Who do Indians consider to be their greatest ever Test batsman?

[Tendlya Rules]

Wrong.
Last 4 years of Gavaskar, he played very well;

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...template=results;type=batting;view=cumulative



You are wrong too. He scored 434 runs @ a very decent ave of 48+. He was the 2nd highest scorer after Mohinder Amarnath's 584 runs.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...an;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

Thanks for correcting me..you are right...Vishwanath was dropped after the series, and I seem to have associated that with Sunny....they are good friends and brothers in law...

my bad...

 

[JeeraBlade]

they are good friends and brothers in law...

I thought Vishwanath divorced Gavaskar's sister. I could be wrong.

 

[subshakerz]

Tendulkar is Asia's best batsman.

 

[JeeraBlade]

Tendulkar is Asia's best batsman.

Who is the best outside Asia?

 

[Random Aussie]

Who is the best outside Asia?

Could be some Bradman bloke

 

[OZGOD]

Gotta be Tendy. Even though he's more Endulkar these days, nobody has achieved what he has for India, let alone world cricket. The complete batsman. He's the man. I remember him scoring a century as a young bloke in Perth in the early 90s, on a true and fast WACA wicket with bounce like a trampoline, in the game where Merv Hughes uttered the famous words to Allan Border: "AB, this little bloke is going to score more runs than you," and he was right. Tendy was just a young bloke but he stood up to the likes of Hughes and McDermott, scoring a ton when no other Indian scored above 40. Unfortunately his bowling attack was shilthouse and allowed Dean Jones, Boon and Moody to score tons too, but it was an awesome effort, one of the best I've seen from a foreign (excluding the WI) team at the WACA when it was at its quickest.

A true icon of the game. Powers of concentration were immense - I remember sitting at the SCG when India piled up 700+ during Steve Waugh's last Test in '04, he scored 240+ not out and when you looked at his wagon wheel he had NO SCORING SHOTS outside off stump, because he decided he had been getting out cutting the ball so he decided to avoid any ball in that area. That's what you call concentration, to avoid hitting balls outside the offstump for 10 hours. 240+ runs with no run outside off stump through point or the covers.

We're all privileged to have been able to watch him play. A good bloke too, and very humble. I was lucky enough to have a chat with him during one of the VB finals in 2003 or 2004 I think, when India were getting flogged 300-odd by OZ in an ODI Final. He was very gracious and easygoing, and a good bloke. Forget Gavaskar - good batsman but I lost all respect for him when he tried to drag his batting partner with him when he was given out at the MCG in an epic dummy spit.

Put it this way - nobody in OZ ever sledged Tendy, just like they never sledged King Viv, and Brian Lara. We know good cricketers when we see them. We only sledge the losers!

 

[deathstreak]

Gotta be Tendy. Even though he's more Endulkar these days, nobody has achieved what he has for India, let alone world cricket. The complete batsman. He's the man. I remember him scoring a century as a young bloke in Perth in the early 90s, on a true and fast WACA wicket with bounce like a trampoline, in the game where Merv Hughes uttered the famous words to Allan Border: "AB, this little bloke is going to score more runs than you," and he was right. Tendy was just a young bloke but he stood up to the likes of Hughes and McDermott, scoring a ton when no other Indian scored above 40. Unfortunately his bowling attack was shilthouse and allowed Dean Jones, Boon and Moody to score tons too, but it was an awesome effort, one of the best I've seen from a foreign (excluding the WI) team at the WACA when it was at its quickest.

A true icon of the game. Powers of concentration were immense - I remember sitting at the SCG when India piled up 700+ during Steve Waugh's last Test in '04, he scored 240+ not out and when you looked at his wagon wheel he had NO SCORING SHOTS outside off stump, because he decided he had been getting out cutting the ball so he decided to avoid any ball in that area. That's what you call concentration, to avoid hitting balls outside the offstump for 10 hours. 240+ runs with no run outside off stump through point or the covers.

We're all privileged to have been able to watch him play. A good bloke too, and very humble. I was lucky enough to have a chat with him during one of the VB finals in 2003 or 2004 I think, when India were getting flogged 300-odd by OZ in an ODI Final. He was very gracious and easygoing, and a good bloke. Forget Gavaskar - good batsman but I lost all respect for him when he tried to drag his batting partner with him when he was given out at the MCG in an epic dummy spit.

Put it this way - nobody in OZ ever sledged Tendy, just like they never sledged King Viv, and Brian Lara. We know good cricketers when we see them. We only sledge the losers!

^take a bow^

Dravid had the luxury to be playing with some of the Sachin, ganguly and later VVS and Sehwag as well.

before 96 it was basically only Sachin and Azhar to a degree.

 

[deathstreak]

I am talking at a purely fundamental level.
I'd rather have Sachin make 35 in 70 balls rather than Gavaskar make 30 in a 100.

At the end of the day it is scoring the runs that wins you the game.

Even in a test match it is the side that scores more runs that wins isnt it.
If Side A scores 400 in 200 overs but side B scores 420 in 150 overs it is Side B with the lead isn't it. So test matches is (just like any other format of cricket) also about scoring runs primarily.

Afridi would not be a good choice because he is not the one who scores at an average of over 50 runs in an innings.

Totally depends on the context of the match.
4th iniings saving a match 100 balls are waaaaaaayyyyyyyyy better than 70

 

[pun500]

Gavaskar retired in March 1987. So, when you count his last four years (as it was posted);

march 86 to march 87 - last one year
march 85 to march 86 - last 2 years
march 84 to march 85 - last 3 year
march 83 to march 84 - last 4 year

Where did you learn to count - I bet its not IIT Delhi?

again i repeat myself i was counting in year terms not gavaskars seasons for playing... i made that very clear

the reason for this is very simple from 83 to 84 gavaskar hardly played any matches

dec 83 was his last in 83 then followed by oct 84 before continuing the final phase of his career

thus when he resumed after almost a years break he wasnt the same batsmen (83 was one of his best years as a batsmen)

then he just was a good bat not the one he was earlier

what those end years after oct 84 prove that his consistency was gone which was his hall mark

 

[*sallu*]

Totally depends on the context of the match.
4th iniings saving a match 100 balls are waaaaaaayyyyyyyyy better than 70

Once again I have to repeat myself that I am talking at absolute cricket fundamental levels.

What is the main aim of the game? To score more runs than the opposition.
Now who woud you rather chose, someone who makes 35 in 70 or 30 in 100.

 

[deathstreak]

Once again I have to repeat myself that I am talking at absolute cricket fundamental levels.

What is the main aim of the game? To score more runs than the opposition.
Now who woud you rather chose, someone who makes 35 in 70 or 30 in 100.

the fundamental rule would be to score more runs than your opponents in the given and and get them all out twice.

you can score 2k runs in a test and still not win it even if the opposition scores only 1 run

 

[*sallu*]

the fundamental rule would be to score more runs than your opponents in the given and and get them all out twice.

you can score 2k runs in a test and still not win it even if the opposition scores only 1 run

All the more reason why Sachin stands higher in my regard

People might show stats where Sachin is not shown as a match winner, but really, its not like hes been a minnow basher or something.

I think more often than not it was the bowlers that let India down.

 

[dani2k]

All the more reason why Sachin stands higher in my regard

People might show stats where Sachin is not shown as a match winner, but really, its not like hes been a minnow basher or something.

I think more often than not it was the bowlers that let India down.

Absolutely!

 

[giri26]

SM Gavaskar - Numero Uno for India. No one used to handle so many bowlers around the world with new cherry and score so many runs. In 82 Series, I remember only Gavaskar and Jimmy played the huge inswingers of Imran. Rest used to complain of cheating as they dont know what was happening.....lol..... He played 4 mighty WI fast bowlers of 70 - 80 with new cherry and scored 13 centuries against them. He had scored well against England in England and Aussies too. He has been the saviours of Matches for India in those days with hardly any bowlers in contention. However First series victory in WI and England was due to heavy scoring by the master and thanks to spinning trio.

The only bowler against whome he hasnt scored a century was DK Lillee and he was determined to do in 1981 test in melbourne and then the famous episode happened. He was disappointed to have got out for 70 with a debatable wrong decesion.

Followed by SRT, Who used to have the similar set of bowlers but did not converted to victory specially abroad. But his flair and overall cricketing ability makes him better than dravid

Followed by Dravid , who did contributed to some of India's key victories abroad in 2000's
Adelide, Perth, Headengly, Rawalpindi, WI, England etc.... but not as much as Gavaskar

Interesting stats : Vishy - 14 Centuries and none of them in losing cause.

Gavaskar and Sachin during start of their carriers had little support in batting away from home. Accusing Sachin of not winning matches is a joke. Most of Sachin's hundreds in early and mid nineties were all solo efforts in pulling India out of dire straits most of the times. Take his innings in Perth where India were tottering at 35/5 or something or edgbaston on 1996 where India were 45/6 or something like that.

After those recoveries the problem was India did not have the bowling to impart the same sort of damage to the opposition and thats the reason India did not win any test matches abroad. Sachin till 2001 was the best Indian player abroad, period. Dravid started to blossom after 2001 when Indian batting boasted of the fab four and has played some great innings.

Dravid has played some brilliant innings and won matches for India but there is a great difference in both. Sachin in early 90's had to contend with Raju, More, Srinath etc on the other side during those hundreds where he had to score majority of his runs. Dravid on the other hand had players of the caliber of Sachin, Sourav, Sehwag, Laxman (Who was almost there with Dravid on all his match winning efforts) and Dhoni on the other end to support and score runs.

