Cold hard facts show Tendulkar is overrated
By Truf Saya, 25 Nov 2009 The Crowd is a Roar Guru
446 Have your say
Related coverage

Indian batsman Sachin Tendulkar nicks a delivery from Australian bowler Brett Lee - AAP Image/Julian Smith
In modern society, the media are the new priests. They pronounce on all manner of things with the air of being the ultimate authority. To challenge these experts is heresy. Yet it can be done.
These so-called experts are vulnerable in a variety of ways. For instance, you can dispute the credibility of their views by bringing forth facts. I believe Tendulkar is overrated and I believe I can show this with hard-core facts.
The only measure by which Tendulkar outshines other batman is the sheer volume of his runs. There are reasons for this and we shall examine them later. But by every other measure he is outshone. Lets look at those metrics.
1. AVERAGE: Sangakarra, Kallis and Ponting all have better averages. If we look at average by batting position Jayawardene also outranks Tendulkar. Note that Ponting and Sangakarra also play in the slightly less protected batting position of number 3. Tendulkar has never batted at this position.
2. 1000 RUNS PER CALENDAR YEAR: while Lara, Ponting and Tendulkar all have 5 years. Both Lara and Ponting have achieved theirs in much less time. Kallis has also achieved his four 1000+ years at a faster rate than Tendulkar.
3. MOST RUNS IN A TEN YEAR PERIOD: Ponting, Kallis, Dravid, Hayden, Jayawardene and Sangakkara have all scored more runs in the last ten years. Ponting has scored more than 2500 runs than Tendulkar over the same period, this despite batting at number 3. Indeed over EVERY single comparable Ten Year period Ponting has scored more runs than Tendulkar.
4. MAN OF THE MATCH: Kallis and Ponting both have more man of the match awards then Tendulkar. Kallis, Ponting, Lara, Hayden and Sangakarra all receive man of the match awards at a greater strike rate than Tendulkar.
So why does Tendulkar have so many runs?
Simply put, it comes down to two things: time and playing in India.
His longevity is a massive credit to him. But another reason is that playing for India and in India is a massive boost for batsmen and there are metrics that can show this clearly.
1. DRAWS: Tendulkar has played an incredible 66 draws! That is almost 41% of the matches he has played have ended in a draw. Remove those matches from his average calculations and his average drops a massive 5 runs to less than 50. That is around a 10% boost from those draws. His average in drawn matches is 65. Interestingly, an analysis of Dravid produces a similar conclusion.
2. MATCHES WHERE TEAMS SCORE GREATER THAN 600 RUNS: over 50% of matches where a team scores over 600 runs in the last ten years have been played in India. Indian pitches produce big scores.
3. GROUND AVERAGES: over the last 20 years, Indian grounds have averaged more than 70 runs per match than those outside of India (minimum 5 matches).
Discussions like the above can generate a lot of heat but not much light.
Amongst the palaver and the hyperbole, the figures reveal the truth about how good a player is. The truth is, Tendulkar is overrated.
Or rather, some lesser rated batsmen should be given more credit.
The Ashes journey begins
The Australian cricket team have left Australia to begin their tour of England, with a mission to reclaim the Ashes.
Australian captain Michael Clarke and his teammates were optimistic about their chances before jetting off.
Click here to hear the thoughts of our Australian cricket team as they left for England.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Cricket articles
- England are a greatly overrated Test team (175)
- DIZZY: Australian bowlers look the goods for the Ashes (76)
- Warner’s case to bat at six (74)
- The Aussie cricket team aren’t THAT bad (58)
- Clarke take note: England has some weak points for Ashes (48)
- David Warner unleashes stream of abuse on Twitter (46)
- DIZZY: It’s time for the Aussie batsmen to fulfill potential (43)
- New Zealand shows fight, and then capitulates, again. (12)
- How can we win the Ashes? (31)
- I should have called Craddock: Warner (33)
- Aussies Abroad: Journeymen expats tear up early County season (33)
- Adam Gilchrist bows out Gangnam Style (3)
- Landmark day for women’s sport as cricket cuts a cheque (15)
- Cricket Australia fines Warner (7)
- New Zealand shows fight, and then capitulates, again. (12)
- How can we win the Ashes? (31)
- Aussies Abroad: Journeymen expats tear up early County season (33)
- Adam Gilchrist bows out Gangnam Style (3)
- The Aussie cricket team aren’t THAT bad (58)
- Australians off to win back the urn (1)
- Has cricket corruption been filed in the ‘too hard’ basket? (2)
Recommend this story.


November 25th 2009 @ 2:13am
Wayne of Windale said | November 25th 2009 @ 2:13am | Report comment
I like it. Reminds me of when Christopher Hitchens called Mother Teresa a fraud and a fanatic, he was probably right too.
Everyone who reaches the top of their sport these days is referred to by the media as the “greatest ever”. Sampras had barely put down his racket when he found out he wasn’t the “greatest ever” anymore.
But I would say Tendulkar is one of the best cricketers of our time and if that is the claim the “media” is making then the stats only seem to support this. So it depends on how you are rating him as to whether he is over-rated.
But regardless, he is the batsman I have enjoyed watching most since I have been alive.
November 25th 2009 @ 2:52pm
Dave1 said | November 25th 2009 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
Why was Christopher Hitchens right to call Mother Teresa a fraud and a fanatic?
November 26th 2009 @ 4:59pm
sunil kumar said | November 26th 2009 @ 4:59pm | Report comment
well this is one of the worst article i have ever read to suit one’sopinion. you can use n number of figures to suppport your silly point but the fact is that tendulkar is the greatest among the modern generation.I can support my view with better statistics but this piece doesnt deserve it. you just come with 5 and 6 points and conclude on the grtness.
some more points
1.average doesnt determine greatness.
2.when tendulkar completed a decade these batsman were not even in the reckoning.
3.on the same indian pitches your pointing has batted like chris martin.
cricket is a team game and man of the match is given generally to winning team.
so Pls stop this silly blogging.since the name tendulkar attracts every one just to catch attention dont write anythin just for the heck of it.there is no denying the greatness of tendulkar,ponting,lara and dravid.so dont try to undermines one just beacuse you are the fan of other one.
February 24th 2010 @ 10:56pm
RAhul said | February 24th 2010 @ 10:56pm | Report comment
Wonder how overrated is double hundred against SA. I can only hope the editor is following Sachin over the last 20 years. Very easy to relate longevity to performance. Not as easy to carry the pressure of consistency over this extended period. Stats can be skewed every which way. Let’s consider ourselves lucky to have experienced these achievements from a class apart. Ponting and Kallis might have the same feelings. Comparison to Sachin should be honourable enough. Judging them to be better is what statisticians can at most conjure.
February 25th 2010 @ 1:55am
marees said | February 25th 2010 @ 1:55am | Report comment
problem with this blog-post has been that it considered only test match performances, which is out of sync with this age and times
Sachin is tipped to cross 100 international(Test + ODI) hundreds by the end of this year. Only major hole in his ODI cv is a missing world-cup trophy.
In ODIS, he now has FIVE 150+ scores
150+,
160+,
170+,
180+
and now 200*
February 25th 2010 @ 2:18pm
Dave1 said | February 25th 2010 @ 2:18pm | Report comment
Test cricket has risen in importance in recent years especially since the decline in ODI importanc
February 6th 2012 @ 2:40am
Mohit said | February 6th 2012 @ 2:40am | Report comment
..but the argument is that he chickens out whenever the situation demands..like he did today…
November 25th 2009 @ 2:21am
ohtani's jacket said | November 25th 2009 @ 2:21am | Report comment
Anything can be overrated if you put your mind to it. It all comes down to personal annoyance and to be honest I don’t think your arguments proved much, but I agree that Indian pitches are ridiculous. This current series being an example.
