside his comfort zone at #4 (arguably the easiest batting slot in a test match) and had to take on the new ball only occasionally. So did Sachin actually tackle the toughest period of a test match on a consistent basis? The answer is no. Then runs will be easier to come by, isn't it? Against Lara it can be argued that he wasn't very good against genuine pace attacks. If you take all factors into consideration, you will find only very marginal difference between these players. You can always say player1>player2, but the difference is probably intra-tier rather than inter-tier.

 

[Scrolln]

You can put forth arguments against the likes of Sachin, such as - he never played outside his comfort zone at #4 (arguably the easiest batting slot in a test match) and had to take on the new ball only occasionally. So did Sachin actually tackle the toughest period of a test match on a consistent basis? The answer is no. Then runs will be easier to come by, isn't it? Against Lara it can be argued that he wasn't very good against genuine pace attacks. If you take all factors into consideration, you will find only very marginal difference between these players. You can always say player1>player2, but the difference is probably intra-tier rather than inter-tier.

There are plently of innings i can name by SRT/Lara when they've come in at the fall of early wickets and took on ATG bowlers. In SRT's case Johannasberg 1991,Chennai 1999, Melbourne 1999, Cape Town 1997/2010 etc. In Dravid's case i remember none (maybe one against Donald in a dead rubber in 1997), despite him having quite a few chances, but he has played PLENTY of great innings coming early against good/mediocre attacks whereas strangely in SRT's case i remember very few. When you're coming in at 7/2 or 16/2, there is little difference in a no 3 and no.4 batsman, is there? If anything it can be argued that the pressure on the no.4 batsman is even more in such a scenario.

Lara might not have been great against pace, but he was arguably better than Dravid/Kallis. Out of the batsmen in his era or SRT and Ponting can be said to be better against genuine pace.

Sure every batsman will have a weakness, but i think the best batsmen are remembered for their contests against the best of the era. Viv v/s Lillee or Imran v/s Gavaskar is a stuff of legends.

 

[Stallion__]

There are plently of innings i can name by SRT/Lara when they've come in at the fall of early wickets and took on ATG bowlers. In SRT's case Johannasberg 1991,Chennai 1999, Melbourne 1999, Cape Town 1997/2010 etc. In Dravid's case i remember none (maybe one against Donald in a dead rubber in 1997), despite him having quite a few chances, but he has played PLENTY of great innings coming early against good/mediocre attacks whereas strangely in SRT's case i remember very few. When you're coming in at 7/2 or 16/2, there is little difference in a no 3 and no.4 batsman, is there? If anything it can be argued that the pressure on the no.4 batsman is even more in such a scenario.

Lara might not have been great against pace, but he was arguably better than Dravid/Kallis. Out of the batsmen in his era or SRT and Ponting can be said to be better against genuine pace.

Sure every batsman will have a weakness, but i think the best batsmen are remembered for their contests against the best of the era. Viv v/s Lillee or Imran v/s Gavaskar is a stuff of legends.

What about Kallis and Sanga? By the time they developed as batsman, many of the great bowlers were already retired. Kallis has more centuries against McGrath than Sachin.

What about the batsmen of this era? What about AB, the only great bowler of modern era plays in his own team. No matter what they do, they can't be rated higher?

 

[sajeebmcj]

I think kallis is better than lara and ponting. he and sachin were the most consistent batsman among them. ponting was great in his peak but a good or merely good. lara is inconsistent.

 

[Sachin136]

What about Kallis and Sanga? By the time they developed as batsman, many of the great bowlers were already retired. Kallis has more centuries against McGrath than Sachin.

What about the batsmen of this era? What about AB, the only great bowler of modern era plays in his own team. No matter what they do, they can't be rated higher?

A player in the current era facing no ATG bowlers can be rated as high as them but for that he would have to be unbelievably extraordinary against these relatively weak bowlers. As good as de Villiers has been in tests, despite playing against such bowlers, he hasn’t been that extraordinary.

In ODIs again there are no ATG bowlers playing but de Villiers has been so amazing that you can overlook that to a certain extent and rate him alongside with the very best.

 

[Gordon.Freeman]

1st a disclaimer, pls dont jump on me after I say this, just try to understand what i meant. Although he turned out to be the most pathetic and worst batsman ever, Mohammed Ashraful had the sheer talent and potential to become brilliant to the likes of Lara and SRT. He had the tech of SRT and the ability of singlehandedly winning a tough match like Lara. But his handicap was a brain containing nothing but fecal matter.

 

[Bilal7]

It looks like everyone’s favourite pastime here is to call anyone who engages in a debate and defends Sachin insecure. If you do not want to discuss the topic of Sachin in comparison with Ponting with these supposedly insecure people then why reply in the first place?

So I am not allowed to call out their insecurity? It was a passing comment and you can try and focus on the rest of my post to keep this engaging debate going.

Most sensible answer.

The differences are small enough to eliminate classification into tier A and tier B in the case of these batsmen. ODI cricket has much to do with influencing these decisions - in test cricket there is little to separate the players you mentioned if entire careers are considered. Each player have their strengths and weaknesses, but only marginal difference will remain after we have evened out the relative strengths and weaknesses.

ODIs do bring in a certain amount of disparity in these comparisons but players are rated for their test performances, the vast majority of the time.

I strongly disagree that all the batsmen are at the same level.