Cricket is a team game and yes there may be certain scenarios where an induvidual can win matches for you alone but it does not happen all the time. Sachin for most part of his career had to carry a mediocre batting line up away from home but in Dravid's case it was not the scenario. In the current scenario, even Bajji, Zaheer and Kumble can scrore 50's and hundreds to support Dravid which was not a case in early 90's till 2000.

If you see the the quality of the hundreds Sachin scored in early 90's against SA, Australia, England, WI when he was barely 20 was breathtaking. The unfortunate part is that he did not have the support which Dravid enjoys in the current team setup.

 

[JeeraBlade]

. The unfortunate part is that he did not have the support which Dravid enjoys in the current team setup.

Which support you talking about - better bowlers currently than in early 1990s or better batsmen than that time period?

 

[The_Cricket_Devil]

I will say that I have not seen too many matches of Gavaskar playing but my dad always tells me that Gavaskar is by far his favourite Indian batsman.

I personally think it is a tight call between Dravid and Tendulkar from what I have seen. They are both such contrasting styles of players yet have achieved similar success. I don't want to bring in statistics like everyone else has already but I just love watching Tendulkar bat and whenever he plays that on drive of his I just know in my heart that this is one of the best batsmen I will ever watch in my life. My vote goes to Tendulkar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&hl=en&v=kdBae8juAkg

These couple of shots are all I need to remember why I love Sachin the batsman

 

[JeeraBlade]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&hl=en&v=kdBae8juAkg

These couple of shots are all I need to remember why I love Sachin the batsman

Great shots but did you pay attention to the pitch. I don't if you know how cement wickets behave, but some cement wickets have more movement than this pitch he was batting on. Any good ODI player (Afridi, Yuvraj, Sehwag, Jayasuria, ect) can belt the ball harder than these shots on a pitch like this. Its the test matches and bowler friendly pitches really test a batsman.

Where were these bullet shots in ODIs and Test matches vs NZ in the following tour? Are NZ bowlers better than Brett Lee!

http://static.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2002-03/IND_IN_NZ/STATS/IND_IN_NZ_DEC2002-JAN2003_ODI_AVS.html

http://static.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHI...STATS/IND_IN_NZ_DEC2002-JAN2003_TEST_AVS.html

I can understand that most batsmen failed but if Sachin was class above others, then this was the perfect opportunity for him to shine. He did not!

Read the article heading:
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/112811.html

Not only that, he had also failed in 1999 in NZ when other did score runs;
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=305;type=series

 

[The_Cricket_Devil]

Great shots but did you pay attention to the pitch. I don't if you know how cement wickets behave, but some cement wickets have more movement than this pitch he was batting on. Any good ODI player (Afridi, Yuvraj, Sehwag, Jayasuria, ect) can belt the ball harder than these shots on a pitch like this. Its the test matches and bowler friendly pitches really test a batsman.

Where were these bullet shots in ODIs and Test matches vs NZ in the following tour? Are NZ bowlers better than Brett Lee!

http://static.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2002-03/IND_IN_NZ/STATS/IND_IN_NZ_DEC2002-JAN2003_ODI_AVS.html

http://static.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHI...STATS/IND_IN_NZ_DEC2002-JAN2003_TEST_AVS.html

I can understand that most batsmen failed but if Sachin was class above others, then this was the perfect opportunity for him to shine. He did not!

Read the article heading:
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/112811.html

Not only that, he had also failed in 1999 in NZ when other did score runs;
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=305;type=series

Anyone can fail otherwise this would not be cricket. Those two instances prove nothing when he still averages nearly 50 in NZ.

His 2009 tour was brilliant as was his 98 one

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...=5;template=results;type=batting;view=innings

 

[giri26]

Which support you talking about - better bowlers currently than in early 1990s or better batsmen than that time period?

Its bit of both actually and more so in batting. Current Indian bowlers are not world beaters but are winning matches for India which the bowlers in 90's were not able to.

 

[*sallu*]

Great shots but did you pay attention to the pitch. I don't if you know how cement wickets behave, but some cement wickets have more movement than this pitch he was batting on. Any good ODI player (Afridi, Yuvraj, Sehwag, Jayasuria, ect) can belt the ball harder than these shots on a pitch like this. Its the test matches and bowler friendly pitches really test a batsman.

Where were these bullet shots in ODIs and Test matches vs NZ in the following tour? Are NZ bowlers better than Brett Lee!

http://static.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2002-03/IND_IN_NZ/STATS/IND_IN_NZ_DEC2002-JAN2003_ODI_AVS.html

http://static.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHI...STATS/IND_IN_NZ_DEC2002-JAN2003_TEST_AVS.html

I can understand that most batsmen failed but if Sachin was class above others, then this was the perfect opportunity for him to shine. He did not!

Read the article heading:
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/112811.html

Not only that, he had also failed in 1999 in NZ when other did score runs;
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/records/batting/most_runs_career.html?id=305;type=series

21 Years of international cricket. And you give one series where he does not do well.

How many series has he failed in. A maximum of 7-8 I think which is more than acceptable seeing that he must've played in about 50 test series at least.

 

[Tendlya Rules]

21 Years of international cricket. And you give one series where he does not do well.

How many series has he failed in. A maximum of 7-8 I think which is more than acceptable seeing that he must've played in about 50 test series at least.

jeera blade

that series in NZ was a farce...both tests lasted < 2.5 days..and that is not representative of an international test match pitch..

one could argue that this issimilar to the dust bowls in India / Pak / SL...
but in those cases, the batsmen from the home team do much better..


and the ODIs are a joke..he only played 3 of the 7.....nobody except veeru did well that series ..he scored 2 centureis..and india won those 2 games......

 

[JeeraBlade]

Its bit of both actually and more so in batting. Current Indian bowlers are not world beaters but are winning matches for India which the bowlers in 90's were not able to.

So how does having better bowlers or better batsmen in your own team help one's own batting?

 

[Cheguvera]

Some of the posters rate Tendulkar over Gavaskar, are you kidding me!!!

In my opinion Gavaskar was the best Test batsman ever from both India and Pakistan. Whereas Tendulkar is concerned, I agree with Jeerablade (well it is hard to argue with him anyway )

My following thread was wiped out by pakpassion moderators saying, they couldn’t handle resulting hassle at that time. I couldn’t resist contributing to the topic, hoping the moderators would not mind this time.

Tendulkar against best fast bowlers of his era

His records would have been breathtaking if he had not faced G McGrath, Allan Donald, Wasim Akram, S Pollock, Waqar Younis, Shane Bond, Nitni and Steyn. They were all great fast bowlers of his era.

Tendulker’s Test average is 54.58, which actually could have been 62.56, had he not faced these great bowlers. Sachin’s Test average went down to 34.27 from 54.58 in 68 innings of 37 Tests he played against McGrath, A Donald, Wasim, Waqar, Ntini, Pollock, Steyn and S Bond. In those 37 tests India lost 18 and won 8. He scored 6 centuries against them. But only ONE Century in winning cause.

In 50 innings out of 68, Tendulker failed to score a half century or century.

Same story in One Day Internationals

Sachin scored unbelievable 16,684 runs in ODIs. But his average went down to 32.12 from 44.37 in 107 ODIs when McGrath, Allan Donald, Wasim, Waqar , Ntini, Pollock, Steyn and Bond were in opposite team. India lost 66 matches and won 39 of those 107 matches. He failed to score a half century or a century in 84 innings out of 107 innings against them.

No wonder in ICC’s Best Ever Test Ranking s,Tandulker is at No. 26 and in Best Ever One Day Rankings, Tendulkar is at No. 12. He has never been able to achieve 900 points in both Test and ODI rankings.

So I think it is unfair to rate him above Gavasker (a lot has been said earlier about Gavasker already). I even

Why Tendulkar is great?

Tendulker is great but not the greatest ever Indian Test batsman. Like Sallu pointed out, to play 159 Test Matches and 425 ODIs in 20 years is not a joke. How many players can keep themselves fit and motivated for so long. Tendulkar owns all major records for Tests and ODIs. No one in near future looks like to break his records. Our own Javed Miandad and Inzmam wanted so badly to score 10,000 runs in Test cricket and could not even score 9000 runs. Sachin has scored 12,773 runs in Tests!!!! His greatness lies in his incredible LONGEVITY with consistent high performance.

I just wanted to reiterate what I wrote in a separate thread...i.e. Tendi missed the prime of two of the best fast bowlers of his era, the two Ws from 90-96/97...Plus in his era the fast bowling stock were rather bare...compared to the 70s and 80s, where you had the likes of Lillee, Thompson, Snow, Willis, Botham, Holding, Garner, Roberts, Marshal, Imran, Sarfaraz, Wasim, Hadlee, Kapil and etc...

 

[JeeraBlade]

Anyone can fail otherwise this would not be cricket. Those two instances prove nothing when he still averages nearly 50 in NZ.

This is my point - he is anyone. Not somebody special. If he was, he would have stood head & shoulders above others. But he did not.
Even Saqlain and Kumble type batsmen have scored test 100s on flat tracks and no moving balls.

His 2009 tour was brilliant

Just because the wickets were like the ones your youtube clip where he was treating Lee like a U-19 bowler.

Do I dare say FTB?

 

[LG]

^^JB, you're not suggesting there are/were batsmen who NEVER EVER failed, are you?

OZGOD's post was very convincing to me!

 

[JeeraBlade]

jeera blade
that series in NZ was a farce...both tests lasted < 2.5 days..and that is not representative of an international test match pitch..