November 25th 2009 @ 2:58pm
Dave1 said | November 25th 2009 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
According to Rob Steen
http://www.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/433868.html
“….In the nineties, six teams drew at least 35% of their Tests; not one has done so this decade…”
December 5th 2009 @ 6:01am
sahil said | December 5th 2009 @ 6:01am | Report comment
If indian pitches are ridiculous and sachin has a higher average because he scores more in India then surely ricky ponting is a crap batsman because he cant bat for his life in India.
December 23rd 2009 @ 2:40pm
kumar said | December 23rd 2009 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
Yet, Tendulkar scores 1 run less away to his home average… And here is one more, Tendulkar has 24 centuries away, and just 19 at home…
Ponting’s home average is 60, and away average is 51, difference of 9 points… 9 points to 1 for tendulkar…. Ain’t cricket great…?
November 25th 2009 @ 2:42am
Philip Antony said | November 25th 2009 @ 2:42am | Report comment
Hi there very good findings abt Sachin..i guess Don Bradman made a mistake wen he compared himself wid Tendulkar????
Wat do you think abt that? Any statistical findings abt that matey?
Punter never had to face the likes of a feiry Aussie like bowling, his records or runs are very commendable but..most centuries scored against Aussies after Sir. Jack Hobbs? Have a look in Google …to update urself with the statistics..
Phil
Newzealand
November 25th 2009 @ 5:05am
Freud of Football said | November 25th 2009 @ 5:05am | Report comment
i dnt knw wot u iz saying Phil from Newzealand.
This isn’t a mobile phone and you aren’t writing a text message.
November 25th 2009 @ 7:02am
Philip Antony said | November 25th 2009 @ 7:02am | Report comment
Hey why u worry abt what i am writing mate? Thanks for finding out that this isnt a cell Phone ..
November 30th 2009 @ 5:56pm
Severian said | November 30th 2009 @ 5:56pm | Report comment
Don Bradman was the best batsman of all time, but that doesn’t make him infallible. He was still a human being who made mistakes, many of which happened when he was involved in cricket after he retired from playing. Watch the documentary “Cricket in the 70′s”, and you’ll see what the Aussie players of that time thought of him. Or read some of the things Tiger O’Reilly wrote about him.
His opinion on Tendulkar is not particularly relevant, given that he died 8 years ago at the age of 92, and Tendulkar hasn’t even retired yet. Cable tv only came into Aussie homes in the mid to late 90s, and India only played 11 test matches against Australia in the 1990s, so how much cricket could he have really seen Tendulkar play?
I think the tradgedy of Tendulkar is that he never got a chance to prove how great a player he really is, because India played so few test matches when he was in his prime, and so many of their wickets are too flat.
November 25th 2009 @ 2:54am
Philip Antony said | November 25th 2009 @ 2:54am | Report comment
Hi Just attaching a blog about tendulkar …dunno how you managed to find your data but…please read through…might help you….
ODI batsmen ranking based on what they have achieved over their careers.
The following 8 facors are considered.
1. Total runs scored (TRS)
2. Batting Average (AVGE)
3. Runs per Innings (RPI)
4. Strike Rate (STRT)
5. Quality of bowlers faced (BOWQTY)
6. % of Team runs (TRPER)
7. Wins achieved
– Absolute number of wins (WINS)
– Win % of matches played (WINSPER)
8. MOM awards received/frequency (MOM).
A brief description of each factor and the weights given to each parameter is outlined below. The total points add up to a nice round sum of 100.
1. Total runs scored (20 points)
This is a recognition of the longevity of the player. There is no doubt that the runs scored has to be given decent weightage. At the same time care has been taken to see that the olden era players such as Richards, Greenidge et al do not suffer unduly. My belief is that it is very unlikely for any batsman, including Tendulkar, to exceed 20000 runs. Hence the limit seems correct. The formula used is
TRS = Total runs scored / 1000.
2. Batting Average (15 points)
This is a straightforward calculation. We need not worry about not-outs since there is a separate factor for that. Since the batting average is unlikely ever to exceed 60.0, we are within the maximum level. The formula used is
AVGE = Batting average / 4.0.
Note: David Barry is doing some simulation work with a view to establish a correlation between Average and Strike Rates. It is too early to incorporate these first level findings. Hence at this stage I have taken the simple, easily understandable method of separating the Average and Strike Rate measures with individual weightages. Similarly Jeff Grimshaw’s ideas about treating balls played as a resource and giving credit for the same is quite good. However I do not want too many overlapping parameters. Already I have Average and RPI.
3. Runs per Innings (5 points)
This is to mitigate the factor of a high number of not-outs, especially for middle-order batsmen. Again a straightforward calculation. Since the Batting average is unlikely ever to exceed 50.0, we are within the maximum level. The formula used is
RPI = Runs per innings / 10.0.
Note: I briefly toyed with Abhihjeet Dongre’s excellent suggestion of excluding from the total number of innings the innings in which the batsman has finished not out at a score below his batting average. This redresses the balance towards middle order batsmen slightly. However I have finally rejected this tweak since I feel that they have already got the full benefit of not outs while calculating the Batting Average. The purpose of separation of these two factors will be lost if I do not use the full complement of innings played.
4. Strike Rate (25 points)
I consider this factor as the most important measure and that is reflected in the weightage. However much we talk about the importance of scoring runs, it is essential that these are scored at a reasonable pace. It does not mean that every century should be a run-a-ball one. However, it is true that many a match has been lost because the batsmen have not moved up the scoring rate at the right time.
However a major tweak has been done. The actual strike rates have been adjusted up or down based on the decade scoring rates pro-rata. In other words, if Viv Richards played between 1975 and 1991, his actual scoring rate has been adjusted pro-rata for the three decades, viz., 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. In general this will mean that the older players will get a slight benefit since the scoring rates were lower, as indicated in the table below.
AllMats 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s
Matches played 2759 82 516 933 1228
Batsmen innings 47947 1418 8838 16266 21425
Runs scored 1142018 30292 202884 386508 522334
Balls bowled 1473233 46208 277516 505727 643782
Runs per ball 0.775 0.656 0.731 0.764 0.811
% of all-matches avge 100.0% 84.6% 94.3% 98.6% 104.7%
The actual and adjusted strike rates for a few top players is given below. All these adjustments seem very reasonable. The only clear cases are for batsmen such as Pietersen and Dhoni who have played all their matches in the current decade and hence have the same adjustment of -4.4%. The others are pro-rata. For instance, Tendulkar’s and Lara’s strike rates have been adjusted much less since they have played during 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Zaheer Abbas gains the maximum since his career spanned 1975-1985, the low-scoring years.
Batsman Prev SR Adj SR % chg
Richards I.V.A 90.2 98.4 +9.1%
Haynes D.L 63.1 66.9 +6.0%
Jones D.M 72.6 75.4 +3.9%
Greenidge C.G 64.9 70.8 +9.1%
Zaheer Abbas 80.0 89.7 +12.1%
Tendulkar S.R 85.5 84.6 -1.1%
Jayasuriya S.T 91.0 90.1 -1.1%
Gilchrist A.C 96.9 94.4 -2.7%
Lara B.C 79.5 78.6 -1.3%
Sehwag V 99.1 95.3 -3.8%
Shahid Afridi 111.2 108.2 -2.7%
Klusener L 89.9 88.2 -1.9%
Dhoni M.S 91.3 87.2 -4.4%
Pietersen K.P 87.5 83.6 -4.4%
Since the only Strike Rate to exceed 1.00 is that of Shahid Afridi, I have accepted the fact that only he will exceed the maximum level. The formula used is
STRT = (Adjusted) Strike Rate x 25.0.