There are a few things, in my opinion, that separate a tier 1 batsman from a tier 2 batsman. 1 - performances against the strongest teams of the era, 2 - peer appreciation, 3 - the ability to draw crowds/entertain

Dravid/Kallis arguably or inarguably have better performances against mediocre/good attacks, but Lara/SRT stood tall against the best of the era. Did Dravid/Kallis dominate Murali like Lara, or take on Warne like Tendulkar? How many ATG bowlers consider Dravid/Kallis/Sanga as the best they've ever faced? In comparison you'll find almost every ATG bowler over the last two decades single out Lara or Tendulkar as the best they've faced.

This is true for every era and you'll find a similar case for Viv as the best batsman of the 70's/80's despite the likes of Miandad and Border having vastly superior records to him throughout the 80's.

This is the same reason i rate Imran Khan as the best all rounder ever.

Stuff like performing better against the best available bowlers is what puts Sachin ahead of Dravid, as a batsman. Does that put him into a different league? No, it does not. Like [MENTION=50394]IndianWillow[/MENTION] said, each of these batsmen has his plus points and negatives. You can say that Dravid shielded Tendulker from the new ball more often than not and there are people who rate him as the better batsman.

Imran Khan is the best all-rounder of all time, yes, but he's not in his own league. He's just the best out of a phenomenally good group of players which includes the likes of Sobers, Miller and maybe Kallis, dependiing on your definition of an all-rounder.

 

[Bilal7]

1st a disclaimer, pls dont jump on me after I say this, just try to understand what i meant. Although he turned out to be the most pathetic and worst batsman ever, Mohammed Ashraful had the sheer talent and potential to become brilliant to the likes of Lara and SRT. He had the tech of SRT and the ability of singlehandedly winning a tough match like Lara. But his handicap was a brain containing nothing but fecal matter.

You can say the same for many young batsmen who showed tons of potential. The biggest hurdle is justifying that talent, where 90% of these promising batsmen fail.

 

[IndianWillow]

There are plently of innings i can name by SRT/Lara when they've come in at the fall of early wickets and took on ATG bowlers. In SRT's case Johannasberg 1991,Chennai 1999, Melbourne 1999, Cape Town 1997/2010 etc. In Dravid's case i remember none (maybe one against Donald in a dead rubber in 1997), despite him having quite a few chances, but he has played PLENTY of great innings coming early against good/mediocre attacks whereas strangely in SRT's case i remember very few. When you're coming in at 7/2 or 16/2, there is little difference in a no 3 and no.4 batsman, is there? If anything it can be argued that the pressure on the no.4 batsman is even more in such a scenario.

Lara might not have been great against pace, but he was arguably better than Dravid/Kallis. Out of the batsmen in his era or SRT and Ponting can be said to be better against genuine pace.

Sure every batsman will have a weakness, but i think the best batsmen are remembered for their contests against the best of the era. Viv v/s Lillee or Imran v/s Gavaskar is a stuff of legends.

Occasionally coming into bat early and having a good innings is different from regularly playing at the top of the order. The average scoreline at which Tendulkar comes into bat is around 80/2 and by then the new ball has been completely neutralized.

Believe me Tendulkar isn't great against the new ball (measured against greats of the game). In tests he played down the order and his weakness wasn't exposed. But he batted at the top of the order in ODIs and got exposed - and his ODI record outside Asia isn't great - throughout the 90s at the peak of his batting prowess, Sachin could not make a single ODI hundred (in 41 games) against one of the top eight ODI sides outside Asia. But he made 17 hundreds in Asia against top opponents during the same period. Can you tell me the reason why there is a huge disparity, seventeen hundreds in Asia and zero outside?

 

[IndianWillow]

So I am not allowed to call out their insecurity? It was a passing comment and you can try and focus on the rest of my post to keep this engaging debate going.



ODIs do bring in a certain amount of disparity in these comparisons but players are rated for their test performances, the vast majority of the time.



Stuff like performing better against the best available bowlers is what puts Sachin ahead of Dravid, as a batsman. Does that put him into a different league? No, it does not. Like [MENTION=50394]IndianWillow[/MENTION] said, each of these batsmen has his plus points and negatives. You can say that Dravid shielded Tendulker from the new ball more often than not and there are people who rate him as the better batsman.

Imran Khan is the best all-rounder of all time, yes, but he's not in his own league. He's just the best out of a phenomenally good group of players which includes the likes of Sobers, Miller and maybe Kallis, dependiing on your definition of an all-rounder.

Yep, I have no problems ranking these batsmen. But most of them were equal tier batsmen and they were replaceable with one another in a given match context. I would go with Lara > Sachin > Ponting > Sanga=Kallis=Dravid > KP > Sehwag = Hayden. But except KP, Sehwag and Hayden, I wouldn't bring in tier differences because there wasn't much to distinguish between the other batsmen, and they all had their strengths and weaknesses. I would also put YK in the same category as Sanga/Kallis/Dravid.

 

[Romali_rotti]

. In tests he played down the order and his weakness wasn't exposed.

Rubbish, If I am not wrong, whenever India toured Australia or SA during the 90's and early 2000s, SRT was coming in early as the openers where nothing but shooting ducks..... Heck even against Steyn and Co in SA Indian openers like Sehwag were walking wickets

 

[Mobashir]

There are 4. extremely good attacking batsmen : Brian Lara, Ricky Ponting, KP, Hayden and Gilly

There some extremly good batsmen who play more accordng to the situation : Tendulkar, Sanga, Smith, ABDV, Inzamam and Hussey.

There are extremly good defensive players: Kallis, Dravid.

Please, Tendulkar fans, in Test cricket don't put Tendulkar as an as attacking batsman as Lara, Ponting or KP because he wasn't. He has played some very good attacking innings too but overall he was a tad inferior to the others in that aspect.

