Comments on: The other side of the Tendulkar debate

By: vinay verma

vinay verma — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:09:12 +0000

Greg,talking of pure sensory watching in chronological order the players I liked to watch were: Richie Benaud,Neil Harvey,Nor O Neill,Mansur Ali Khan,Salim Durani,Farookh Engineer,Doug Walters,Dennis Lillee,Paul shehan,Greg Chappell,Mark Waugh,Gower,. I haven’t mentioned Shane Warne because he is the top of my list. Of the moderns Dravid,Tendulkar,Ponting and Lara take centre stage. Sehwag is beginning to enter my conciousness. All these have nothing to do with stats.

By: marees

marees — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:20:16 +0000

I agree on this point. It is not possible to feign greatness. If Tendulkar had not been great, he would have been found out sometime in these 20 years, which has not happened. The best thing about Sachin is he has forced the standard of his team’s TEST batting to reach a consistently higher level. Witness the difference in consistency between Kapil and Sehwag and also between Azhar and Laxman. So that is probably his best achievement in these 20 years. being a benchmark against which other great players have to be measured.

Just for fun, I produced a list of players who have scored more than 5000 test match runs at average and strike rate more than 50. After all, if you cant play with numbers there is no fun in that.

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_strike_rate;qualmin1=5000;qualmin2=50;qualmin3=.5;qualval1=runs;qualval2=batting_average;qualval3=batting_strike_rate;size=200;template=results;type=batting

By: Freud of Football

Freud of Football — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 14:04:42 +0000

“And nowhere have I said that Tendulkar is the best (even though I think he is !” – classic.

By: Mina Anand

Mina Anand — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:55:23 +0000

To Greg and others:

I agree this debate should not have started in the first place. But I am not the culprit !
I also agree that one cannot judge the best modern batsman on the basis of stats.
I also agree that facts and logic should be clear. Which is why when Mr. Truf Saya came out with his flawed reasoning I had to counter with this piece.

And nowhere have I said that Tendulkar is the best (even though I think he is ! along with Sehwag, Dravid, Ponting and Lara !!)

What I have actually written is : do not judge great players on the basis of ‘selective’ stats – simply enjoy their game.

But, if you do go by figures – then get your facts right first.

Mr. Saya forgot to mention that Tendulkar has the best ‘away’ record – therefore most of his runs are certainly not made on ‘lifeless’ tracks !

And to come back to ‘drawn’ matches – it could well be that Tendulkar’s runs saved the match !

You cannot write a piece, based on skewed arguments – and expect to get away with it !!
Cheers,
Mina

By: Hugh

Hugh — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 08:12:39 +0000

As so many people have mentioned -how in the world do you call some “overrated” who has played at the highest level of international cricket for over 20 years, done well in all conditions, against all bowlers ,all over the world , in all formats, scored 30000 and more runs, 88 hundreds- while still at the end of it averaging as good or better than the others?!
I mean…
how? with what stretch of imagination- can someone even come to this conclusion?

By: KM

KM — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:32:55 +0000

LOL. yeah its getting a bit grating. am logging out of it …….

By: Al

Al — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:27:18 +0000

I agree stats are “indicators”.
It is only when the stats are completely out of tangent that we can safely say that X is “better” than “Y”.
Such as in Bradmans case.
However, aggregates are in general a good indicator of quality. For eg even in tennis ,golf etc the sheer number of slams plays a huge part in deciding who is the “greatest”( admitedly not everything coz emerson had 13 for quite a while- but he was generally acknowledged to be not in the same league as the lavers, borgs etc)
I always had a soft spot for Mac. But with just 7 slams even i would find it hard to argue for Mac over Sampras and Federer.
Sure- I might go that he was the most “talented”, had the most “flair”, was the “best at his best” etc etc…
But when someone piles on many more slams over a longer period with greater consistency then the argument tends to shift in his favour.
Similarly, Tendulkars mountain of 30,000+ runs, 90 hundreds etc (and still counting)at a similar avg to the rest tend to drown out a lot of arguments for other batsmen.

By: Brett McKay

Brett McKay — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 05:26:34 +0000

quite frankly KM, I’d absolutely prefer this debate never started….

By: KM

KM — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:59:48 +0000

Basically (roughly) the stats i use for the 90s much tougher batting conditions is that just about the 3 batsmen (tendulkar, lara,waugh) avg 50+ for the decade- basically the “all time greats”- an avg of 50 was always considered to be the preserve of the “great” batsmen.
An avg of 40+ the “good” batsmen.
In the 2000s some 25/30 batsmen avg 50+
also, look at the runs, avgs, hundreds scored in the 2000s- they are unparalled.
infact simply from 2003-07 , if you look at the runs ,avg,hundreds etc scored it will be immediately obvious that this was the easiest time for batting in cricket HISTORY – nevermind comparing it to the 90s.But, since you’ve wathced cricket since 1970 i assumed you would know.

By: KM

KM — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:53:36 +0000

AAAAAAAArghhh! allright!
BUT, but i STILL maintain that if we are going to go around judging who is the “Best”, FIRST and foremost we have to decide unanimously, unambigously and clearly how we DEFINE “Best”
Otherwise , the minute i watch say a hot blonde bat i will get “feelings in the stomach” leading me to anoint her as the best batsman(woman) ive ever seen.

Before we are clear about what we mean by “best” we cannot even start this sort of debate.

By: Brett McKay

Brett McKay — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:13:01 +0000

perhaps Greg, people are too blinkered to admit that too….

By: Justin

Justin — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:08:16 +0000

Here here.

By: Greg Russell

Greg Russell — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:57:59 +0000

Thanks for the clarification, Mina, and sorry that I didn’t pick up on your irony. I’m completely comfortable with Sachin being tops for you (and others). As I said, I’m different. But if we all had the same opinions (and that’s what this is, an opinion not a fact), then the world would be a much more boring place and this website wouldn’t exist.