Just because start studded Indian batting line failed miserably? NZ won the series by scoreing more runs than Indian batting line.
By the way Fleming did not even give money to pitch curator after NZ won series - like Dhoni did.

one could argue that this is similar to the dust bowls in India / Pak / SL...
but in those cases, the batsmen from the home team do much better..

It is similar - so what is your point? As far as home batsmen doing better is concerned, think again:
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/238187.html
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64101.html
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63456.html

and the ODIs are a joke..he only played 3 of the 7.....

ODIs are joke? Then what about 43 100s he scored in ODIs?

A few people think he ran away from the pitches and faked the injury.

 

[JeeraBlade]

^^JB, you're not suggesting there are/were batsmen who NEVER EVER failed, are you?

No, even Bradman failed a few times. But he scored when other failed - for example ...bodyline series.
http://stats.cricinfo.com/bodyline/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling.html?id=62;type=series

I am saying Sachin is just like any other batsman - except he got to player longer than any other cricket by maintaining a decent form. That's all. Most of the Indian fans think Gavaskar is better than him - so why can't have the same opinion?

OZGOD's post was very convincing to me!

I am glad you look up to Aussies as the ultimate cricket experts.

 

[giri26]

So how does having better bowlers or better batsmen in your own team help one's own batting?

It does help building huge innings. When sachin played those innings which I already mentioned, he had to eventually play shots at the end to muster as many runs as possible and had to remain positive throughout taking risks to advance the Indian total. Rahul on the other hand can remain patient as he is getting support from the other end. If you take his 233 adelaide as example, even Laxman played a brilliant innings there and they had a 300+ Partnership which Lax was the aggresive partner. His 270 in Rawalpindi was a great innings and again helped by solid partnerships along the way with Laxman (again), Yuvraj and ganguly.

A great middle and lower order has actually helped Rahul, who has immense concentration to do what he does best. Thats what I meant. In the 90's the hundreds sachin scored away from home, if you see the score cards there will be hardly any support from anyone. So a score of 300-400 will easily be reduced to 200-250 which makes a lots of difference to a team to win or lose the game. In all those games he would have scored 60-70% of the runs while batting with the lower order.

I am not denying the greatness of Rahul, I like him and he has been a great player for India in recent years but he had a better team to play in than Sachin. Whose great innings in the 90's was wasted by mediocre players who could not perform abroad.

 

[Indiafan]

I just wanted to reiterate what I wrote in a separate thread...i.e. Tendi missed the prime of two of the best fast bowlers of his era, the two Ws from 90-96/97...Plus in his era the fast bowling stock were rather bare...compared to the 70s and 80s, where you had the likes of Lillee, Thompson, Snow, Willis, Botham, Holding, Garner, Roberts, Marshal, Imran, Sarfaraz, Wasim, Hadlee, Kapil and etc...

Is that why, "in his era", only 3 batmen were averaging 50s in test and he outstripped the other 2 by a fair distance?

 

[Indiafan]

No, even Bradman failed a few times. But he scored when other failed - for example ...bodyline series.
http://stats.cricinfo.com/bodyline/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling.html?id=62;type=series

I am saying Sachin is just like any other batsman - except he got to player longer than any other cricket by maintaining a decent form. That's all. Most of the Indian fans think Gavaskar is better than him - so why can't have the same opinion?



I am glad you look up to Aussies as the ultimate cricket experts.

Actually no most of the indian fans do not think Gavaskar is better. A couple of fans who replied is not the representative of a sample

I think in this thread you have already been given 10s of examples when Sachin scored when others failed . And no cricket fan worth his salt, will every say Sachin is just another batsman

I think the respect a player gets from another team is also a yardstick of how important a player is. And I think all the teams in the world including Pakistan, have only have good things about him

 

[Tendlya Rules]

Just because start studded Indian batting line failed miserably? NZ won the series by scoreing more runs than Indian batting line.
By the way Fleming did not even give money to pitch curator after NZ won series - like Dhoni did.


It is similar - so what is your point? As far as home batsmen doing better is concerned, think again:
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/238187.html
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/64101.html
http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63456.html


ODIs are joke? Then what about 43 100s he scored in ODIs?

A few people think he ran away from the pitches and faked the injury.

Hmm....was not saying all ODIs are a joke...just that those ODIs were...

and why would I care if some ppl think he faked injury...I have a lot of faith in Sachin's ability and his character...you may not..but that is not going to change things for me....


Also, only you would classify a pitch in which one team scored ~ 400 in the first innings as a dust bowl..that pitch was not a dust bowl by any means....I know dust bowls..for example, the 4th test in Mumbai vs. Australia in 2004...the third test vs South Africa recently..they were dust bowls...

 

[Tendlya Rules]

It does help building huge innings. When sachin played those innings which I already mentioned, he had to eventually play shots at the end to muster as many runs as possible and had to remain positive throughout taking risks to advance the Indian total. Rahul on the other hand can remain patient as he is getting support from the other end. If you take his 233 adelaide as example, even Laxman played a brilliant innings there and they had a 300+ Partnership which Lax was the aggresive partner. His 270 in Rawalpindi was a great innings and again helped by solid partnerships along the way with Laxman (again), Yuvraj and ganguly.

A great middle and lower order has actually helped Rahul, who has immense concentration to do what he does best. Thats what I meant. In the 90's the hundreds sachin scored away from home, if you see the score cards there will be hardly any support from anyone. So a score of 300-400 will easily be reduced to 200-250 which makes a lots of difference to a team to win or lose the game. In all those games he would have scored 60-70% of the runs while batting with the lower order.

I am not denying the greatness of Rahul, I like him and he has been a great player for India in recent years but he had a better team to play in than Sachin. Whose great innings in the 90's was wasted by mediocre players who could not perform abroad.

GREAT POST.

 

[fawdu]

No, even Bradman failed a few times. But he scored when other failed - for example ...bodyline series.
http://stats.cricinfo.com/bodyline/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling.html?id=62;type=series

I am saying Sachin is just like any other batsman - except he got to player longer than any other cricket by maintaining a decent form. That's all. Most of the Indian fans think Gavaskar is better than him - so why can't have the same opinion?



I am glad you look up to Aussies as the ultimate cricket experts.

1) India in Australia 91-92
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...owling_by_team.html?id=318;team=6;type=series

Scored when Azhar,Vengsarkar, Manjrekar, Sidhu, Kapil failed.


2) India in Australia 99-00
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...owling_by_team.html?id=423;team=6;type=series



And Sachin got to play more because even at 16 he was good enough to play at the international level.

 

[JeeraBlade]

Hmm....was not saying all ODIs are a joke...just that those ODIs were...

Why were those ODIs jokes? Just because rock stars had their **** handed to them in that series?

Also, only you would classify a pitch in which one team scored ~ 400 in the first innings as a dust bowl..that pitch was not a dust bowl by any means....

Also, only you would not have heard about term "gradually deteriorating pitch" which plays fine on 1st two days and then starts breaking up and becomes dust bowl by the 4/5th day.

I am not sure why even I bother to reply to your post.

 

[Tendlya Rules]

Why were those ODIs jokes? Just because rock stars had their **** handed to them in that series?



Also, only you would not have heard about term "gradually deteriorating pitch" which plays fine on 1st two days and then starts breaking up and becomes dust bowl by the 4/5th day.

I am not sure why even I bother to reply to your post.

A gradually deteriorating pitch is what all curators strive for...that would be the dream of every neutral fan...pitches are supposed to be inconsistent and hard to play on, on days 4 and 5...

I would have such a pitch than one that plays like a road on all 5 days..
examples have been the pitches (except Karachi whcih was great) for India PAk series in 2006..and the pitches in India later that year...

 

[JeeraBlade]

It does help building huge innings. When sachin played those innings which I already mentioned, he had to eventually play shots at the end to muster as many runs as possible and had to remain positive throughout taking risks to advance the Indian total. Rahul on the other hand can remain patient as he is getting support from the other end. If you take his 233 adelaide as example, even Laxman played a brilliant innings there and they had a 300+ Partnership which Lax was the aggresive partner. His 270 in Rawalpindi was a great innings and again helped by solid partnerships along the way with Laxman (again), Yuvraj and ganguly.

Basically you are saying Dravid can not bat under pressure?

A great middle and lower order has actually helped Rahul, who has immense concentration to do what he does best. Thats what I meant. In the 90's the hundreds sachin scored away from home, if you see the score cards there will be hardly any support from anyone. So a score of 300-400 will easily be reduced to 200-250 which makes a lots of difference to a team to win or lose the game. In all those games he would have scored 60-70% of the runs while batting with the lower order.

Here the Indian batting average as compared to other team. It is 2nd highest. Don't tell me it is just becuase of Sachin and everybody else in the team suked.
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...1989;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

I am not denying the greatness of Rahul, I like him and he has been a great player for India in recent years but he had a better team to play in than Sachin. Whose great innings in the 90's was wasted by mediocre players who could not perform abroad.

I disagree. Why would you used the word "wasted"? A great innings is a great innings no matter who is in your team. Also, see the link reg Indian's batting in 90s above.

 

[Tendlya Rules]

a better comparison is to see the time period before dravid and ganguly joined the team..and split the stats into home and away (away from the subocontinent) stats...

in any case, you should remember that the 90s were the time when India played great at home, and badly abroad.....we had a lot of flat track bullies in the team (e.g., Manjrekar)

 

[Tendlya Rules]

BATTING averages (HOME)

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...1989;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team

BATTING averages (AWAY)

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...1989;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team


We were # 1 at home, and # 2 abroad..but look at the difference in the batting averages...that kind of difference combined with the fact that in away series, India did not have the fast bowling resources beyond Srinath, to take 20 wickets...