5. Quality of bowling faced (15 points)
This is a double weighted adjustment. The objective is to make sure that the runs acored against stronger teams such as Australia are given much higher weighting than the runs scored against weaker countries such as Zimbabwe. Care also has to be taken that the weaker Australian teams such as those during the mid-1980s are treated accordingly. The complex process is explained below.
First a bowling quality index is found for each innings. This is done by the following formula (somewhat similar to the one used by David Barry). I had thought of this earlier, but dismissed it as too complex. Now I think it is necessary.
Sum of (Balls bowled by each bowler x Bowler’s bowling avge)
Innings BQI = —————————————————–
Sum of (Balls bowled by each bowler)
In one of my earlier articles on Team Strength analysis I used a simple average of the top 5 Bowling averages. That was when I was trying to find the strength of team as it walked on to the field. However here I am trying to find how valuable the batsman’s innings was. Hence the actual deployment of the bowling resources is necessary. Wasim Akram will make the Pakistani team that much strong, on paper, however, if he did not bowl a single ball, to that extent the bowling lacks sting.
Now comes the second weighting. For this the actual scores of batsman and the Innings BQI are used. The formula is explained below.
Sum of (Batsman innings score x Innings BQI)
Batsman career BQI = ——————————————–
Sum of (Batsman innings score)
There is some convergence of values as batsmen score many runs. Note the BOWQTY value for the top 5 batsmen. Hence special care has to be taken to assign points. Amongst batsmen who have scored greater than 2000 runs, Craig McMillan is the best with a BQI of 34.48 and Habibul Bashar the worst with a BQI of 43.47. If we lower the limit to 1000 runs, Nicky Boje is the best with a BQI of 31.3 and Glenn Turner the worst with a BQI of 47.63. No batsman has a career BQI below 30.00 and no batsman has a career BQI above 50.0. The Batsman career BQI is used to derive the index value based on the following formula.
BOWQTY = 50.0 – Batsman career BQI.
6. % of Team runs (5 points).
The value of a batsman to the team is also determined by the share of the batting load he takes. In other words the % of team runs he scores. This is a secondary parameters and has a weighting only of 5 points. With a criteria of 2500 runs and above, the highest share of team runs scored is by Zaheer Abbas with 21.6%, followed by Greenidge with 19.2%, then by Richards with 19.2% and finally by Tendulkar with 18.1%. The formula used is
TSPER = % of Team share * 20.0.
Upto this point, the full weight will be given only if the batsman has scored above 2000 runs. Else the points secured will be proportionately downsized.
7. Wins achieved (5 points)
Winning is something special, if not everything (as the Americans profess). No one wants to lose. Hence we should give value to this important aspect of the game without going overboard. This is done in two parts. The first is to derive an index value solely based on the number of wins achieved. This will benefit players who have played more games and have been part of successful teams. The highest number of wins achieved is 220 by Jayasuriya, followed by Ponting with 216, Inzamam with 214, Gilchrist with 214 and Tendulkar with 206. The formula used is
WINS = No of wins /50.0.
8. Win % achieved (5 points)
What about Richards who achieved 132 wins in 187 matches (a 70.6 win %), which is much higher than that of Tendulkar, 206 wins in 417 matches (49.4%) or Steve Waugh, 196 in 325 (60.3%). His win % suffers only in comparison to the current Australian team, some of whom having over 75%.
This factor addresses this problem. Credit is given to the % of wins achieved, subject to minimum number of matches being reached. The formula used is
WINSPER = % of wins x 5.0.
9. MOM awards received (5 points).
The last parameter is on the MOM awards achieved. This is the only subjective measure, as pointed to by Shankar Krishnan of Riyadh. However since this is the only individual evaluation measure available I have to consider it. Whatever be the idiosyncracies of the adjudicators there is no doubt that the MOM awards are a pointer to the contribution to the wins achieved by the team.
I have tried to remove the subjective factor, to a certain extent, by considering the frequency of awards also in addition to the absolute number of awards. This is also fair to the older players. Consider this. Richards has got 31 awards in 187 matches. He lags far behind Jayasuriya who has got 45 awards in 415 matches. However when we consider the frequency, Richards has a frequency of one in 6 matches, while Jayasuriya, one in 9.2 matches. Incidentally Tendulkar leads the absolute number of awards with 55. The frequency ranges from 6.0 to 20.0 (limiting value). The formula used is
MOM = (MOM Awards/30.0) + (3.0 * (20.0 – MOM Frequency)/15.0).
For the last two points, the full weight will be given only if the batsman has played above 50 matches. Else the points secured will be proportionately downsized.
Now the table of top 30 ODI batsmen of all time. The table is current upto match 2759, the facile English win over the hapless South Africans, giving them a 4-0 lead.
The top ODI batsmen of all time – as on 28 August 2008.
No.Cty Batsman Total Runs Avge R/I S/R BwQty Wins Win% % TS MOMs
100.0 20.0 15.0 5.0 25.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
1.Ind Tendulkar S.R 79.27 16.36 11.08 4.02 21.16 12.13 4.12 2.47 3.61 4.32
2.Win Richards I.V.A 73.14 6.72 11.75 4.02 24.60 12.20 2.64 3.53 3.85 3.83
3.Slk Jayasuriya S.T 72.24 12.80 8.18 3.13 22.52 12.01 4.44 2.64 2.89 3.63
4.Aus Ponting R.T 71.87 11.11 10.81 3.81 19.63 12.63 4.32 3.59 3.19 2.78
5.Aus Gilchrist A.C 71.12 9.62 8.97 3.45 23.59 12.12 4.04 3.52 2.93 2.88
6.Win Lara B.C 67.70 10.40 10.12 3.60 19.64 12.38 2.78 2.33 3.43 3.01
7.Saf Kallis J.H 67.70 9.61 11.17 3.64 17.33 12.98 3.50 3.15 3.26 3.05
8.Pak Inzamam-ul-Haq 66.72 11.74 9.88 3.35 18.31 11.81 4.28 2.83 3.04 1.48
9.Aus Bevan M.G 66.00 6.91 13.40 3.53 18.31 13.88 3.10 3.34 3.00 0.53
10.Ind Ganguly S.C 65.87 11.36 10.26 3.79 18.14 10.64 2.98 2.40 3.27 3.03
11.Pak Saeed Anwar 65.55 8.82 9.80 3.62 20.20 10.95 2.82 2.85 3.42 3.07
12.Aus Waugh M.E 65.50 8.50 9.84 3.60 19.39 12.29 3.04 3.11 3.22 2.52
13.Aus Symonds A 65.43 5.01 10.09 3.19 22.41 12.58 2.98 3.86 2.58 2.74
14.Slk de Silva P.A 65.02 9.28 8.73 3.14 20.61 12.52 2.56 2.08 3.06 3.05
15.Win Haynes D.L 64.62 8.65 10.34 3.65 16.74 12.16 3.18 3.34 3.63 2.93
16.Saf Gibbs H.H 63.66 7.59 9.12 3.39 20.24 11.95 2.88 3.12 3.03 2.36
17.Ind Dravid R 63.47 10.59 9.87 3.44 17.36 13.25 3.14 2.36 3.00 0.47
18.Pak Mohammad Yousuf 63.22 9.24 10.80 3.64 18.19 10.81 3.12 2.90 3.12 1.40
19.Saf Kirsten G 63.06 6.80 10.24 3.67 17.88 13.45 2.40 3.24 3.35 2.03
20.Saf Klusener L 62.90 3.58 10.28 2.61 22.05 13.92 2.18 3.19 2.27 2.83
21.Aus Jones D.M 62.82 6.07 11.15 3.77 18.86 11.99 1.96 2.99 3.55 2.48
22.Aus Hayden M.L 62.80 6.13 10.95 3.96 19.36 12.26 2.38 3.70 3.34 0.72
23.Pak Javed Miandad 62.74 7.38 10.43 3.39 17.98 13.04 2.38 2.55 3.40 2.18
24.Saf Rhodes J.N 62.73 5.93 8.78 2.70 20.11 15.00 3.10 3.16 2.46 1.47
25.Eng Pietersen K.P 62.46 2.82 11.96 3.87 20.90 14.46 0.68 2.10 3.44 2.24
26.Ind Sehwag V 62.31 5.81 8.11 3.12 23.82 12.41 1.90 2.49 2.70 1.95
27.Ind Dhoni M.S 62.26 3.79 11.85 3.54 21.80 12.73 1.30 2.71 2.90 1.63
28.Ind Azharuddin M 62.10 9.38 9.23 3.04 18.97 12.09 3.20 2.40 2.90 0.89
29.Aus Waugh S.R 61.95 7.57 8.23 2.63 19.26 13.75 3.92 3.02 2.38 1.21
30.Saf Cronje W.J 61.91 5.57 9.66 3.18 19.26 13.51 2.34 3.11 2.92 2.35
Tendulkar is on top, and deservedly so. He has not only scored lots of runs but scored these at a good pace, scored these against good bowlers and contributed more than his share to the Indian cause.