If I go with tier system some are using in here I will do it like this at the moment:

Tier 1 : Lara, Ponting because of long career, very good against both spin and pace, can play in any conditions and attack the best bowler in the world.

Tier 1.5 : Tendulkar, KP. Tendulkar because of longevity and doing great against everyone everywhere, (not in tier one because never batted over 4, not have as many great innings as the Lara and Ponting and was a litle more FTB than both also). and KP because smashed the best bowlers like no one else did before and no one will do again (not in category one because didn't played for long enough in this era and was a litle inconsistent).

Tier 2. Hayden, Smith : Best openers of the last 20 years.
Dravid and Kallis : Solid players, stood out against some great bowling and against the new ball. Kallis has been fantastic doing so well in SA conditions were 2-3 wickets in the first situation in almost normal.
Sangakarra: For being better than the others in this era of easy batting and being so selfless, batting at 3.
Inzamam ul Haq: For having some good match winnng knocks, has played more than half of his career played in te 90's.
Hussey: Was just too good a batsman, unfortunately got his chance very late.

Tier 3: (I may forgot some) Anwar, Younis, Yousuf, Sehwag, LAxman, Ganguly, Clarke, JAyawardene, Chanderpaul, Cook, Gibbs, Kirsten and some others.

 

[Mobashir]

PS : I think we should wait before putting ABDV and Amla in any of the category.

 

[Mobashir]

PS : I think we should wait before putting ABDV and Amla in any of the category.

PS 2: I would have Gilly in tier 2.

 

[tempus123]

Rubbish, If I am not wrong, whenever India toured Australia or SA during the 90's and early 2000s, SRT was coming in early as the openers where nothing but shooting ducks..... Heck even against Steyn and Co in SA Indian openers like Sehwag were walking wickets

People think that coming at 4 is much easier than coming at 3, when your openers are rubbish. In Australia, the only time Dravid performed well was in 2003-04 when openers invariably gave good start. Tendulkar on the other hand, usually came early in Australia.

Dravid had played some of the most boring innings in Australia when the pressure was on, and looked at sea against good quality investigation. Tendulkar had poor 2003-04 on easy batting conditions and that's the only thing which went against him.

The above argument can be held for the SA tours as well.

In good batting conditions, against average attacks, Dravid >> Tendulkar, but against tough examination of high quality bowling Dravid usually gave in. The exception being England 2011

 

[Scrolln]

Occasionally coming into bat early and having a good innings is different from regularly playing at the top of the order. The average scoreline at which Tendulkar comes into bat is around 80/2 and by then the new ball has been completely neutralized.

Believe me Tendulkar isn't great against the new ball (measured against greats of the game). In tests he played down the order and his weakness wasn't exposed. But he batted at the top of the order in ODIs and got exposed - and his ODI record outside Asia isn't great - throughout the 90s at the peak of his batting prowess, Sachin could not make a single ODI hundred (in 41 games) against one of the top eight ODI sides outside Asia. But he made 17 hundreds in Asia against top opponents during the same period. Can you tell me the reason why there is a huge disparity, seventeen hundreds in Asia and zero outside?

Tendulkar was mediocre away from home in the 90's opening or not. Throughout the 2000's he matured into a much better overseas opener playing vital roles in most of India's away overseas series victories. One place SRT consistently failed was in SA when he played ODI's and that is certainly a blemish on his career, where he had only one successful tour iirc.

My theory is that he tended to be over-agressive and threw away his wicket quite often in alien conditions during the 90's.

However,in ODIs, it has been more difficult for SC openers to adapt to overseas conditions (unlike now where conditions are flat mostly everywhere) mainly due to better quality of pace bowling and the necessity to score quickly.

If you look at overseas stats for all openers in history i think SRT has one of the best average/SR combo, So i think concluding that SRT was exposed against the new ball on the basis of his overseas ODI performances is harsh.

Here are stats of all openers in history against the top 7 teams -

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmax1=2;batting_positionmin1=1;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=2;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=runs;team=1;team=2;team=3;team=4;team=5;team=6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=batting

 

[Khaseer]

Lara achieved the highest levels of batsmanship despite inconsistency and Tendulkar was consistently excellent. These two are a level above imo. I would have included Ponting with them but I don't think his major dip in form later on can be ignored.

 

[Acricketfan]

There are 4. extremely good attacking batsmen : Brian Lara, Ricky Ponting, KP, Hayden and Gilly

There some extremly good batsmen who play more accordng to the situation : Tendulkar, Sanga, Smith, ABDV, Inzamam and Hussey.

There are extremly good defensive players: Kallis, Dravid.

Please, Tendulkar fans, in Test cricket don't put Tendulkar as an as attacking batsman as Lara, Ponting or KP because he wasn't. He has played some very good attacking innings too but overall he was a tad inferior to the others in that aspect.

If I go with tier system some are using in here I will do it like this at the moment:

Tier 1 : Lara, Ponting because of long career, very good against both spin and pace, can play in any conditions and attack the best bowler in the world.

Tier 1.5 : Tendulkar, KP. Tendulkar because of longevity and doing great against everyone everywhere, (not in tier one because never batted over 4, not have as many great innings as the Lara and Ponting and was a litle more FTB than both also). and KP because smashed the best bowlers like no one else did before and no one will do again (not in category one because didn't played for long enough in this era and was a litle inconsistent).