 

[Tendlya Rules]

Basically you are saying Dravid can not bat under pressure?



Here the Indian batting average as compared to other team. It is 2nd highest. Don't tell me it is just becuase of Sachin and everybody else in the team suked.
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...1989;spanval1=span;template=results;type=team


I disagree. Why would you used the word "wasted"? A great innings is a great innings no matter who is in your team. Also, see the link reg Indian's batting in 90s above.

Jeera..how can what he said mean that Dravid cannot play under pressure...what it means is that Dravid would not win the match alone because of his style of batting..he needed someone at the other end to also make good contributions...there are many examples of this...whenever Dravid played well, there were atleast one/two Indian batsmen who played well (laxman, 287 in 2001, laxman 140 odd in 2004)

I can only remember 1 instance of Dravid playing well alone...he scored 80 odd in each innings against WI in Sabina PArk in 2006..beyond that, I dont remember him having to shoulder the burden alone..

Tendulkar, for most of his career, was a lone wolf...having been betrayed by Azhar who had sold his soul to Dawood Ibrahim...Tendulkar had to do both the scoring as well as the staying at the wicket part...

 

[fawdu]

IMO Gavaskar and Tendulkar are legends. Dravid is a great batsman

People rating Dravid over Sachin have done so primarily because of his record outside Asia and his contribution to victories in this decade.

1) First, sure Dravid averages six runs more than Sachin outside Asia. But Tendulkar's average away is a very healthy 51 as well. On the other hand Dravid averages 47 at home. Tendulkar averages 55. So why consider the outside Asia average alone ? Dravid has a perceptible weakness against spin as compared to Sachin. Why not take that into account?

In the comments above , Bawaa has posted

Tendulker’s Test average is 54.58, which actually could have been 62.56, had he not faced these great bowlers. Sachin’s Test average went down to 34.27 from 54.58 in 68 innings of 37 Tests he played against McGrath, A Donald, Wasim, Waqar, Ntini, Pollock, Steyn and S Bond. In those 37 tests India lost 18 and won 8. He scored 6 centuries against them. But only ONE Century in winning cause.

In 50 innings out of 68, Tendulker failed to score a half century or century.

Quite a bit of cherry picking. Anyways against the same set of bowlers Dravid averages 33.7 . Out of 64 innings, he has scored less than fifty 53 times. Only 3 hundreds. 1 in winning cause. Tendulkar's record is better.

Now consider Ambrose and Walsh as well. Sachin averages 38.35 and Dravid 36.66 Tendulkar has 24 scores above 50 in 80 innings. Dravid 15 in 71.

Again considering all the bowlers, Tendulkar averages 40.88 away from home. Dravid 34.71.

Tendulkar 15 scores above 50 in 44 innings. Dravid 8 in 35. Again Tendulkar's record is better.

At home Dravid averages 38 to Tendulkar's 35. But overall Tendulkar's record is better.

2) Coming to Dravid's contribution to Indian victories in this decade, Dravid's purple patch has coincided with a much more stronger Indian team and relatively weaker opposition teams as compared to the late 90's period. If such conditions were true for late 90's as well, Tendulkar contribution would have been much more to victories.

Even so Tendulkar's comparison is quite comparable to Dravid's.

Dravid has 26 scores above 50 in 175 innings in a win. Tendulkar 21 out of 146. Very much similar.

Aginst non minnows, Dravid has scored 3 centuries in away wins. Leeds 03, Adelaide 03, Rawalpindi 04 wins . Tendulkar has scored 4. Port of Spain 02, Leeds 03, Multan 04, Hamilton 09 wins .

At home Dravid has scored 4 centuries in wins. Kolkata 2001, Mumbai 2002 and Kolkata 2005(twice). Tendulkar too has 4 cenuries. Chennai 01, Delhi 05, Nagpur 09, Chennai 09.

Dravid has 12 half centuries in wins. Tendulkar 8. Not surprising since Dravid has played more.

So , Tendulkar's contribution towards victories is in no way inferior to Dravid's. That too with conditions stacked in Dravid's favour.

Also Tendulkar can dominate. Dravid can't. And Dravid has never been under the same pressure as Tendulkar.

Hence it is quite surprising to see people rating Dravid over Tendulkar.

 

[Tendlya Rules]

Quite a bit of cherry picking. Anyways against the same set of bowlers Dravid averages 33.7 . Out of 64 innings, he has scored less than fifty 53 times. Only 3 hundreds. 1 in winning cause. Tendulkar's record is better.

Now consider Ambrose and Walsh as well. Sachin averages 38.35 and Dravid 36.66 Tendulkar has 24 scores above 50 in 80 innings. Dravid 15 in 71.
.

very nicely done...I dont think Dravid, for all his virtues, will ever be thought of with the same respect among opposition bowlers, as tendulkar

 

[JeeraBlade]

Jeera..how can what he said mean that ...

I am glad you know what giri26 is saying but I'd wait for him to reply himself.

 

[JeeraBlade]

Let me tell you that you have a good looking analysis but there are still some loop holes.

1) First, sure Dravid averages six runs more than Sachin outside Asia. But Tendulkar's average away is a very healthy 51 as well. On the other hand Dravid averages 47 at home. Tendulkar averages 55. So why consider the outside Asia average alone ? Dravid has a perceptible weakness against spin as compared to Sachin. Why not take that into account?

1st off, playing in foreign conditions is always considered more difficult because you are playing is unfamiliar conditions, crowd is supporting home team, weather conditions are difficult. e.g. Englang and NZ. This is why scoring outside Asia carries much more weight that scoring on batting friendly wickets in Asia.

2nd,what makes you think playing at home can be a weakness against spin? Rmember he is batting against visiting teams - not against Kumble and Harbhjan on dust bowls. You are assuming two things;
1) every visiting team brought great spinners.
Since 1996, visiting pacers have taken 484 wickets as opposed to 325 wickets by spinners in India.
2) Dravid got out to spinners most of the times.
Dravid got out to pacers 53 times as oppose to only 33 times at home.

Quite a bit of cherry picking. Anyways against the same set of bowlers Dravid averages 33.7 . Out of 64 innings, he has scored less than fifty 53 times. Only 3 hundreds. 1 in winning cause. Tendulkar's record is better.

Now consider Ambrose and Walsh as well. Sachin averages 38.35 and Dravid 36.66 Tendulkar has 24 scores above 50 in 80 innings. Dravid 15 in 71.

Again considering all the bowlers, Tendulkar averages 40.88 away from home. Dravid 34.71.

Tendulkar 15 scores above 50 in 44 innings. Dravid 8 in 35. Again Tendulkar's record is better.

At home Dravid averages 38 to Tendulkar's 35. But overall Tendulkar's record is better.

2) Coming to Dravid's contribution to Indian victories in this decade, Dravid's purple patch has coincided with a much more stronger Indian team and relatively weaker opposition teams as compared to the late 90's period. If such conditions were true for late 90's as well, Tendulkar contribution would have been much more to victories.

Even so Tendulkar's comparison is quite comparable to Dravid's.

Dravid has 26 scores above 50 in 175 innings in a win. Tendulkar 21 out of 146. Very much similar.

Aginst non minnows, Dravid has scored 3 centuries in away wins. Leeds 03, Adelaide 03, Rawalpindi 04 wins . Tendulkar has scored 4. Port of Spain 02, Leeds 03, Multan 04, Hamilton 09 wins .

At home Dravid has scored 4 centuries in wins. Kolkata 2001, Mumbai 2002 and Kolkata 2005(twice). Tendulkar too has 4 cenuries. Chennai 01, Delhi 05, Nagpur 09, Chennai 09.

So , Tendulkar's contribution towards victories is in no way inferior to Dravid's. That too with conditions stacked in Dravid's favour.

Basically, you are trying to prove Sachin and Dravid and very very comparable. There is not huge difference.

Dravid has 12 half centuries in wins. Tendulkar 8. Not surprising since Dravid has played more.

What do you mean Dravid has played more? Dravid started in 1996 - 7 years after Sachin.

Hence it is quite surprising to see people rating Dravid over Tendulkar.

You himself as call them very very comparable.


P.S What does Fawdu mean? In punjabi, it means a nasty word.

 

[fawdu]

1st off, playing in foreign conditions is always considered more difficult because you are playing is unfamiliar conditions, crowd is supporting home team, weather conditions are difficult. e.g. Englang and NZ. This is why scoring outside Asia carries much more weight that scoring on batting friendly wickets in Asia.

Yes, batting in foreign conditions is more difficult. But why should it be the sole criteria? Why ignore the record at home?

While comparing Sachin and Dravid, the outside Asia record argument would have been convincing if Sachin's record outside Asia had been abysmal. It is not. He averages over 51.

Since 1989 , only 10 batsman have averaged over 50 away from home. Tendulkar is sixth on the list in terms of average and first in terms of runs.

It is a very good record by every standard applied.

2nd,what makes you think playing at home can be a weakness against spin? Rmember he is batting against visiting teams - not against Kumble and Harbhjan on dust bowls. You are assuming two things;
1) every visiting team brought great spinners.
Since 1996, visiting pacers have taken 484 wickets as opposed to 325 wickets by spinners in India.
2) Dravid got out to spinners most of the times.
Dravid got out to pacers 53 times as oppose to only 33 times at home.

1 Every team did not bring great spinners. But Warne, Murali , Saqlain , Mushtaq have played. Pacers have taken more wickets because they have bowled more. Comparing SR , pacers have a SR of 74, spinners 80. Not too much difference. Also the quality of pacers has been more than that of spinners.