Richards is in second place, again deservedly so. He has scored only 6721 runs, but made up for the huge shortfall in index points with his outstanding average, strike rate, win % and MOM frequency. He may very well move a little bit down in the list in the years to come. But will not lose any of the aura.
Jayasuriya is next, having made up for his low Average and RPI with a mountain of runs scored at a scorching pace. The Lankan readers will be happy that the contributions of the entertainer non-pareil have been recognized. He has managed to retain the third position depsite a poor run of ODI matches against India.
Ponting and Gilchrist, two great Australian batsman, follow in the next two positions, through different combination of high points. Ponting with high average and good strike rate while Gilchrist with lower average and excellent strike rate. Both have great win related numbers.
Lara, Kallis Inzamam, Bevan and Ganguly complete the top 10. This elite placing of these quality batsmen cannot be debated. In fact Lara and Kallis exchanged places after the last match.
There is no doubt that players such as Pietersen (25th currently), Sehwag (26th), Dhoni (27th) and Hussey (39th) will move up the list as they score more runs. However this may be partly compensated by the possible decrease in their averages. Dhoni is surely on the way to becoming an excellent finisher in the Bevan/Hussey mode and as such is unlikely to drop his average. Pietersen’s average could drop a little bit. Hussey’s could drop significantly unless otherwise he does what Bevan did over a long career.
It should be noted that if we change the weightings, the batsmen will move up or down the list. For instance, Strike Rate could be reduced to 20 points. In that case, Jayasuriya and Ponting will exchange places. But these are minor movements only. It is my firm belief that the top 2, Tendulkar and Richards will remain where they are, whatever be the weightings.
Batsmen such as Kluesener, Dhoni and Pietersen, who have not even scored 4000 ODI runs have managed to reach the top 30 positions in the all-time best batsmen table. This indicates that the weightings for non-longevity measures have been given due importance.
Finally, one important point to be noted. No analyst starts with an idea to prove that one batsman is superior to another or push their favourite batsmen on top. Such shallow analyses will be found out in no time at all. The idea is to come out with a vehicle for healthy discussion and exchange of views. Hence please avoid rude and vicious comments. They have no chance of being read by any one. Pl make your point in a courteous and acceptable manner. The readers have their right to be heard but also their responsibilities to be constructive and courteous.
To view the complete list, click here
This list consists of batsmen who have scored a minimum of 1000 ODI runs. Please remember that many of the calculated points are downsized for batsmen in the 1000-2000 range. They are included only to show where some of the batsmen from the lesser countries stand.
Summary response to readers’ comments (Possible tweaks)
1. Avoidance of double weighting for “Wins”.
2. Possible cap on Runs scored weighting.
3. Adjust for the paucity of matches played during the early 10 years.
4. Giving weight to key tournament wins such as World Cup and Champion’s Trophy.
5. The subjective nature of MOMs, already mentioned by me in the main post does not go well with readers.
6. Quite a few readers have, while accepting Tendulkar’s position at no.1, have questioned the wide gap between Tendulkar and Richards. It worries some readers that this gap will keep on widening
November 25th 2009 @ 11:31am
davido said | November 25th 2009 @ 11:31am | Report comment
This is a great effort at getting an overall ranking system.
I would suggest that the ICC rankings do a credible job of doing this now.
Also, why not include Batting position? Surely Gilly gets some credit for coming out and slamming bowlers from the get go?
November 25th 2009 @ 11:40am
Greg Russell said | November 25th 2009 @ 11:40am | Report comment
The above is all interesting but irrelevant, because it is about ODI cricket, whereas the discussion is on test cricket.
Further, because of the point about pitches in India, ODI statistics have to be regarded very carefully. For many Indians the point of an ODI is as much (or more) to see Tendulkar score a century as it is to win or even have a good match. A lot of pitches are prepared accordingly.
The ICC Players Rankings system attempts to take into account docility of the pitch and quality of the opposition, with performances being scaled accordingly. It is not perfect but no system like this can be. Tendulkar does well with this system but in general he falls short of matching Ponting and even Hayden (e.g. remember the big fuss in India a few years ago about Hayden being 9th on the all-time list for tests whereas Tendulkar was only something like 26th).
Of course people will believe what they want to believe when it comes to subjective issues like this. But I tend to think that the ICC’s ranking system is as close to objective as there is.
April 12th 2010 @ 9:10pm
Curious said | April 12th 2010 @ 9:10pm | Report comment
I am quite curious to know — how does one “prepare” a pitch where only *one* batsman, in this case, SRT, can score a century?
November 25th 2009 @ 2:57am
ABH said | November 25th 2009 @ 2:57am | Report comment
Here’s some other cold hard facts for you:
1)Till 01/01/2003: The big 3 :SRT 8811@ 57.6 31 hun, BCL 7572@49.5 18 hun; Pont 4246 @ 48.8 14 hun. After mid 2007 again Tendulkar trumps Ponting,Dravid etc.
2) After the 2003 WC-2006, here’s a short bio of Tendulkar:
April 2003: Hand surgery. Most of the next 2 seasons affected by Tennis elbow. At one point in 2004 could not pick up a bat for 6 months. Prematurely brought back after attempting conservative treatment for tennis elbow after India lost the first 2 home tests to Aus. With the inevitable result-more pain and a forced surgery . May 2005: elbow surgery. April 2006: shoulder surgery.
Tendulkar has had some injuries before but they were not all compressed into a short period so recurring. (1998: back injury, 2001 broken toe). So, you have time to get back your rhythm after injury, provided you don’t again get another one.
So, in the years 2003/05/06 , it is not ONLY the pontings,Laras,dravids who massively outscored Tendulkar , but just about every Tom,Dick and Hussey.
This was probably the EASIEST time for batting in cricket HISTORY.
Around mid 2007 Tendulkar got some respite from almost continous injuries and started to get back to something like normal again.
3)Infact if you consider only the 90s Tendulkar avg. almost 60 with Ponting less than 50 and Lara just shading 50.
4)Obviously at his best Tendulkar was the best. That too at a particularly difficult time for batting. Plus you need add ODIs to the workload. I’m afraid in modern day cricket you simply cannot segregate Tests and ODIs. They are joined at the hip. Not a single modern day great has given up ODIs for Tests in his prime.