Tier 2. Hayden, Smith : Best openers of the last 20 years.
Dravid and Kallis : Solid players, stood out against some great bowling and against the new ball. Kallis has been fantastic doing so well in SA conditions were 2-3 wickets in the first situation in almost normal.
Sangakarra: For being better than the others in this era of easy batting and being so selfless, batting at 3.
Inzamam ul Haq: For having some good match winnng knocks, has played more than half of his career played in te 90's.
Hussey: Was just too good a batsman, unfortunately got his chance very late.

Tier 3: (I may forgot some) Anwar, Younis, Yousuf, Sehwag, LAxman, Ganguly, Clarke, JAyawardene, Chanderpaul, Cook, Gibbs, Kirsten and some others.

Neutrality oozing from this post.

 

[waleed88]

Sachin enjoy too much fame in the 90's.

India was a slightly better team than Zimbabwe at that time.

Sachin cashed in too much of his name on the backing of a real dominant India media and ESPN harping about every great thing done by him.

Sachin was a slightly better batsman than Azhar ud ddin.

It was only after 2003 that Sachin had a really good phase in cricket as did India.

Sachin rides too much on being the chosen one for India, as there was no other star they had in the 90s.

Sachin would feature in the top 10 of the 90s, but somewhere around 5-6, not more than that.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

 

[waleed88]

Lara on the other hand was a top 2 batsman, if not the no.1 batsman in the world at that time.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

 

[Sachin136]

Sachin enjoy too much fame in the 90's.

India was a slightly better team than Zimbabwe at that time.

Sachin cashed in too much of his name on the backing of a real dominant India media and ESPN harping about every great thing done by him.

Sachin was a slightly better batsman than Azhar ud ddin.

It was only after 2003 that Sachin had a really good phase in cricket as did India.

Sachin rides too much on being the chosen one for India, as there was no other star they had in the 90s.

Sachin would feature in the top 10 of the 90s, but somewhere around 5-6, not more than that.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

Ignoring the rest of the absurdity in your post, India has other stars too (namely Dravid and Laxman). Why aren't they hyped so much?

 

[Buffet]

It was only after 2003 that Sachin had a really good phase in cricket as did India.

1993-2003 - 27 tons with average of 59. He must have scored 40 tons with average of 80 in his better period, but I can't find it in cricinfo.

 

[tempus123]

Lara on the other hand was a top 2 batsman, if not the no.1 batsman in the world at that time.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

Who was number 1 ? Inzamam, Anwar, Sohail, Ijaz ?

 

[OS_89]

Kevin Pietersen has to be the most overrated batsman on this forum if people are prepared to put him at Tendulkar and Ponting's level.

 

[IndianWillow]

Tendulkar was mediocre away from home in the 90's opening or not. Throughout the 2000's he matured into a much better overseas opener playing vital roles in most of India's away overseas series victories. One place SRT consistently failed was in SA when he played ODI's and that is certainly a blemish on his career, where he had only one successful tour iirc.

My theory is that he tended to be over-agressive and threw away his wicket quite often in alien conditions during the 90's.

However,in ODIs, it has been more difficult for SC openers to adapt to overseas conditions (unlike now where conditions are flat mostly everywhere) mainly due to better quality of pace bowling and the necessity to score quickly.

If you look at overseas stats for all openers in history i think SRT has one of the best average/SR combo, So i think concluding that SRT was exposed against the new ball on the basis of his overseas ODI performances is harsh.

Here are stats of all openers in history against the top 7 teams -

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmax1=2;batting_positionmin1=1;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=2;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=runs;team=1;team=2;team=3;team=4;team=5;team=6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=batting

Wrong. Tendulkar's ODI S/R in the 90s was in the 60s while playing in countries like Oz, SA etc. So he didn't lose his wickets because he was too aggressive. If you get 17 100s in Asia and zero outside it over an entire decade I am pretty sure everyone will conclude that he found the going tough outside Asia.

 

[Scrolln]

Wrong. Tendulkar's ODI S/R in the 90s was in the 60s while playing in countries like Oz, SA etc. So he didn't lose his wickets because he was too aggressive. If you get 17 100s in Asia and zero outside it over an entire decade I am pretty sure everyone will conclude that he found the going tough outside Asia.

Where have i disagreed? I have already said he was mediocre overseas in the 90's,but just not as an opener but as a middle order batsman too.

He improved tremendously in this aspect during the 2000's where he scored some vital runs in overseas in our most memorable away series victories.

He faced 18 matches as an opener outside the SC as an opener against major ODI sides where he failed in SA and England, and did decently against NZ and WI. If you're gonna conclude that he was 'exposed' against the new ball for his failure in a couple of series in SA and Eng in the 90's, i guess we can just agree to disagree.

If Tendulkar can average close to 40 with an SR of 85 (away from home against major sides) opening the innings throughout his career in ODI's, he would certainly average a lot more if he played at an SR he did in tests which is around 56 i believe.

 

[IndianWillow]

Rubbish, If I am not wrong, whenever India toured Australia or SA during the 90's and early 2000s, SRT was coming in early as the openers where nothing but shooting ducks..... Heck even against Steyn and Co in SA Indian openers like Sehwag were walking wickets

I believed I made a post here many months or years ago - where I included stats showing the success percentage of Sachin when he walked in early (like 2/20) in countries like Oz and Aus. It wasn't high - something like 30% or so. For example, let us consider some of his famous knocks.