2 Again he has faced pacers more.

A low average in India does not necessarily mean struggle against spinners. But I made that comment keeping in mind Dravid's struggle against Warne in the late 90's. And doing a very very rough analysis, in the above post I showed how Dravid averages a bit more than Sachin at home against the pacers. But still his overall home record is much lower than Sachin's. This does indicate a slight weakness against spin.

To back up with statistics

1 Matches involving Warne

Home
Sachin 13 innings average 63 3 centuries. Dismissed by Warne once.
Dravid 16 innings average 41 1 century. Dismissed by Warne five times.

Overall
Sachin 22 innings average 60 5 centuries Dimissed by Warne thrice.
Dravid 24 innings average 32 1 century Dismissed by Warne 8 times

Warne has dismissed Dravid most times inspite of the Australian attack been dominated by pacers.

2 Matches involving Murali

Overall ( since there is not much of a difference in the pitches of both countries)

Sachin 20 innings average 46 4 centuries
Dravid 22 innings average 34 0 centuries.

3 Matches involving Saqlain- a very small set. Nonetheless

Sachin 7 innings average 63 2 centuries
Dravid 7 innings average 24 0 centuries.


So why should the performance aginst spinners be ignored ?

Basically, you are trying to prove Sachin and Dravid and very very comparable. There is not huge difference.

No, thats not what I am doing. A favourite argument of Sachin's detractors is that how he has not contributed to Indian victories while Dravid has.
I have shown that this is not factually correct. Sachin has contributed as much as Dravid in the victories this decade. Only in this decade has the Indian team been strong enough to win away. So Sachin even past his prime has contributed as much as Dravid has is in his prime.

Sachin was streets ahead of Dravid in nineties. Had India been a strong enough side in 90's , a lot more Sachin's centuries would have been converted to wins in matches.

What do you mean Dravid has played more? Dravid started in 1996 - 7 years after Sachin.

In this decade, Dravid has played in 175 innings. Tendulkar 146.

You himself as call them very very comparable.

Sachin past his prime is comparable to Dravid in his prime.

P.S What does Fawdu mean? In punjabi, it means a nasty word

I do not know Punjabi and it definitely was not intentional.

 

[giri26]

I am glad you know what giri26 is saying but I'd wait for him to reply himself.

Okay I did not mean that Dravid cannot play under pressure, infact I would say that Dravid revels in pressure scenario. But my argument was that Azhar, Manjrekar and others in the Indian middle order till 1996 (till Dravid and Ganguly made their debut) underperformed abroad in the early 90's. Example India's 4-0 drubbing in Australia, Sachin was the only consistent performer in that series (Incl the ODI), yeah Shastri and Azhar scored 100's too but just in one innings. remember that Sachin was just 18 then.

Series in SA (1-0 loss to India), again just Sachin the consistant performer and the price scalp for SA during that series at the age of 18. Shows how feeble the Indian batting line up was at that time to have a 18 year old as the most important player in the team. Yes again there were some induvidual brilliance from Kapil and Amre in couple of games in that series too.

In early 90's Indian batsmen were great at home racking up big totals but till 1996 Sachin was the only consistant player. Even till 2001 it was a same scenario in spite of having Rahul and Ganguly. Australia in 99/00, SA in 96/97 and also in 1999 series in NZ. In that series both Dravid and Ganguly did not contribute anything in the game we lost. They both scored runs in a game which could not produce any result and was going to end in a draw. Sachin and Azhar fought on a difficult pitch to make a match of it in the 1st test.

I have been following Indian cricket for almost 20 years now and have never missed a series India have played till date since 1991. I have seen Sachin battle alone on all conditions against different oppositions. Dravid attanined greatness in a team which boasted of Sehwag, Sachin, Ganguly,Laxman in the top and middle order. Sachin did not have the luxury. He was just 18 year old with all that pressure facing experianced bowlers. He scored a 50 at 16 facing Imran, Wasim and Waqar that says something about the caliber of the man. Dravid is great but not comparable to Sachin in anyway. No matter how you guys twist the stats to forward your point, you are never going to convince someone who has followed Indian cricket for the last 2 decades.

 

[Lara400]

Difficult to pick either way I think Tendulkar & Dravid have both been good ambasadors for India.

 

[siddharth]

India started winning in this decade because of the attitude change started by Sourav Ganguly,basically the instinct.Another thing is that Tendulkar is a stroke player and can be carried away with his aggressive instincts, as OZGOD already pointed out,how he was successful in curbing those instincts to score a double hundred.

 

[*sallu*]

No, even Bradman failed a few times. But he scored when other failed - for example ...bodyline series.
http://stats.cricinfo.com/bodyline/engine/records/averages/batting_bowling.html?id=62;type=series

I am saying Sachin is just like any other batsman - except he got to player longer than any other cricket by maintaining a decent form. That's all. Most of the Indian fans think Gavaskar is better than him - so why can't have the same opinion?



I am glad you look up to Aussies as the ultimate cricket experts.

Thats all !!??
That my friend, is in itself a huge achievement. How many players in international cricket history (be it all formats) have been able to get into a side at 16 years of age and from then onwards been able to keep their spot in the side for 21 friggin years!!!
Maintaining form and consistancy for so long is no joke, only absolute greats are capable of this

 

[dani2k]

Sallu bhai..you are beginning to impress me and that is not due to your praising Sachin..

 

[siddharth]

Thats all !!??
That my friend, is in itself a huge achievement. How many players in international cricket history (be it all formats) have been able to get into a side at 16 years of age and from then onwards been able to keep their spot in the side for 21 friggin years!!!
Maintaining form and consistancy for so long is no joke, only absolute greats are capable of this

Thank you so much for your comments.Quite refreshing to see a Pakistani praising Tendulkar and acknowledging his immaculate achievments.

 

[*sallu*]

Thank you so much for your comments.Quite refreshing to see a Pakistani praising Tendulkar and acknowledging his immaculate achievments.

Well, theres only so much bad stuff you can say about a guy with a gazillion runs in all formats.
Don't care if he was blind or langra or whatever, if you score that many runs, you're special.

Sallu bhai..you are beginning to impress me and that is not due to your praising Sachin..

Thanku Dani Bhai

 

[pun500]

Thats all !!??
That my friend, is in itself a huge achievement. How many players in international cricket history (be it all formats) have been able to get into a side at 16 years of age and from then onwards been able to keep their spot in the side for 21 friggin years!!!
Maintaining form and consistancy for so long is no joke, only absolute greats are capable of this

sallu if that was the case hasan raza would be a world beater by now...didnt he debut at 14-15??

 

[*sallu*]

sallu if that was the case hasan raza would be a world beater by now...didnt he debut at 14-15??

Thats all !!??
That my friend, is in itself a huge achievement. How many players in international cricket history (be it all formats) have been able to get into a side at 16 years of age and from then onwards been able to keep their spot in the side for 21 friggin years!!!Maintaining form and consistancy for so long is no joke, only absolute greats are capable of this

My friend, it is not about making your debut at 16. It is about keeping your place and performing day in day out for so many years.

If Hasan Raza made his debut at 25 and retired at 40 I would hold him in very high regard believe me. But he just lasted a couple of years at the international arena

 

[pun500]

My friend, it is not about making your debut at 16. It is about keeping your place and performing day in day out for so many years.

If Hasan Raza made his debut at 25 and retired at 40 I would hold him in very high regard believe me. But he just lasted a couple of years at the international arena

yup that is exactly what i meant somehow people hold it against sachin that he has played long conveniently forgetting that while playing that long he has also performed

another aspect which i like to clear is that players cant help which era they were born in or the conditions of pitches or protective equipments or changing rules...

hence it is unfair to punish players for that...

 

[dani2k]

yup that is exactly what i meant somehow people hold it against sachin that he has played long conveniently forgetting that while playing that long he has also performed

another aspect which i like to clear is that players cant help which era they were born in or the conditions of pitches or protective equipments or changing rules

...

hence it is unfair to punish players for that...

Good point mate...I feel that yes you shouldnt punish players for factors which are not in their control. But looking objectively at both Sunny saab (I referred to him as bhai earlier...my bad - RESPECT ) and Sachin what do you think about this..

- The quality of bowlers that Sunny saab faced and scored his maximum hundreds (the WIs) was infinitely superior to what Sachin has played. And a significant chunk of those runs have come in the opponents back yard. I don't doubt Sachin's ability but unfortunately he didnt face bowlers of that class for no fault of his. (The fact that we didnt play enough against the Sultans of swing during their prime didnt help matters too).

So this is the clinching factor for my rating Sunny bhai over Sachin (Purely my opinion though) And I am so thankful to the Almighty that both these legends played for the Tri colour!

 

[shahzadddd]

Once again , Vinod Kambli. You have to be really good to play and wear a bandana and a dodgy earring.

 

[JeeraBlade]

I have been following Indian cricket for almost 20 years now and have never missed a series India have played till date since 1991. I have seen Sachin battle alone on all conditions against different oppositions. Dravid attanined greatness in a team which boasted of Sehwag, Sachin, Ganguly,Laxman in the top and middle order. Sachin did not have the luxury. He was just 18 year old with all that pressure facing experianced bowlers. He scored a 50 at 16 facing Imran, Wasim and Waqar that says something about the caliber of the man. Dravid is great but not comparable to Sachin in anyway. No matter how you guys twist the stats to forward your point, you are never going to convince someone who has followed Indian cricket for the last 2 decades.