SO, other batsmen ONLY “outrunned”,”outaveraged”,”outhundreded” etc.Tendulkar for some 4 yrs during his injury ridden spell ( when it was rumoured that he may even retired)….the thing is that in those 4/5 years they put on such OBSCENE runs in such EASY conditions that it has VASTLY inflated their overall stats…completely distorting the true picture.
Basically, out of a 20 yr career, ONLY during a 4 yr spell can any batsmen have said to continously outperformed Tendulkar.
The stats merely affirm what we fans already know (with the possible exception of the author):i.e
The other batsmen ONLY match up to Tendulkar when Tendulkar is injured.
And as of course mentioned the unmatched ODI stats ..Plus intangibles like obscene pressure etc….Tendulkar is simply a Gulliver among Lilliputians. As Roebuck states in a recent article, even stats cannot quite capture the picture as you are attempting to do.
November 25th 2009 @ 3:05am
saurabh said | November 25th 2009 @ 3:05am | Report comment
Good one Philip…ur nt geting the point Truf , we in India r celebrating sachin fr nt only his cricket bt fr wat pleasure nd confidence he has given us…it rquires more then cricket for ppl around the world to love players like Sir Don and Sachin. They made diffrence to ppl (lot of ppl).
November 25th 2009 @ 3:09am
ABH said | November 25th 2009 @ 3:09am | Report comment
Just a few articles about Tendulkar’s “overating”. Please read and learn:
1)Born to bat- Peter Roebuck 2) Once in a century star- Steve Waugh 3) Sachins top of my batpack- Nasser Hussain 3)The end is nigh but Tendulkar is not yet finished- Paul Moon 5) Only Sachin Tendulkar can equal Don Bradman- John Woodcock.6)Tendulkar’s final onslaught etc. There are numerous others but these are a good starter course for the ignorant.cheers.
November 25th 2009 @ 12:04pm
Greg Russell said | November 25th 2009 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
And yet Roebuck is the man who famously wrote of Lara: “I never thought I would write this, but another Bradman could be upon us.” He’s never written that of Tendulkar.
Re your list of Tendulkar injuries above, I suggest you check how often Ponting has been injured. Not as often as Tendulkar, but still enough to make a significant dent. (Not to mention too that Lara had his problems.)
Curiously, one name you do not mention above is Warne, who has rated Sachin as the best he has bowled to. On this matter I rate his opinion far more highly than those you list, because he actually had to bowl to Tendulkar, who of course won most of their battles. But even that gives reason for putting an asterisk next to Warne’s assessment, because it means he pretty much has to rate Tendulkar no. 1.
As it so happens I have corresponded with Roebuck on this matter. His opinion is more a holistic one, based not just on batting, but on the way Tendulkar has lived a dignified and scandal-free life under the brightest of spotlights, and the way he has scored mountains of runs even though he has to bear immense pressure to perform from a billion Indians. Indeed. That said, Tendulkar lost quite a bit of my respect when he lied in the Bollywood inquiries in order to protect his good friend Harbhajan (and that is fact, not opinion).
But in terms of whom we like best as a batsman, in the end what we are dealing with here is opinions. Maybe Roebuck was just being polite, but after some discussion he ended up agreeing with my opinion that if one looked only at the dazzling quality of batting on the field, then Lara and Gilchrist rate ahead of Tendulkar and Ponting. I would possibly even throw Hayden into my top 3, recognizing that opening batting is a different kettle of cricket. Too often I saw Lara, Gilchrist and Hayden do things that I never thought possible. Yes, Tendulkar also does special things, but not ones that I find set him apart. When it comes to the Indians, I have always found that VVS is the player who does “very very special” things, especially against Australia!
But hey, they are just opinions. The ICC’s pseudo-objective ranking system backs up a lot of my opinions (see comment above), but maybe I’m just lucky in this regard.
November 25th 2009 @ 3:16pm
ABH said | November 25th 2009 @ 3:16pm | Report comment
Really now? Roebuck has categorically written that “Tendulkar is without a doubt the best batsman I have ever seen”…never mind Roebuck. An observer as wizened, experienced and one who has seen it all -Benaud has said the same thing.
I remember this other anectode too:
It was 1992. The 18-year-old was up on his toes, carving bowlers like cuts of prime Australian beef to all parts of Perth’s WACA ground. The murmurs around the press box grew. The boy had ability, potential, even the makings of a world-class batsman. John Woodcock could bear it no longer. The cricket correspondent of the London Times, wearing his 70s well, stood up, put out his hands and called for silence. “Gentlemen,” he declared, “he is the best batsman I have seen in my life.” A pause later: “And unlike most of you, I have seen Bradman.”
Actually considering that basically Ponting and Lara are the only batsmen in the same frame as Tendulkar it is instructive to note:
Lara: Sachin is the best batsman I’ve ever seen or played against.
Ponting:Sachin is the best batsman I’ve ever seen or played against.
Think these guys may know a thing or two about batting?
November 25th 2009 @ 5:56pm
davido said | November 25th 2009 @ 5:56pm | Report comment
I am not South African, but I really think Kallis IS in the same league as Tendulkar, Lara and Ponting.
November 25th 2009 @ 9:05pm
Justin said | November 25th 2009 @ 9:05pm | Report comment
No he isnt. He is a great batsmen no doubt but he is a rung below. Why do I say that?
Well essentially Ponting and Lara have a strike rate in tests of 60, Kallis is in the low 40s, I think 44.
Clearly Ponting and Lara could and did dominate attacks whereas Kallis and Dravid were more accumulators of runs and more defensive. They dont win you Tests like RT and BL.
Unfortunately there is no strike rate for Tendles in Tests though he has 85 v 80 for RT and BL in ODIs.
We are splitting hairs on this sort of debate though, there are so many variables you could use to determine it or argue why ones numbers are better. Ground sizes, pitches, opposition, the list goes on.
The only thing I know is that Ponting kills them as a fieldsman…
November 26th 2009 @ 4:13pm
Dave1 said | November 26th 2009 @ 4:13pm | Report comment
Looks like after 135 tests Tendlular had a strike rate of 53.90.
http://www.playwickets.com/uploads/Int_l_4_Cards.pdf
November 26th 2009 @ 11:34am
Craig said | November 26th 2009 @ 11:34am | Report comment
ABH, Benaud said Tendulkar is the best batsman he has ever seen?
When?
November 26th 2009 @ 3:57pm
ABH said | November 26th 2009 @ 3:57pm | Report comment
August 1st 2011 @ 7:03pm
Wookie said | August 1st 2011 @ 7:03pm | Report comment
Its called being polite, politicly correct and tactful. Tendulkar would say the same thing of Ponting and Lara if asked.
November 25th 2009 @ 3:28pm
ABH said | November 25th 2009 @ 3:28pm | Report comment
And too reiterate what I said: it is ONLY when Tendulkar was injured that the others even appear in the same frame.
Pontings injuries have been relatively mild compared to Tendulkars. Im sure you can check these out for yourself.
Another thing you want to be careful about when using stats: Ponting,Dravid,Kallis etc were fortunate to have a greater “density” of test matches when at their peaks so filling their boots silly between around 2003-07. The fact that this was perhaps the easiest time in history for batting is easily checked- simply check the stats for the top 25-30 batsmen- they will blow your mind. Infact ANY fit ,reasonably good batsman had the BEST consecutive years of their careers in this patch . Including guys like lara, inzy etc. Lara now has his BEST consecutive years from the age of 34 on!
As rgds.dazzling innings or what have you that if very much in the eye of the beholder. During the 90s Tendulkar carried the team- he practically pulled up the other players up in to a higher level-demanding excellence. Only from around 2001 on was the Indian team even half good.