114 at Perth - walked in at 2/69 around the 30th over. (new ball full negotiated)
111 at Joberg - walked in at 2/27 in the 19th over (new ball mostly negotiated inspite of the low score)
169 at Joberg - walked it at 3/25 in the 16th over (great knock, but most of the new ball had been seen through, the wicket had eased out and Azhar smashed a run a ball hundred)
116 at MCG - walked in at 2/11 in the 7th over (the only instance in Tendulkar's career where he came into bat during the first 10 overs of the innings and played a great knock)
155 at Blomfontein - walked in at 2/43 in the 14th over (great knock)
241 at SCG - walked in at 2/128 in the 43rd over
154 at SCG - walked in at 2/183
153 at Adelaide - walked in 2/82 in the 24th over

I didn't include all his knocks here, but you can see the general trend. Tendulkar's big knocks in the first innings have almost always been played only after his predecessors had seen through the new ball. There are only one or two instances of Sachin playing a big knock after walking into bat before the 10th over of the innings. India has often slipped to scores like 2/25 when Sachin walked into bat, but Indian openers usually had dug in deep and used up as much as 15-20 overs while getting to 2/25, thus making the lives of the middle order batsmen comfortable.

 

[Bhaijaan]

^

That's digging stats to a paranoid level. Goodness me.

 

[IndianWillow]

Where have i disagreed? I have already said he was mediocre overseas in the 90's,but just not as an opener but as a middle order batsman too.

He improved tremendously in this aspect during the 2000's where he scored some vital runs in overseas in our most memorable away series victories.

He faced 18 matches as an opener outside the SC as an opener against major ODI sides where he failed in SA and England, and did decently against NZ and WI. If you're gonna conclude that he was 'exposed' against the new ball for his failure in a couple of series in SA and Eng in the 90's, i guess we can just agree to disagree.

If Tendulkar can average close to 40 with an SR of 85 (away from home against major sides) opening the innings throughout his career in ODI's, he would certainly average a lot more if he played at an SR he did in tests which is around 56 i believe.

Tendulkar's record as opener outside Asia against top seven sides during the 90s.
Innings:33, Runs:965; HS 89*, Avg 31.12, 100s-0, 50s-6;
Tendulkar's record as opener in Asia against top seven sides during the 90s.
Innings:85, Runs=4220, HS 186*, Avg 51.46, 100s-17, 50s-19.

So it is not a case of two failed tours like you seem to think. 33 innings is a good enough sample to rule out things like bad luck. Tendulkar did improve his batting record outside Asia in the 2000s, but then batting conditions for ODIs in general were more favourable during the 2000s.

 

[IndianWillow]

^

That's digging stats to a paranoid level. Goodness me.

Relevant stats for examining how Sachin fared against the new ball.

 

[Scrolln]

I believed I made a post here many months or years ago - where I included stats showing the success percentage of Sachin when he walked in early (like 2/20) in countries like Oz and Aus. It wasn't high - something like 30% or so. For example, let us consider some of his famous knocks.

114 at Perth - walked in at 2/69 around the 30th over. (new ball full negotiated)
111 at Joberg - walked in at 2/27 in the 19th over (new ball mostly negotiated inspite of the low score)
169 at Joberg - walked it at 3/25 in the 16th over (great knock, but most of the new ball had been seen through, the wicket had eased out and Azhar smashed a run a ball hundred)
116 at MCG - walked in at 2/11 in the 7th over (the only instance in Tendulkar's career where he came into bat during the first 10 overs of the innings and played a great knock)
155 at Blomfontein - walked in at 2/43 in the 14th over (great knock)
241 at SCG - walked in at 2/128 in the 43rd over
154 at SCG - walked in at 2/183
153 at Adelaide - walked in 2/82 in the 24th over

I didn't include all his knocks here, but you can see the general trend. Tendulkar's big knocks in the first innings have almost always been played only after his predecessors had seen through the new ball. There are only one or two instances of Sachin playing a big knock after walking into bat before the 10th over of the innings. India has often slipped to scores like 2/25 when Sachin walked into bat, but Indian openers usually had dug in deep and used up as much as 15-20 overs while getting to 2/25, thus making the lives of the middle order batsmen comfortable.

I could name a few instances where Dravid actually feeded off SRT. Eg - Nottingham 2002. Both were on the crease at the second over and SRT eased off the early pressure by dominating the bowlers and scoring 92 at an SR of 80+. Dravid went ahead a scored a century. SImilarly in Hamilton in 1999, both were at the crease with the first 5 overs and had a hundred run partner ship with Tendulkar scoring 67 of those at an SR of 72 easing the pressure. Dravid went ahead and scored 190.

We will need to do a thorough analysis of this inning by inning in order to conclude who was actually better at negotiating the new ball.

 

[SL_Fan]

IndianWillow is correct btw Sachin's numbers weren't too flash when he was in early. I do recall seeing somewhere that he averaged in the low 40s when he came in early.

 

[Scrolln]

Tendulkar's record as opener outside Asia against top seven sides during the 90s.
Innings:33, Runs:965; HS 89*, Avg 31.12, 100s-0, 50s-6;
Tendulkar's record as opener in Asia against top seven sides during the 90s.
Innings:85, Runs=4220, HS 186*, Avg 51.46, 100s-17, 50s-19.

So it is not a case of two failed tours like you seem to think. 33 innings is a good enough sample to rule out things like bad luck. Tendulkar did improve his batting record outside Asia in the 2000s, but then batting conditions for ODIs in general were more favourable during the 2000s.

You have included neutral performances as well i suppose.

Considering his potential, he could've done much better. But how many openers from Asia did well outside the SC during the 90's against top 7 sides? Only Ganguly stands out from the rest albeit at an SR of less than 70. However he did not manage to do well coming in lower down the order in tests against top 7 sides away from home despite averaging 45 away from Asia in ODI's, so your argument may be flawed.