If I understand you correctly, you are holding Ganguly/Sachin/Laxman's presence in the team against Dravid. In my opinion, it does not make Dravid any less of a batsman ... or does it? Just like, people defending Sachin's not contributing to wins is not Sachin's fault - similarly, is it Dravid's fault that he batted along a stronger batting line.

Also, I am certainly not questioning your knowledge and 2 decades of following Indian cricket. It is very obvious from your posts.

Whatever we agree or disagree upon, will not make one player better than the other. Their stats and on the fields achievements and failures will remain the same. You and I can not change the history.

We are debating a different perspective between us - that's all. I am saying, Sachin is not as great of batsman as "most" of the Indian fans think him to be.
40,000 international runs in no mean achievement but he was born in an era when India was playing 8+ test and 40 ODI per year. I'll continue to below.

Thats all !!??
That my friend, is in itself a huge achievement. How many players in international cricket history (be it all formats) have been able to get into a side at 16 years of age and from then onwards been able to keep their spot in the side for 21 friggin years!!!
Maintaining form and consistancy for so long is no joke, only absolute greats are capable of this

My friend, it is not about making your debut at 16. It is about keeping your place and performing day in day out for so many years.

If Hasan Raza made his debut at 25 and retired at 40 I would hold him in very high regard believe me. But he just lasted a couple of years at the international arena

Yes -- that's all. Agreed very few batsmen got a chance to make a debut at an early age like Sachin. Most of the player who got a chance, I am sure had impressed selectors to be in the team - but only two reason, they did not shine as much as Sachin because:
1) They were dropped after 1st or 2nd failure.
2) They never got to play 8 tests or 40 ODIs per like Sachin.

Then yes, there are very few players who played until the age of 37 or so. Sachin was exteremely lucky that he played for India. (yes -- lucky!). If he was born in England then he would have played way less matches (ODIs). Would he have scored 40,000 runs then? NO!

Take Miandad for example, he made his ODI debut at 18 & test debut at 19, even when he was ready to be in the team at 15 or 16 but he was not given a chance. He comes in and scores 500+ runs in 1st test series against Richard Hadlee with a 160+ score on debut and 200 in 3rd test.

Then he goes on to play - just like Sachin another 20+ year while MAINTAINING a better average than Sachin in both tests and ODIs.

        Tests  TestAve  ODI  ODIAve
Sachin  159     54.58   425   44.37
Javid   124     51.57   233   41.70

The reason I said Javid has better average above because I proved that an average of 50 in 2000s is same as an ave of 42 in 70s/80s in this post:

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=2094219&postcount=9

So, yes Miandad and Sachin were talented enough at very early age and got a chance to represent their team and ended up playing for next 20/21 years.... Sachin was extremely lucky that India was playing as many matches as it was when he was in peek form. Mohammad Yousaf got a decent number of test matches in a year when he was in form, he ended up breaking Richard record. Can you imagine Yousaf getting 8-9 test per years every year?

In my books, Sachin is very talented batsman but he very very lucky.

 

[JeeraBlade]

Thank you so much for your comments.Quite refreshing to see a Pakistani praising Tendulkar and acknowledging his immaculate achievments.

I get no thank you for praise gavaskar and dravid?
well, thank you very much!

 

[Indiafan]

If I understand you correctly, you are holding Ganguly/Sachin/Laxman's presence in the team against Dravid. In my opinion, it does not make Dravid any less of a batsman ... or does it? Just like, people defending Sachin's not contributing to wins is not Sachin's fault - similarly, is it Dravid's fault that he batted along a stronger batting line.

Also, I am certainly not questioning your knowledge and 2 decades of following Indian cricket. It is very obvious from your posts.

Whatever we agree or disagree upon, will not make one player better than the other. Their stats and on the fields achievements and failures will remain the same. You and I can not change the history.

We are debating a different perspective between us - that's all. I am saying, Sachin is not as great of batsman as "most" of the Indian fans think him to be.
40,000 international runs in no mean achievement but he was born in an era when India was playing 8+ test and 40 ODI per year. I'll continue to below.






Yes -- that's all. Agreed very few batsmen got a chance to make a debut at an early age like Sachin. Most of the player who got a chance, I am sure had impressed selectors to be in the team - but only two reason, they did not shine as much as Sachin because:
1) They were dropped after 1st or 2nd failure.
2) They never got to play 8 tests or 40 ODIs per like Sachin.

Then yes, there are very few players who played until the age of 37 or so. Sachin was exteremely lucky that he played for India. (yes -- lucky!). If he was born in England then he would have played way less matches (ODIs). Would he have scored 40,000 runs then? NO!

Take Miandad for example, he made his ODI debut at 18 & test debut at 19, even when he was ready to be in the team at 15 or 16 but he was not given a chance. He comes in and scores 500+ runs in 1st test series against Richard Hadlee with a 160+ score on debut and 200 in 3rd test.

Then he goes on to play - just like Sachin another 20+ year while MAINTAINING a better average than Sachin in both tests and ODIs.

        Tests  TestAve  ODI  ODIAve
Sachin  159     54.58   425   44.37
Javid   124     51.57   233   41.70

The reason I said Javid has better average above because I proved that an average of 50 in 2000s is same as an ave of 42 in 70s/80s in this post:

http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=2094219&postcount=9

So, yes Miandad and Sachin were talented enough at very early age and got a chance to represent their team and ended up playing for next 20/21 years.... Sachin was extremely lucky that India was playing as many matches as it was when he was in peek form. Mohammad Yousaf got a decent number of test matches in a year when he was in form, he ended up breaking Richard record. Can you imagine Yousaf getting 8-9 test per years every year?

In my books, Sachin is very talented batsman but he very very lucky.

Ok, JeeraBlade, the history of cricket is littered with cricketers having 1-3 years of peak. Hooper had it. Flower had it. Mark Wagh had it. De Silva did it

The difference is no one could stay on top for longer than that

Do you really believe if given enough tests, Yousuf will average around the same for next 10 years? Unlikely. So your argument of number of matches fall flat seeing that the ones you quoted couldnt themselves sustain that average for longer

In any sample of players, averages fall down the more matches you play, they dont stayt consistentSachin is an exception

Also, you are completely ignoring that he was only 1 among 3 batsmen averaging in the 50s in the 90s. Doesnt that make him special?

 

[Indiafan]

I get no thank you for praise gavaskar and dravid?
well, thank you very much!

Now be frank. You would side with Rohit Sharma if it was him against Sachin

 

[pun500]

Good point mate...I feel that yes you shouldnt punish players for factors which are not in their control. But looking objectively at both Sunny saab (I referred to him as bhai earlier...my bad - RESPECT ) and Sachin what do you think about this..

- The quality of bowlers that Sunny saab faced and scored his maximum hundreds (the WIs) was infinitely superior to what Sachin has played. And a significant chunk of those runs have come in the opponents back yard. I don't doubt Sachin's ability but unfortunately he didnt face bowlers of that class for no fault of his. (The fact that we didnt play enough against the Sultans of swing during their prime didnt help matters too).

So this is the clinching factor for my rating Sunny bhai over Sachin (Purely my opinion though) And I am so thankful to the Almighty that both these legends played for the Tri colour!

look like i said whose to say that sachin wouldnt have scored that many runs as gavaskar did in the 70's and 80's ...did he get that opportunity?? no... gavaskar could also say very well that had he played in 90's he could be avging 70 but it could also be possible he could still avg 51

end of the day these factors cannot be compared..

on one hand people say pitches were bowling friendly back then and the earlier bowlers were better but one could also say that

1-- because the pitches were bowling friendly that made the bowlers look better or
2-- because the bowlers were that good that it made the pitches look bowling friendly

another factor is most batsmen had a poor technique , no video analysis , poor tailenders = some cheap wickets for bowlers inflating their stats

whats everyones opinion on this then??

 

[JeeraBlade]

Ok, JeeraBlade, the history of cricket is littered with cricketers having 1-3 years of peak. Hooper had it. Flower had it. Mark Wagh had it. De Silva did it

The difference is no one could stay on top for longer than that

I just showed you Miandad stayed on top as long as sachin but we don't worship Miandad and we don't call Miandad as good as bradman (or even better in some cases).

Do you really believe if given enough tests, Yousuf will average around the same for next 10 years? Unlikely. So your argument of number of matches fall flat seeing that the ones you quoted couldnt themselves sustain that average for longer

In any sample of players, averages fall down the more matches you play, they dont stayt consistentSachin is an exception

Yousaf's example was not given just because of one year. He has been having a terrific last few years.
Here is what Yousaf has done in last 50 tests:

Period      T    I    NO   Runs  HS     Ave    100s    50s     0s
2001-2009   50   86   10   4890  223  	64.34  	18  	17  	3

Now compare above to Sachin's most terrific period below. See any differnce?

Sachin had terrific 5-6 years in the middle of his career otherwise he was OK;

[B]Against all teams
Period      T    I    NO   Runs  HS     Ave    100s    50s     0s[/B]
1989-1996   46   70    7   3106  179    49.30  	10  	15  	4
1997-2002   59   99    9   5705  217    63.38  	21  	20  	6
2003-2009   54   92   11   3962  248*   48.91  	11  	18  	4

[B]Against major teams (without Zimbabwe & Bangladesh)[/B]
[B]Period      T    I    NO   Runs  HS     Ave    100s    50s     0s[/B]
1989-1996   44   68    7   3044  179    49.90  	10  	14  	3
1997-2002   51   86    7   4831  217    61.15  	18  	18  	6
2003-2009   50   87    9   3424  241*   43.89  	 8  	18  	4

Specially 2003-2009, he is mediocre. He is just surviving on his reputation - just like Hussy did not 26 test before scoring a 100 in last Ashes test.