As rgds. bowlers surprisingly I would not put TOO much emphasis on their opinions as compared to other batsmen!
ESPECIALLY when comparing supreme right and left handers like Tendulkar and Lara.( perhaps ok while comparing on either right or left handers)- this is because then factors like angles ,biomechanics etc start to play a HUGE part. For eg. simply check out Muralis record against ANY good leftie.
Another thing you conveniently forget is that if India had not got so infatuated by ODIs god alone knows what Tendulkars Test stats would have been with proportionately less injuries etc.So, ALL factors have to be taken holistically. Starting from an intitial bias and then picking and choosing stats or other factore will OBVIOUSLY lead your right back to your starting point.
I could go on- but whats the point?
November 25th 2009 @ 5:59pm
davido said | November 25th 2009 @ 5:59pm | Report comment
I sort of object to the Tendulkar injury line of argument.
A) How do you account for the fact Ponting for instance has missed more matches due to injury?
and in light of that fact…
B) how do you account for the fact that over EVERY SINGLE ten year period you can compare Ponting scores more runs than Tendulkar.
You also ignore that Tendulkar has the incredible advantage of batting at no.4. He obviously faces
second string bowlers a lot more than a no.3 batsman. He also faces less of a new ball.
November 25th 2009 @ 6:43pm
ABH said | November 25th 2009 @ 6:43pm | Report comment
have posted a comment below looking at 3 yr periods.
as also tendulkars predominantly injury years.2003,05,06.
since some 30 other batsmen have done much much better than tendulkar in those years ( check for yourself) it should be obvious how much injuries took their toll.
you know…
strange thing. …we may perhaps have missed out on the best ( at least the most prolific) of tendulkar!!…odd though that may seem
November 26th 2009 @ 4:37am
U2 said | November 26th 2009 @ 4:37am | Report comment
Again, you can’t hand-pick statistics or facts. You say, Tendulkar had an “incredible advantage of batting at no. 4″. From the start of Tendulkar’s career until 2008 (19 years later), India never had a settled opening pair of batsmen, let alone a great duo (Sehwag-Gambhir are now settling into an excellent pair.) Walking in at scores like 30/2 and attempting a rescue with Dravid was the basically the norm of things from 1997-2007. Do you seriously think Ponting had a tougher time batting behind Hayden-Langer?
November 26th 2009 @ 11:39am
Craig said | November 26th 2009 @ 11:39am | Report comment
Ponting now bats at three behind Shane Watson.
Sounds to me like you are hand-picking statistics.
November 25th 2009 @ 3:32pm
Dave1 said | November 25th 2009 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
In regards to injuries
http://blogs.cricinfo.com/itfigures/archives/2009/11/least_number_of_absences_over.php
Least number of absences over a long career
November 25th 2009 @ 6:51pm
ABH said | November 25th 2009 @ 6:51pm | Report comment
dave1. dont mean to go on. but its not just the pure stats or missed matches. just as an eg. i remember when in 2004 (05)? – i forget…there was a phase when tendulkar could not even PICK UP a bat for 6 months. then b4 he could even barely get a net in they rushed him back after 2 tests out against aus(coz india were getting walloped)…with the inevitable result…a flop..further injury,leading to surgery…
it is the type of injuries ,how they affect your game etc.
http://www.cricinfo.com/sachinat20/content/story/307878.html
the above may give some sort of insight into what i mean
November 26th 2009 @ 11:46am
Craig said | November 26th 2009 @ 11:46am | Report comment
ABH, is there a cricket stat for performances by batsman whilst carrying an injury?
Just as you highlight Tendulkar, do you know that Lara and Ponting have not suffered the same?
And if they have, do they, or Tendulkar for that matter, deserve their records to be adjusted accordingly?
Does a physical injury hamper one the same as a mental injury, such as stress? Does that not deserve the same consideration?
So many factors to consider.
November 26th 2009 @ 4:09pm
ABH said | November 26th 2009 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
Craig,
Im not talking about adjusting records here. What are we discussing here?
how good a batsman is right?
so, we need to provide context to stats…
like i said , without context (and just stats)you have some 30 batsmen who are all better than tendulkar for much of the 2000s.
stats are an indicator…not the end all.
i think just in the Dons case…when your stats are so freaky…that it almost kills off all debate,
then stats are guidelines…
especially in a team sport like cricket…there is soooo much to consider…team compositions, pitches, where runs were scored, when, what conditions, against which bowlers…….etc etc
so,when with class batsmen like tendulkar, lara and ponting( with not much diff in the stats)…the intangibles and observeables are obviously paramount.
like i said…if u start with a particular premise , such as “X is the best” or “Y is not so good”…then obviously u can pick, chose and filter stats as you pls to support your conclusion.
November 30th 2009 @ 11:03am
Craig said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:03am | Report comment
the context is………you are picking and choosing stats to prove your point.
November 25th 2009 @ 4:38pm
ABH said | November 25th 2009 @ 4:38pm | Report comment
Just one last thing ! then im outta here! (getting monotonous)
am sure roebuck wrote that in around ’94 when lara was scoring all those huge runs in both international and county cricket. heck, ANYONE would have made a comment like that then.
you want to check what people say at the after watching all batsmen for quite a while dont you?
I remember hussey averaging 90+ for a while (“mr cricket” and what not)….
when you consider ALL facets, all aspects of batting ,all formats, all types of bowling, pound for pound – it is truly difficult to look beyond Tendulkar as the best modern day batsman.
November 25th 2009 @ 4:47pm
Dave1 said | November 25th 2009 @ 4:47pm | Report comment
When did Roebuck become the font of all truth? What parrallel universe have I woken up in?
November 25th 2009 @ 5:56pm
ABH said | November 25th 2009 @ 5:56pm | Report comment
True, was simply replying to “greg” above.
November 26th 2009 @ 12:23pm
Greg Russell said | November 26th 2009 @ 12:23pm | Report comment
You were the guy who introduced Roebuck (see your second comment). I was merely keying off that.
Indeed, Roebuck made the “Bradman” comment about Lara in 1994-5 after his 501 in county cricket. So that was an early-career judgement. You are right to express caution about that. However you are the person who has quoted John Woodcock on the 18-year-old Tendulkar as evidence of his pre-eminence. You can’t have it both ways: either early-career judgements are allowed or they are not.
In all your comments you completely neglect the ICC’s rankings, which are the least subjective measure of player performance, taking into account things like docility of the pitch and quality of opposition bowling. These rankings definitely do not show that Sachin is no. 1 for his own era.
Whether you like it or not, you have to accept that a decent proportion of Sachin’s test career has been played on batting superhighways like those of the current Ind-SL series. Thus his raw averages and aggregates cannot be directly compared with those not so fortunate to play so often on pitches like this. You need to understand and accept this.
November 26th 2009 @ 11:52am
Craig said | November 26th 2009 @ 11:52am | Report comment
ABH – an earlier post from you, above:
“It was 1992. The 18-year-old was up on his toes, carving bowlers like cuts of prime Australian beef to all parts of Perth’s WACA ground. The murmurs around the press box grew. The boy had ability, potential, even the makings of a world-class batsman. John Woodcock could bear it no longer. The cricket correspondent of the London Times, wearing his 70s well, stood up, put out his hands and called for silence. “Gentlemen,” he declared, “he is the best batsman I have seen in my life.” A pause later: “And unlike most of you, I have seen Bradman.”
so considering you now comment “you want to check what people say at the after watching all batsmen for quite a while dont you?”, your Woodcock quote should be disregarded completely. As should Bradman’s comments comparing Tendulkar to himself.