Asian openers outside Asia in the 90's against top 8 teams -

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmax1=2;batting_positionmin1=1;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=2;continent=1;continent=3;continent=4;continent=5;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;home_or_away=3;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=runs;spanmax1=31+Dec+1999;spanmin1=01+Jan+1990;spanval1=span;team=6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=batting

 

[SL_Fan]

Here it is

http://www.espncricinfo.com/india/content/story/689867.html

 

[IndianWillow]

You have included neutral performances as well i suppose.

Considering his potential, he could've done much better. But how many openers from Asia did well outside the SC during the 90's against top 7 sides? Only Ganguly stands out from the rest albeit at an SR of less than 70. However he did not manage to do well coming in lower down the order in tests against top 7 sides away from home despite averaging 45 away from Asia in ODI's, so your argument may be flawed.

Asian openers outside Asia in the 90's against top 8 teams -

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_positionmax1=2;batting_positionmin1=1;batting_positionval1=batting_position;class=2;continent=1;continent=3;continent=4;continent=5;filter=advanced;home_or_away=2;home_or_away=3;opposition=1;opposition=2;opposition=3;opposition=4;opposition=5;opposition=6;opposition=7;opposition=8;orderby=runs;spanmax1=31+Dec+1999;spanmin1=01+Jan+1990;spanval1=span;team=6;team=7;team=8;template=results;type=batting

Is that what you say? That Sachin was one of the better Asian batsmen of the 90s? That we know already even without checking any stats. But the data does not show that he did well against the new ball, which is the argument here.

 

[SL_Fan]

So when he came in with the score less than 75 (ie 20 or so overs) he averaged 42 (147 innings).

 

[Sidilicious]

So when he came in with the score less than 75 (ie 20 or so overs) he averaged 42 (147 innings).

But I dont think this gives us much information without looking at the context of the game.

The matches where Sachin came for less than 75 could be low scoring matches to start with where an average of 40 would be very good. Again, I am not saying this is the case, but just showing numbers without context might wont give us a full picture

 

[Stallion__]

I could name a few instances where Dravid actually feeded off SRT. Eg - Nottingham 2002. Both were on the crease at the second over and SRT eased off the early pressure by dominating the bowlers and scoring 92 at an SR of 80+. Dravid went ahead a scored a century. SImilarly in Hamilton in 1999, both were at the crease with the first 5 overs and had a hundred run partner ship with Tendulkar scoring 67 of those at an SR of 72 easing the pressure. Dravid went ahead and scored 190.

You are taking the credit away from Dravid here.

Dravid was just batting his own way. Wasn't the case of him struggling or him feeding off from Tendulkar.
Just that Sachin got most of the strike during initial overs and he was playing aggressively in early overs, that might have given that impression.

Infact, Dravid himself was scoring at faster pace earlier on than he normally does. He scored his first 50 runs at SR of 65 and only slowed down later in the innings to end up with SR in 40s.


I didn't watch that Hamilton innings though but I just looked at Wisden report and it says

Dravid dominated the next day and a half with a chanceless, gloriously elegant 190, his highest Test score.

 

[SL_Fan]

But I dont think this gives us much information without looking at the context of the game.

The matches where Sachin came for less than 75 could be low scoring matches to start with where an average of 40 would be very good. Again, I am not saying this is the case, but just showing numbers without context might wont give us a full picture

This is about how he fared against the new ball. I think it gives a fair idea. I mean we are talking about 150 innings here. So match situation/conditions etc should even out more or less. Obviously against the new ball most times than not you’ll be under the pump.

 

[SL_Fan]

For comparison purposes here's Kallis' point of entry numbers at no 4.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/south-africa-v-india-2013-14/content/story/705871.html

 

[SL_Fan]

And Sanga's at no 3.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/911183.html

 

[SL_Fan]

Dravid’s at no 3.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/556766.html

 

[SL_Fan]

Can't find Lara's or Ponting's.

 

[IndianWillow]

This is about how he fared against the new ball. I think it gives a fair idea. I mean we are talking about 150 innings here. So match situation/conditions etc should even out more or less. Obviously against the new ball most times than not you’ll be under the pump.

Yep, it does. His ODI stats as an opener outside Asia confirm this conclusion too.

 

[Stallion__]

Can't find Lara's or Ponting's.

I was actually interested to see Ponting's.

Although he played at number 3, he always had the cover of world class openers. I still remember him attacking the bowlers even with the new ball so I expect his average to be high. Same for Lara, he average 60+ while batting at number 3. For Lara, I had an impression that he played his best game at 10/2 situation rather than 60/2.

 

[waleed88]

Who was number 1 ? Inzamam, Anwar, Sohail, Ijaz ?

Well for me in the 90s : Aravinda DeSilva, Lara, Mark Waugh, Anwar, Tendulkar, Gary Kirsten, Inzamam.

Something like that.

Aravinda in the 90s was phenoemenal. One of the biggest reasons Srilanka was good in the period they won the World Cup.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

 

[waleed88]

I never liked Michael Bevan. So I haven't put him in the list. He was really boring to watch, never enjoyed his batting.
But did the job for the team.
I would place him at no.8
Zero attractiveness in his game.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

 

[tempus123]

Well for me in the 90s : Aravinda DeSilva, Lara, Mark Waugh, Anwar, Tendulkar, Gary Kirsten, Inzamam.

Something like that.

Aravinda in the 90s was phenoemenal. One of the biggest reasons Srilanka was good in the period they won the World Cup.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

ODIs or Tests or both combined ?