Also, you are completely ignoring that he was only 1 among 3 batsmen averaging in the 50s in the 90s. Doesnt that make him special?

Big deal! Miandad had an ave of 58 in 70s and 53 in 80s. So it should make make Miandad better batsman than Sachin?

 

[JeeraBlade]

Now be frank. You would side with Rohit Sharma if it was him against Sachin

I would but you'll have to wait unit he scores 10,000 test runs.

 

[siddharth]

I get no thank you for praise gavaskar and dravid?
well, thank you very much!

No.Simply more than praising Gavaskar and Dravid you always wanted to bring Tendulkar down.

Thats not just your problem most of the Paksiatnis have a strong dislike for Tendulkar simply because he is the most loved Indian cricketer ever.And apple of the eye of one billion people.Thats why so much attention on Tendulkar.

 

[JeeraBlade]

No.Simply more than praising Gavaskar and Dravid you always wanted to bring Tendulkar down.

You did not read my response in a post above:

Whatever we agree or disagree upon, will not make one player better than the other. Their stats and on the fields achievements and failures will remain the same. You and I can not change the history.

We are debating a different perspective between us - that's all. I am saying, Sachin is not as great of batsman as "most" of the Indian fans think him to be.

First of all, nobody bring Sachin down. No comment from anybody (cricket expert or no-expert) change the successes he had and failure (in NZ ) he had. Can it?

Thats not just your problem most of the Paksiatnis have a strong dislike for Tendulkar simply because he is the most loved Indian cricketer ever.And apple of the eye of one billion people.Thats why so much attention on Tendulkar.

Problem??? Problem is not with us. It is with the fan (& kids) worship him and regard him so high just because they haven't seen the batsmen of 70s/80s.

As far as attention is concerned, you make a naked hooker stand on one corner of a busy Mumbai street and a Sachin of the other, guess who will more attention?

 

[*sallu*]

Yes -- that's all. Agreed very few batsmen got a chance to make a debut at an early age like Sachin. Most of the player who got a chance, I am sure had impressed selectors to be in the team - but only two reason, they did not shine as much as Sachin because:
1) They were dropped after 1st or 2nd failure.
2) They never got to play 8 tests or 40 ODIs per like Sachin.

Then yes, there are very few players who played until the age of 37 or so. Sachin was exteremely lucky that he played for India. (yes -- lucky!). If he was born in England then he would have played way less matches (ODIs). Would he have scored 40,000 runs then? NO!


http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/showpost.php?p=2094219&postcount=9


In my books, Sachin is very talented batsman but he very very lucky.

If being extra ordinarily talented enough to impress Kapil Dev by smashing him in the nets at 14 is lucky- then yes Sachins lucky

If getting into the side, not on a hunch but by making 100s in Ranji trophy at the age of 15 is not ability and talent but lucky- then yes Sachins lucky

 

[siddharth]

Problem??? Problem is not with us. It is with the fan (& kids) worship him and regard him so high just because they haven't seen the batsmen of 70s/80s

Oh so no one from the older generation wouldn't rate Sachin so high.

As far as attention is concerned, you make a naked hooker stand on one corner of a busy Mumbai street and a Sachin of the other, guess who will more attention?

Cheap comparison.He hold the respect of his countrymen not only just because of his accomplishment the way he responded to the immense love and affection, the way he carried himself.

PS: Even if you or rest of the world try hard the love and affection of people would never diminish.U can't do nothing about it.

 

[JeeraBlade]

Cheap comparison.He hold the respect of his countrymen not only just because of his accomplishment the way he responded to the immense love and affection, the way he carried himself.

See, here is another difference between us. We take things lightly and you guys take is so serious - I mean to the point of paranoia. That's was supposed to be funny - not cheap because I was not comparing the two. I was just taking a shot at the general public's animal instinct vs worshiping an sports entertainer.

But then again, both are entertainers at the end of the day - different business though!

 

[TheRazzler]

Test batsmen- Dravid = winner of thread

Odi Batsmen- Tendulkar

Greatest batsmen-



Na, Tendulkar.

 

[JeeraBlade]

Yes, batting in foreign conditions is more difficult. But why should it be the sole criteria? Why ignore the record at home?

While comparing Sachin and Dravid, the outside Asia record argument would have been convincing if Sachin's record outside Asia had been abysmal. It is not. He averages over 51.

Since 1989 , only 10 batsman have averaged over 50 away from home. Tendulkar is sixth on the list in terms of average and first in terms of runs.

It is a very good record by every standard applied.

I did not say, Sachin's 51 outside Asia was not good. It is great but Dravid's is much better and record outside Asia counts more than record in Asia.

You had good analsys about spinners against both batsmen. I'll give you that one but only thing it proves is that Sachin has slightly better record at home against spinners. Most Indian players are historically good players of spin.

Sachin past his prime is comparable to Dravid in his prime.

Please see post # 142 where I broke sachin's record into three stages. So, you are saying Sachin's ave of 48 (43 excluding Zim/BD) in last six years is same as Dravid's peek?

 

[Cheguvera]

No.Simply more than praising Gavaskar and Dravid you always wanted to bring Tendulkar down.

Thats not just your problem most of the Paksiatnis have a strong dislike for Tendulkar simply because he is the most loved Indian cricketer ever.And apple of the eye of one billion people.Thats why so much attention on Tendulkar.

In a similar vain most Indians have an intense dislike of Imran and Miandad...

 

[siddharth]

In a similar vain most Indians have an intense dislike of Imran and Miandad...

Yeah I know that.But because of that would Pakistanis stop admiring them? No.

 

[giri26]

<b>If I understand you correctly, you are holding Ganguly/Sachin/Laxman's presence in the team against Dravid</b>. In my opinion, it does not make Dravid any less of a batsman ... or does it? Just like, people defending Sachin's not contributing to wins is not Sachin's fault - similarly, is it Dravid's fault that he batted along a stronger batting line.

Also, I am certainly not questioning your knowledge and 2 decades of following Indian cricket. It is very obvious from your posts.

Whatever we agree or disagree upon, will not make one player better than the other. Their stats and on the fields achievements and failures will remain the same. You and I can not change the history.

We are debating a different perspective between us - that's all. I am saying, Sachin is not as great of batsman as "most" of the Indian fans think him to be.
40,000 international runs in no mean achievement but he was born in an era when India was playing 8+ test and 40 ODI per year. I'll continue to below.

I am not holding that against Dravid and to be frank he is one of my favorite Indian players but no one can deny the fact that he was also lucky to have such talented batsman around him. Everybody knows that cricket is a partnership dependant game where two players have to bat well in tandem to get to big total. Yeah as I said earlier, induvidual brilliance can win games for a team once in a while, more so now a days in T20 format but that alone is not enough in a longer format.

I still remember a game where Andy flower scored 142 (Zim Total 286) and 199*(Total 391) in the same test match and Zim still lost. The reason is not because Flower's innings were not great but the reason was that Zim team was not capable of capitalising on such scores by their best player. Just take Rahul's innings (Match winning) Adelaide 233, Laxman 148, contributions from Sehwag and parthiv India scored 500 + which was not possible for Sachin. Most of the times in early 90's he would get to a hundred and will be batting with No 9 and 10 at the crease with him.

Thats what I meant, Rahul is extremely lucky to be in such elite company in the current Indian team. I am not denying the greatness of Rahul as we all know he is but I am just saying that he extremely lucky to receive such support from the rest of the batsmen. Bowling, Batting and Fielding all improved for India after 2001 (Ganguly + Wright combination) and Rahul blossomed at the same time. But except for two brilliant innings in Sabina park test match, Rahul had support in all the games he scored those big runs. Sachin himself has been with Rahul in lots of those innings. Rahul is a great match winner for India and Sachin could have been the greatest, had India had such a team in the 90's.

Sachin's contribution to Indian cricket is immense. In the entire 90's India's hopes just lay on sachin. If he was out the game was over, thats how it was most of the time. I still remember Aamir Sohail saying after beating India in Sharjah in 1994 that "once we got Sachin we knew we had won it" in spite of a 100 partnership between Bedade and kambli. Thats the pressure he carried on his shoulders at a young age. Not that easy for any player.

Scored hundred in all three formats of Indian domestic championship at the age of 15. Indian domestic setup was much harder those days and getting into a strong Bombay (Mumbai now) team was not that easy. He had something special in him to achieve something like that at such a young age. I still remember Sidhu saying in an interview that in the 89 series after getting hit by a bouncer by a quick Waqar bouncer on the nose, Sachin was bleeding and the phisio asked him if he wanted to go in, but a feeble voice inside the helmet said "Main Kheloonga" (I will play on) and scored a gutsy 59 in that hostile environment. That says something about the man. There ends the conversation. He is the best player for India in the last 2 decades and will remain one of the greats in spite of what people say.

 

[JeeraBlade]

^^
To win a test, yes - bowlers have to take 20 wickets but at the same time batsmen have to score more runs than the opposition. What's there to say that your bowlers did the job but the batsmen (Sachin) did not. One of the prime reasons your team is winning much more tests (as compared to era from 1930 to 1995) is of the late is because your batting line is much stronger. You have had some better bowlers than Kumble and Harbhajan e.g. Kapil and the spin quartet.
So, it is not just bowling that wins matches. When people point out Sachin's lack of contribution to wins --- to some extent they are right.