November 26th 2009 @ 3:30pm
ABH said | November 26th 2009 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
ok.fair enough.
cheers
November 26th 2009 @ 4:28pm
ABH said | November 26th 2009 @ 4:28pm | Report comment
Another thing the article “only sachin tendulkar can equal don bradman” by john woodcock was sometime in 2002/03 i reckon. a good decade after woodcock made his “tendulkar is better than bradman” comment.
November 26th 2009 @ 4:40pm
ABH said | November 26th 2009 @ 4:40pm | Report comment
Actually, on second thought.
at the risk of some “dead horse flogging”..
i think i it is obvious that roebuck was referring to laras undeniable penchant for “big scores” more than perhaps batting ability.
whereas clearly woodcock was referring to “batting ability”
November 26th 2009 @ 11:32am
Craig said | November 26th 2009 @ 11:32am | Report comment
“That said, Tendulkar lost quite a bit of my respect when he lied in the Bollywood inquiries in order to protect his good friend Harbhajan (and that is fact, not opinion).”
Terrific stuff Greg. Couldn’t agree more. Would have to be the most overlooked cricket statistic in existense :
Times A Player Has Appeared At A ICC Judicial Enquiry And Lied, Causing An International Incident – 1, Sachin Tendulkar.
November 26th 2009 @ 3:39pm
ABH said | November 26th 2009 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
Fair enough that you see it that way as an Aussie.
Obviously you will look at it from your particular angle.
But there is another viewpoint, from the Indians (and actually most cricket nations)
The Aussies have gotten away with absolutely filthy behaviour for more than 2 decades with scarcely a warning…never mind match bans etc dished out at the drop of a hat.
So,what now happens. Symonds deliberately goes to the pitch and needles Harbhajan. Harbhajan retorts.
And suddenly poor Symonds gets his delicate sensitivities so offended – because after all the retort was “racist”
So, apparently it is no problem at all when the Aussies can use the filthiest language, regarding all sorts of fornication with wives, mothers,laras private parts and what not…but “apparently” when someone is called a monkey( that too as a counter to specific needling), the oh so tough Aussies get so very offended….and since now ofcourse that someone has actually “dared” to reply to the incessant filth and sledging he must be punished right? and an indian to boot?! how dare..
and u know what?!
that bloody tendulkar “lied” about it to protect harbhajan! my god!
now we lovely ,utterly well behaved,polite, refined Aussies will never forgive him and hence “from now on” we have lost all repect for him.
guys….if u dont like tendulkar for whatever reasons that is just fine…but surely we can do without the hypocrisy.
November 26th 2009 @ 4:41pm
Dave1 said | November 26th 2009 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
I’m sure Che cocatoo collins and Michel long said some bad things on the field but that doesn’t excuse the racist things that were said to them.
When did the excuse for racism become someone saying something you don’t like.
If Australians lied to cover up racism you would never had have heard the end of it.
November 26th 2009 @ 5:34pm
Abhishek said | November 26th 2009 @ 5:34pm | Report comment
You know, for some ppl, being called a m**$@f****r is a lot more offensive than a racist comment. Just because you’ve got a bias doesn’t mean all of us have to set our standards that way.
November 26th 2009 @ 7:43pm
ABH said | November 26th 2009 @ 7:43pm | Report comment
strange. i remember when slater racially abused murali. and went on for a while.
i think the match ref probably said something to the slater to the effect ” now now, thats not on”…and slater went ” aw i didnt really MEAN anything. im not really a racist u know.heat of the moment kinda thing…”….” yeah yeah i understand…….end of story.
November 27th 2009 @ 6:23pm
ren said | November 27th 2009 @ 6:23pm | Report comment
‘You know, for some ppl, being called a m**$@f****r is a lot more offensive than a racist comment. Just because you’ve got a bias doesn’t mean all of us have to set our standards that way.’
ive never heard it put that way, nor have i heard racism justified so poorly. and talking of bias’ pot. kettle. black
November 28th 2009 @ 7:17pm
Abhishek said | November 28th 2009 @ 7:17pm | Report comment
well let’s forget the “bias” bit then. i’m justified in saying i hate being called the former, isn’t it? i say that evrytime somebody utters the word he should be punished as harshly as he wud for making racist remarks. fair? no? ‘coz seriously, i do.
& u thinking its “poor justification” is of no consequence to me.
November 30th 2009 @ 11:00am
Craig said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:00am | Report comment
what on earth are you on about ABH? What a complete load of rubbish.
So correct me if i’m wrong, it’s ok for Tendulkar to lie, because he was sticking up for Harbajhan against those filthy Australians? But Australians are the hypocrites?
And Abhishek, forget people’s bias (though your’s would appear to be an especially interesting case study) this was an ICC judicial matter, and regardless of what you think is better or worse in the form of insults, racial abuse was, and still is, considered a major offence for the ICC.
November 30th 2009 @ 2:13pm
Abhishek said | November 30th 2009 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
Both the sides are hypocrites. No problems with that. But then, if Australian’s are gonna be abusive, the rest of the world needn’t be saints either.
And I couldn’t care less for ICC rules. I can see this one’s not fair. If they aren’t prepared to treat all forms of abuse equally harshly, then I don’t have a prb with India doing whatever it can to level the playing field.
Also, I assure you, abusing a wife or a mother is treated far more seriously, in my country atleast, than a racist abuse. Doesn’t matter what your(or ICC’s) opinion is.
November 30th 2009 @ 2:50pm
Craig said | November 30th 2009 @ 2:50pm | Report comment
well then what a pity Abhishek that you weren’t in charge of the Indian cricket side at the time, because then perhaps Singh would have been told to cop his punishment on the chin, Tendulkar wouldn’t have altered his story, and we all could have done without the histrionics of India’s threat to cancel the tour and head home.
November 30th 2009 @ 4:22pm
Abhishek said | November 30th 2009 @ 4:22pm | Report comment
Sarcasm noted. Although, you’re partially right. I’d like to see a lot of abuse being punished. At the end of the day, players do abuse each other. So if you can punish ‘em all, excellent. Else, “lying and dishonesty” will happen.
I’m not sure if the tour-cancellation threat was ‘coz of the abuse, or the umpire. If it was the latter, I’m by your side. Loss is a loss, bad decisions or no.
December 3rd 2009 @ 3:07pm
Craig said | December 3rd 2009 @ 3:07pm | Report comment
what sarcasm?
December 13th 2009 @ 5:27pm
yaanni said | December 13th 2009 @ 5:27pm | Report comment
That Sachin lied during the inquiry……how is that a fact and not an opinion? Can you please prove this?
Can you please explain that if Harbhajan did call Symonds a monkey then how come Hayden & Clarke could hear it but the stump mic and the bowler umpire did not hear it?
November 26th 2009 @ 3:55pm
ABH said | November 26th 2009 @ 3:55pm | Report comment
Greg
Tendulkar has done better away than at home
ive provided loads of stats. why dont u go thru them?
as rgds the batting “superhighways” why dont u take a look a how well ponting has done on them?
just an eg. tendulkar has done better against aus in aus, than at home.
also the 90s, when tendulkar was supreme among other batsmen, the pitches were more raging turners than flat tracks. the 4/5 days were usually very tough.
sure, the pitches/bowling are much much easier in the 2000s( when ponting got all his runs)..but tendulkar is now nowhere near the batsman he used to be.
November 27th 2009 @ 2:43pm
Greg Russell said | November 27th 2009 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
“Tendulkar has done better away than at home”
Are all your stats as accurate as this? Cricinfo easily gives that Tendulkar’s test average in India is 55.30 vs 54.73 across all tests. I agree that there is surprisingly little in this, which is an interesting point against some of the arguments made here (including by me). However when you make blatantly incorrect statements then it becomes hard to believe any of the information you quote.