 

[waleed88]

ODIs or Tests or both combined ?

Of what I saw of them.

Generally I cannot say either because I haven't seen their stats, but thats just my perception.

I generally admired Desilva alot as a batsman. Saeed Anwar was my favorite in Pakistan.
But he declined very rapidly in the later years.

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

 

[IndianWillow]

So when he came in with the score less than 75 (ie 20 or so overs) he averaged 42 (147 innings).

I think we need to have a look at the corresponding figures for away/non Asian conditions. Failing to score coming into bat at 40/2 in India is not exactly new ball weakness, but something else.

 

[Romali_rotti]

I believed I made a post here many months or years ago - where I included stats showing the success percentage of Sachin when he walked in early (like 2/20) in countries like Oz and Aus. It wasn't high - something like 30% or so. For example, let us consider some of his famous knocks.

114 at Perth - walked in at 2/69 around the 30th over. (new ball full negotiated)
111 at Joberg - walked in at 2/27 in the 19th over (new ball mostly negotiated inspite of the low score)
169 at Joberg - walked it at 3/25 in the 16th over (great knock, but most of the new ball had been seen through, the wicket had eased out and Azhar smashed a run a ball hundred)
116 at MCG - walked in at 2/11 in the 7th over (the only instance in Tendulkar's career where he came into bat during the first 10 overs of the innings and played a great knock)
155 at Blomfontein - walked in at 2/43 in the 14th over (great knock)
241 at SCG - walked in at 2/128 in the 43rd over
154 at SCG - walked in at 2/183
153 at Adelaide - walked in 2/82 in the 24th over

I didn't include all his knocks here, but you can see the general trend. Tendulkar's big knocks in the first innings have almost always been played only after his predecessors had seen through the new ball. There are only one or two instances of Sachin playing a big knock after walking into bat before the 10th over of the innings. India has often slipped to scores like 2/25 when Sachin walked into bat, but Indian openers usually had dug in deep and used up as much as 15-20 overs while getting to 2/25, thus making the lives of the middle order batsmen comfortable.

So I assume this logic applies to Lara as well ?

 

[IndianWillow]

So I assume this logic applies to Lara as well ?

We have to check that. Lara should have better new ball stats because Lara averaged 60 at #3.

 

[Romali_rotti]

We have to check that. Lara should have better new ball stats because Lara averaged 60 at #3.

I would like to see how Lara did vs Aus/SA coming in at low scores...

 

[Mobashir]

I would like to see how Lara did vs Aus/SA coming in at low scores...

213 vs Aus- comming in at 5 for 2 at 4.3 against McGrath, Gillespie, Warne, McGill.
Australia first innings score 256; Second Innings score 177. West Innings scored 431.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63838.html

277 vs Aus coming in at 31 for 2
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63592.html

132 from 183 vs Australia in Perth coming in at 43 for 2, with McGrath and Warne
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63733.html

Then played the best innings ever 153*,
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63839.html
No comment needed on that innings and match.


100 from 84 balls vs Australia, coming in at 20 for 2 with McGrath but no Warne.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63840.html

183 from 235 balls vs Australia coming in at 52 for 2 (25th over) with McGrath Gillespie but no Warne.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63909.html

196 from 286 vs South Africa coming in at 13-2 in the 8th over.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64132.html

176 from 224 vs South Africa coming in at 11-2 in the 6th over.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/207334.html


226 from 298 vs Australia coming in at 19 for 2 in the 6th over vs McGrth, Lee, Warne
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/226348.html

Reminder: That's not a list of his great or very good innings agaisnt the two teams but only his hundreds when he came in early apart from the 153*.

He is the greatest Test batsman of the last 25 years.

 

[tempus123]

213 vs Aus- comming in at 5 for 2 at 4.3 against McGrath, Gillespie, Warne, McGill.
Australia first innings score 256; Second Innings score 177. West Innings scored 431.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63838.html

277 vs Aus coming in at 31 for 2
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63592.html

132 from 183 vs Australia in Perth coming in at 43 for 2, with McGrath and Warne
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63733.html

Then played the best innings ever 153*,
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63839.html
No comment needed on that innings and match.


100 from 84 balls vs Australia, coming in at 20 for 2 with McGrath but no Warne.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63840.html

183 from 235 balls vs Australia coming in at 52 for 2 (25th over) with McGrath Gillespie but no Warne.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63909.html

196 from 286 vs South Africa coming in at 13-2 in the 8th over.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64132.html

176 from 224 vs South Africa coming in at 11-2 in the 6th over.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/207334.html


226 from 298 vs Australia coming in at 19 for 2 in the 6th over vs McGrth, Lee, Warne
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/226348.html

Reminder: That's not a list of his great or very good innings agaisnt the two teams but only his hundreds when he came in early apart from the 153*.

He is the greatest Test batsman of the last 25 years.

183 from 235 balls vs Australia coming in at 52 for 2 (25th over) with McGrath Gillespie but no Warne.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63909.html

Please remove this.. as it's 25 over ?

 

[Romali_rotti]

213 vs Aus- comming in at 5 for 2 at 4.3 against McGrath, Gillespie, Warne, McGill.
Australia first innings score 256; Second Innings score 177. West Innings scored 431.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63838.html

277 vs Aus coming in at 31 for 2
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63592.html

132 from 183 vs Australia in Perth coming in at 43 for 2, with McGrath and Warne
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63733.html

Then played the best innings ever 153*,
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63839.html
No comment needed on that innings and match.