Now, if you take the opposite approach - where batsmen can loose a test match. For example the recent Pakistani's collapses in Sri Lanka -- or the 1999 Chennai test when Sachin was solely responsible for playing that shot that we played when he played - after playing one of my favorite innings by a non-Pakistani batsman. If acted just like any other batsman when another 15-20 minutes stay at the wicket would given India one of their most famous victories.

I never denied his child prodigy status. Yes, he was but so is Mohammad Aamir and so was Miandad at the age of 17-18.

 

[fawdu]

I did not say, Sachin's 51 outside Asia was not good. It is great but Dravid's is much better and record outside Asia counts more than record in Asia.

You had good analsys about spinners against both batsmen. I'll give you that one but only thing it proves is that Sachin has slightly better record at home against spinners. Most Indian players are historically good players of spin.


Please see post # 142 where I broke sachin's record into three stages. So, you are saying Sachin's ave of 48 (43 excluding Zim/BD) in last six years is same as Dravid's peek?

How much more weightage should be given to the outside Asia record? When you say Dravid is better because of his outside Asia record, you completely ignore the record in Asia and the outside Asia record becomes the only criteria.

A more balanced approach would be to take into account both the records. Dravid averages 6 more outside Asia. Sachin averages 8 more in Asia . Sachin averages more overall and over more innings.

The analysis against spinners shows that Sachin's record is much better than Dravid's and not slightly better.

And the comparison between the two was in context of contribution to victories. Tendulkar past his prime has contributed as much as Dravid is in prime.


But since you consider the away record the overwhelmingly overriding criteria, lets go a little deeper into that.

Overall away from home Sachin averages 54.28. Dravid 56.90. A very small difference of 2.52.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

Lets take away the minnows.

Now Sachin averages 52.20 http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...rderby=default;template=results;type=allround

Dravid 54.79.
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...rderby=default;template=results;type=allround

Again a small difference of 2.59.

Now since outside Asia record is more important lets take away Pakistan ans SL.

Now Sachin averages 52.25. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engin...rderby=default;template=results;type=allround

Dravid 55.91. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engin...rderby=default;template=results;type=allround

A small difference of 3.7.

Now since WI cricket has been in virtual free fall since Dravid's debut and has achieved near minnow status in this decade , lets take away WI as well.

Now Sachin averages 52.95. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...rderby=default;template=results;type=allround

Dravid averages 51.75. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...rderby=default;template=results;type=allround

Well now Sachin actually averages more than Dravid. So in conditions which ,according to you, are toughest for an Indian batsman to score in Sachin actually averages more. So shouldn't Sachin be the better batsman according to your own criteria?

When the difference in the averages is as small as 2 or 3 runs, it only takes a couple of series for ones average to go above the others. For Dravid those were the series in Zimbabwe in 05 and in WI in 2006.
Both the attacks were of minnow level. Had Sachin played in those series his overall average would have been more.

So again considering matches in which both Tendulkar and Dravid have played away against Aus, Eng, NZ, SA and WI Tendulkar has scored more runs in less innings than Dravid. Dravid average is 0.25 more. This has been inflated by the not outs.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...nvolve_type=all;template=results;type=batting

 

[LG]

I am glad you look up to Aussies as the ultimate cricket experts.

I do NOT!!
It was just a good post. I agree with ANYONE who I think is making a good point, and OZGOD convinced me there.

 

[bullseye7]

Who else? Off course Sunny. He is the most technically correct batsman ever to have played test cricket. I have not seen Sir Don. So I cannot comment on him.

 

[JeeraBlade]

How much more weightage should be given to the outside Asia record? When you say Dravid is better because of his outside Asia record, you completely ignore the record in Asia and the outside Asia record becomes the only criteria.

That is the debate. Being a Pakistani cricket fans, our batsmen generally don't have great record outside Asia therefore in my eyes, if a batsman scores in England, Australia, SAF, NZ and WI (70/80), it is considered an achievement.

But since you consider the away record the overwhelmingly overriding criteria, lets go a little deeper into that.

Overall away from home Sachin averages 54.28. Dravid 56.90. A very small difference of 2.52.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

Lets take away the minnows.

Now Sachin averages 52.20 http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...rderby=default;template=results;type=allround

Dravid 54.79.
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...rderby=default;template=results;type=allround

Again a small difference of 2.59.

Now since outside Asia record is more important lets take away Pakistan ans SL.

Now Sachin averages 52.25. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engin...rderby=default;template=results;type=allround

Dravid 55.91. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engin...rderby=default;template=results;type=allround

A small difference of 3.7.

Now since WI cricket has been in virtual free fall since Dravid's debut and has achieved near minnow status in this decade , lets take away WI as well.

Now Sachin averages 52.95. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...rderby=default;template=results;type=allround

Dravid averages 51.75. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...rderby=default;template=results;type=allround

Well now Sachin actually averages more than Dravid. So in conditions which ,according to you, are toughest for an Indian batsman to score in Sachin actually averages more. So shouldn't Sachin be the better batsman according to your own criteria?

Very nicely presented! I like your analysis better than Sachin's batting!

When the difference in the averages is as small as 2 or 3 runs, it only takes a couple of series for ones average to go above the others. For Dravid those were the series in Zimbabwe in 05 and in WI in 2006.
Both the attacks were of minnow level. Had Sachin played in those series his overall average would have been more.

So again considering matches in which both Tendulkar and Dravid have played away against Aus, Eng, NZ, SA and WI Tendulkar has scored more runs in less innings than Dravid. Dravid average is 0.25 more. This has been inflated by the not outs.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...nvolve_type=all;template=results;type=batting

You convinced me. There in not much difference between Dravid and Sachin.
I have almost following the whole career of Dravid vs Pakistan in ODIs and Test. For some reason, when ever Sachin came to bat, I was never "worried" becuase I knew that if bowler could not get Sachin out, Sachin will surely make a mistake and get out. I remember Wasim Akram used to easliy get Sachin out in ODI by making him play cut shot and be caught over the point. I think, he did that 2-3 times in an ODI series in Toronto.

Dravid on the other hand seldom made a mistake and bowler had get his wicket with his bowling.

Anyways, seem my post #1 - I did say, I can't decide between Dravid and Gavaskar and will decide who do I go with later in the thread. Well, Gavskar is now my #1 Indian bastman, Dravid #2 and Sachin being very very close #2.2.

 

[Tendlya Rules]

How much more weightage should be given to the outside Asia record? When you say Dravid is better because of his outside Asia record, you completely ignore the record in Asia and the outside Asia record becomes the only criteria.

A more balanced approach would be to take into account both the records. Dravid averages 6 more outside Asia. Sachin averages 8 more in Asia . Sachin averages more overall and over more innings.

The analysis against spinners shows that Sachin's record is much better than Dravid's and not slightly better.

And the comparison between the two was in context of contribution to victories. Tendulkar past his prime has contributed as much as Dravid is in prime.


But since you consider the away record the overwhelmingly overriding criteria, lets go a little deeper into that.

Overall away from home Sachin averages 54.28. Dravid 56.90. A very small difference of 2.52.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...orderby=default;template=results;type=batting

Lets take away the minnows.

Now Sachin averages 52.20 http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...rderby=default;template=results;type=allround

Dravid 54.79.
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...rderby=default;template=results;type=allround

Again a small difference of 2.59.

Now since outside Asia record is more important lets take away Pakistan ans SL.

Now Sachin averages 52.25. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engin...rderby=default;template=results;type=allround

Dravid 55.91. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engin...rderby=default;template=results;type=allround

A small difference of 3.7.

Now since WI cricket has been in virtual free fall since Dravid's debut and has achieved near minnow status in this decade , lets take away WI as well.

Now Sachin averages 52.95. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...rderby=default;template=results;type=allround

Dravid averages 51.75. http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...rderby=default;template=results;type=allround

Well now Sachin actually averages more than Dravid. So in conditions which ,according to you, are toughest for an Indian batsman to score in Sachin actually averages more. So shouldn't Sachin be the better batsman according to your own criteria?

When the difference in the averages is as small as 2 or 3 runs, it only takes a couple of series for ones average to go above the others. For Dravid those were the series in Zimbabwe in 05 and in WI in 2006.
Both the attacks were of minnow level. Had Sachin played in those series his overall average would have been more.

So again considering matches in which both Tendulkar and Dravid have played away against Aus, Eng, NZ, SA and WI Tendulkar has scored more runs in less innings than Dravid. Dravid average is 0.25 more. This has been inflated by the not outs.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...nvolve_type=all;template=results;type=batting

This is very well researched...Very well done...def. a good candidate for the POTW or POTM

 

[bullseye7]

Well, three thread are going on.
- Pakistan's best test batsman.
- Pakistan's best test bowler.
- Indian's best test bowler.

It is only appropriate that we start this thread. Plus, post #54 in "India's best Test bowler" thread also gave me this idea.

List of Indian batsmen with 5000+ runs in test cricket:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...al1=runs;team=6;template=results;type=batting


Top Indian batsmen home:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...al1=runs;team=6;template=results;type=batting


Top Indian batsmen away:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...al1=runs;team=6;template=results;type=batting


Top Indian batsmen in Asia:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...al1=runs;team=6;template=results;type=batting

Top Indian batsmen outside Asia:
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine...al2=runs;team=6;template=results;type=batting


My vote is split right in half - for Gavaskar and Dravid. I may be swayed to either one of them (Gavaskar or Dravid) by some of the comments I see in this thread later but right now it is hard to decide between Dravid and Gavaskar.

Sunny. No one else had concentration, technique as Gavaskar.

Besides Gavskar scored his runs against top bowling attack. His records against the West Indian fast demons are phenomenal.