November 27th 2009 @ 3:19pm
Al said | November 27th 2009 @ 3:19pm | Report comment
Re. stats have posted a msg below as to how Maradona was clearly overrated
November 27th 2009 @ 3:39pm
ABH said | November 27th 2009 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
all right,i was perhaps talking from memory from a while back. i know for certain it was so .
tendulkars home avg b4 the current series was 54.98. the point is tendulkar has done better in aus and eng where pitches are supposed to be tougher to bat on .
also, pls look at pontings lopsided stats home and away. and ofcourse u dont have to “believe” any stats i put forth. u can check for yourself.
The thing is, as i have repeatedly tried to point out, that stats without context are borderline meaningless.
it should be obvious to anyone who follows the game that a run scored in the 90s was worth more than one in the 2000s. also when comparing say two horses : when u are aware that one horse has a broken leg and limping and u then directly compare it to a fully fit thoroughbred- and then compile overall stats to “prove” one is “better”…
i guess u get the point.
November 27th 2009 @ 4:52pm
ABH said | November 27th 2009 @ 4:52pm | Report comment
Ah, found it after a litte fishing. b4 the away SL series in 2008 tendulkar away :55.58, home 54.95.
(as of now, as u correctly noted the home avg. is marginally better)
U will note that SL pitches are not bouncy tracks either.
I suppose the point u were trying to make is that the low ,slow pitches in india are easier to bat on than aus and england.
contrast this with ponting: home:60.87 away:49.23
lara: home :58.65 away: 47.80
i guess u get the picture.
November 30th 2009 @ 5:57pm
Shyam said | November 30th 2009 @ 5:57pm | Report comment
I don’t think it was blatantly wrong as you suggest. Until recently he did have a slightly better average overseas than at home.
November 27th 2009 @ 11:07pm
Harsh said | November 27th 2009 @ 11:07pm | Report comment
Greg Russel, you claim that pitches are laid to suit Sachin. But you completely ignore the fact that Sachin average while playing overseas is the same as his home average. In fact his average in australia in nearly 60s! Do you think they lay pitches in australia to suit his style of batting too?
November 29th 2009 @ 3:15pm
Omer Admani said | November 29th 2009 @ 3:15pm | Report comment
I agree with you. In fact I rate Ponting and Dravid both above Tendulkar. Dravid has played fantastic innings, Laxman has been a fine matchwinner.
This is how I rate the players I have seen (since 1990):
Lara
Sehwag
Ponting
Dravid
Tendulkar
Kallis
Ghilcrist
Mohd Yousof
Sangkkara
Inzamam
The above is an ODI analysis by the person. On ODI basis alone, Tendulkar is the greatest. As a test player, I have my reservations about putting him at number 5 there, the reason being, his perennial inability to win matches. I don’t buy into the line of view that he has been unlucky over two decades. Tendulkar’s record against Mcgrath, Pollock, W&W leaves a lot to be desired. Unfortunately, his average props against Aus because he has fed off Lee. Hard as it may be to swallow, after Mcgrath’s retirement, Australia’s bowling is nowhere near as it used to be. Lee averages in the 50s, 60, and 70s in the subcontient and he has been average-good inside Australia. Lee has been a much better one day bowler than a test bowler.
Tendulkar has only 2 double-hundreds minus Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. Lara has 7 double hundreds without Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, incidentally, against the top bowling teams. Lara has a 300. Lara also has a 400.
Lara has played matchwinning innings of high quality, has hit double centuries against Mcgrath to win matches, his 153*, his 200s have come against Mcgrath. Lara has stood out in contests against an Australian line-up with Mcgrath from either team, Tendulkar hasn’t even outshone his own teamates, such as Dravid and Laxman (Dravid is the most underated player in world cricket).
Lara has made a much higher percentage of his team’s score than Tendulkar. Above all, Lara has won matches against an Australian side with Glenn Mcgrath playing. He was a much more destructive batsman.
The above analysis (if the criterion is used for test matches) by the person doesn’t account for bowling quality, the type of analysis for used for the matchwinning capacity of a player is shallow– consider that Lara has 3 innings, the only batsman to have so, which are in Wisden’s top 15 innings of all time.
December 14th 2009 @ 3:47am
yaanni said | December 14th 2009 @ 3:47am | Report comment
“That said, Tendulkar lost quite a bit of my respect when he lied in the Bollywood inquiries in order to protect his good friend Harbhajan (and that is fact, not opinion).”
You got anything to prove this fact? Come come, now please don’t shy away. I urge you to come up with some link, with some irrefutable evidence regarding this. Please don’t mention some link that ultimately draws its content from Gilchrist’s book. Get me some other source of this rather cavalier scandalous remark that you made.
You were mentioning of your correspondences with Roebuck in these matters and you also mentioned that Roebuck sort of ended up agreeing with you bout a few things. While it was yours and his own private discussion, that Gilchrist name there surprised me a bit. But again, thats just my own little opinion so never mind that.
November 26th 2009 @ 11:28am
Craig said | November 26th 2009 @ 11:28am | Report comment
Doesn’t this (a series of articles by people saying Tendulkar is the greatest) just go somewhat towards proving that Tendulkar can be described as “over-rated”? It disproves nothing of what the author has attempted to do, which is disprove a common or repeated assertion with straight out cold hard statistics.
November 26th 2009 @ 3:32pm
ABH said | November 26th 2009 @ 3:32pm | Report comment
But craig…Ive shown u loads of stats too!! pls peruse below.
November 30th 2009 @ 11:16am
Craig said | November 30th 2009 @ 11:16am | Report comment
and the stats show him to be an incredibly gifted cricketer. But no-one is doubting this, only that he is overated….i.e. he is not the clear-cut best player of his generation, and he is most certainly not a divine being.
November 27th 2009 @ 6:25pm
ren said | November 27th 2009 @ 6:25pm | Report comment
my conclusion exactly. im starting to be amused by the bckering and stat throwing, selection of detail as well.
November 25th 2009 @ 3:40am
Philip Antony said | November 25th 2009 @ 3:40am | Report comment
Hi Turf…..You do sound like Ian Chappells Son in law…hahaha just kidding…with not full heart ..he always had to say .that Tendulkar is Lucky…Yes Tendulkar is to Lucky to score 30k.. in International cricket- No one is Lucky if he can be in the game for 20 year and score so many runs ..He is a special talent to be celebrated …and to get to the place were No other Indian Cricketer would be able to get in such a short time is huge thing..The Centuries he scored under the circumstances…the way he batted when everyone said that Tendulkar is finsihed and the way he conducts himself…..Telll you wat mate…He is Next to Brad Man
November 25th 2009 @ 6:15am
DT said | November 25th 2009 @ 6:15am | Report comment
Truf – hope you have your flame suit on. I get a little frustrated at the Tendulkar fanboys who can’t accept that maybe there are other good batsmen around. Not taking anything away from him, I think he’s brilliant but it’s got to the point where you can’t praise another batsmen without the Tendulkar army attacking.
Philip, that scoring system doesn’t have much credibility given that Bevan is ranked number 6 and Symonds at 13.
November 25th 2009 @ 7:08am
Philip Antony said | November 25th 2009 @ 7:08am | Report comment
Bevan was a solid player..none ever replaced or will replace him…abt Symmo…he himself dunno wat to play…cricket or rugby…or fishing or wether to go to pub..haaaa
I am not rating tendulkar as only the finest and the best, yes there are many others..but out of that he stands out …Ponting commented on Sachin….He sets the benchmark and rest of us guys try and do our best…what does that mean ??? still thinks that he is over rated? You will see for sure when Tendulkar retires he will go down in history as next best to Bradman