100 from 84 balls vs Australia, coming in at 20 for 2 with McGrath but no Warne.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63840.html

183 from 235 balls vs Australia coming in at 52 for 2 (25th over) with McGrath Gillespie but no Warne.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63909.html

196 from 286 vs South Africa coming in at 13-2 in the 8th over.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64132.html

176 from 224 vs South Africa coming in at 11-2 in the 6th over.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/207334.html


226 from 298 vs Australia coming in at 19 for 2 in the 6th over vs McGrth, Lee, Warne
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/226348.html

Reminder: That's not a list of his great or very good innings agaisnt the two teams but only his hundreds when he came in early apart from the 153*.

He is the greatest Test batsman of the last 25 years.

I remember the Adelaide 200 his final test, he did nothing during the entire series, I have a feeling he came in early a few times during that series and did nothing however he finally scored on the last test match............ Barring the 277 and 132 at Perth which was an excellent innings all the scores listed are at home, we know Lara is good at home, he is invincible at home everyone knows that, Jayarawardene and Sehwag etc are another few examples...

 

[Mobashir]

I remember the Adelaide 200 his final test, he did nothing during the entire series, I have a feeling he came in early a few times during that series and did nothing however he finally scored on the last test match............ Barring the 277 and 132 at Perth which was an excellent innings all the scores listed are at home, we know Lara is good at home, he is invincible at home everyone knows that, Jayarawardene and Sehwag etc are another few examples...

277
182
132
226
All 4 innings are in Australia.
So if it's not enough nothing will be.
Bringing in sehwag and jaya, 3rd tier players, in this proves how much you understood my post.
That was Brian Lara when he came in early.
Otherwise he has a double hundred and another big hundred in south Africa. Also got 3 more 80+ scores in south Africa against donald-pollock.
He has tremendous record against Murli in Sri Lanka
He has a tremendous record in England.

 

[TestMatch]

I remember the Adelaide 200 his final test, he did nothing during the entire series.

That was the tour in which the WICB made an official complaint to the ICC over the standards of umpiring and received an official apology from the ICC for umpires who, quote, "made mistakes under undue pressure".

The Aussies were bullying the umpires and appealing for everything once Lara came in, partially because he was on track to break Allan Border's record for most test runs, which he eventually did with the 226.

From cricinfo: "The ICC yesterday conceded that umpiring standards dipped during the three West Indies Tests, after three contentious decisions that went against star batsman Brian Lara and several other dubious calls."

You don't hear about these things because Lara is a walker.

 

[IndianWillow]

I would like to see how Lara did vs Aus/SA coming in at low scores...

I am not particularly interested in proving that Lara was superior to Sachin in this respect. As I said earlier, I see some of these players as close equals, each having their strengths and weaknesses. So putting them down or praising them don't matter much to me - I tend to agree with the facts or observations if I think they are correct. Lara has his strengths and weaknesses, and so does Sachin. The problem occurs only when Sachinistas show complete intolerance to any facts that don't show Sachin in good light. Not every bit of stat or observation is favourable to Sachin. Except Bradman, I think no other player came close to having perfect stats.

 

[TestMatch]

Further to my post above, here are quotes from the official Wisden Report from the 2005 WI vs Aus series, which was a three test series:

This is a line from the official Wisden Almanack of the first test:

"Lee started the collapse by winning an incorrect lbw decision against Lara from South African umpire Ian Howell - the ball was heading down the leg side."

This is from the official Wisden Almanack of the second test:

"soon the visitors' only hope seemed to be a big innings from Lara. Showing his most precise footwork of the series, Lara was unbeaten by the third-day close, after becoming Test cricket's second-highest runscorer - he passed Steve Waugh's 10,927 runs when he had 12. An umpiring error from Rudi Koertzen, who gave Lara out caught behind to Warne when his bat missed the ball but brushed his pad, ended his resistance next morning, although Lara's impact was evident in the batting of Bravo, his fellow Trinidadian. Lara had advised Bravo how to counter Warne and MacGill, telling him he did not have to play every ball pitched outside leg stump and teaching him how to sweep."

The point is, stats don't tell full stories.

 

[SL_Fan]

I was actually interested to see Ponting's.

Although he played at number 3, he always had the cover of world class openers. I still remember him attacking the bowlers even with the new ball so I expect his average to be high. Same for Lara, he average 60+ while batting at number 3. For Lara, I had an impression that he played his best game at 10/2 situation rather than 60/2.

Worked out Ponting’s at no 3 using the numbers here

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/442971.html

Now need someone to take one for the team and work out Lara’s one

 

[SL_Fan]

I think we need to have a look at the corresponding figures for away/non Asian conditions. Failing to score coming into bat at 40/2 in India is not exactly new ball weakness, but something else.

Yeah that would be ideal but still a newish ball is a newish ball I guess. More often than not tends to do a bit regardless of conditions.

 

[SL_Fan]

Also found KP’s at no 4. Since he's in the poll list here it is as well.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013-14/content/story/690377.html

 

[Bhaijaan]

46 % votes for Ponting alone. Most people seem to believe, if at all, only Ponting belongs in that league.

Some very interesting observations. Kallis seems to be totally rejected by people with 3 votes out of 43. I thought PP loved him to no end, great to see the neutrality in poll so far. Eye opening.

 

[Sachin136]

So when he came in with the score less than 75 (ie 20 or so overs) he averaged 42 (147 innings).

Unfair to use 75 runs as the highest entry score. Clearly if you take the average from 0-49 it is higher, and 50-75 is generally considered to be easier to bat in than if the entry score is 0-49.