Incidentally, I’m all for facts and logic where they are clear. As Brett once said of me, “Greg, do you ever tire of being the voice of reason?”, while Vinay wrote the other day “Greg, I think your analysis of cricket is reasoned (perhaps too reasoned) pertinent and astute”. But there are no clear facts and reasons that Tendulkar is tops, just feelings in the stomach. I only wish more people could admit this.

By: Greg Russell

Greg Russell — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:33:35 +0000

I saw Sehwag’s score this morning and was reminded that one could make an argument that he has been a more influential (test) batsman than Tendulkar over recent years … and then I come to this site and find that great minds think alike.

And then I read of me and others “these guys are too blinkered.” Simply because I dare to have a different opinion on Tendulkar?

And then I further read from the same oracle “It is basically a 2 horse race for title of the best modern batsman- Tendulkar and Lara.” But hang on, didn’t I opine that one of these (Lara) was my personal no. 1?

Come on ABH, it’s just a matter of opinion. As I made clear, this is the one thing that statistics definitively prove – that all these guys have stats that are too close for one of them to be definitively proven to be tops.

I love Tendulkar. I even love that you love him. I respect the opinion of all the people who rate him no. 1. But that doesn’t mean I’m “blinkered” because I don’t rate him no. 1.

Anyway, it’s Friday. So I won’t even ask ABH to show me the stats for the claim he’s incessantly making that a run in the 1990s is worth significantly more than a run in the 2000s.

Nor will I make a big deal out of the fact that his “King Viv” averaged only 50 in test cricket, which is what my Hayden and Gilchrist averaged, and is well short of what Ponting, Tendulkar, Kallis have averaged. Why does absolute average not count in arguing Viv’s greatness but it does when arguing Tendulkar’s?

(Incidentally, thanks for reminding me, I would definitely have Viv in my top 5, which therefore needs re-ordering.)

By: Brett McKay

Brett McKay — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:51:49 +0000

quite, Justin. Shewag finished the day 284* off 239 balls, as India made 1/443 in 79 overs. And they had to take two SL wickets before they could start batting.

Sehwag needs 16 more runs to become the first man in Test cricket history to notch three triple centuries….

And to think, I nearly didn’t see this becuase of my blinkers…

By: marees

marees — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:10:13 +0000

I just realized I could form an “XI” of allrounders(mainly NZ/Pak/SA), with no defined roles, very incosnsistent, but capable of single handedly winning a match on thier day.

For ex:
1) Kallis
2) Astle
3) Martyn
4) Saleem Malik
5) Dravid (WK)
6) Kapil
7) Imran Khan
8 ) Botham
9 ) Cairns
10) Bravo
11) chris harris
12) Rhodes (fielder)
All the above can bat/bowl/field/keep but none is good enough to get into the all-time best based on any one talent alone.

By: marees

marees — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:47:18 +0000

No Kallis, Kapil, Imran Khan, Botham, Cairns, Bravo because they dont fit into a definite role

No Saleem Malik/ Martyn / Clarke / Dravid because the world has moved on and now we have Klusener/ Pollard

By: marees

marees — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:37:29 +0000

Allan Donald might have figured somewhere, if he had not run-out Klusener in a do-or-die match

By: marees

marees — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:25:44 +0000

Just to expand on my thought, That you should judge a bastman/bowler by the role also- This is how my all-time best ODI XI would look like

1) Sachin (Hayden/Anwar/Smith)
2) Gilchrist (Jayasurya/Sehwag/Gibbs)
3) Ponting (Lara/Martin Crowe/Arvinda De Silva/Hooper)
4) Richards (Inzamam/Symonds/Pietersen/AB De Villiers/Azhar)
5) Miandad (Waugh/Bevan/Hussey/Duminy)
6) Klusener (Boucher, if Gilchrist doesn’t play)
7) Flintoff (Afridi if pitch assists spin)
Akram
9) Vettori (Murali / Kumble or Gough/Waqar if pitch conducive to pace/swing)
10) Warne (Harbhajan)
11) McGrath (Ambrose/Hadlee)

I think I managed to put ally my favourite ODI cricketers in the above “XI”

By: marees

marees — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:55:54 +0000

Probably Gavaskar was a better test match player than Sachin. He never got out LBW to a short pitched ball!
ODIs is a different story altogether. I would say Sachin and Hayden run neck-and-neck for the greatest ODI opening bat (who can bat for 50 overs).

By: marees

marees — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:52:20 +0000

I think stats are over-rated. The question is whether the player deserves to be in the team for a particular match on form/fitness and not statistcs. After all WI never won the 2 matches where Lara broke the record for max runs in a single innings and the result is what matters in a team game.

By: ABH

ABH — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:53:38 +0000

Good point. In fact in all probabability using the boxes which greg has ticked to come up with his “best” players- sehwag would come way out on top!

By: Justin

Justin — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:40:13 +0000

Ironic all this whooha is going on when potentially one of the great knocks is in progress. Sehwag is 182 no off 158 balls!

Now thats a guy who has won plenty of matches off his own bat. Freak…

By: Wayne of Windale

Wayne of Windale — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 08:05:21 +0000

Yeah agree, this is completely boring. Put an end to it.

Its like drunk people having a sports arguments in a bar that goes around and around and people just keep repeating but no-one is listening.

Its great that Roar has Indian fans contributing articles, but seriously…

By: ABH

ABH — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:28:16 +0000

Forget it Mina , these guys are too blinkered.
Since King Viv, it is basically a 2 horse race for title of the best modern batsman- Tendulkar and Lara.
Both have good arguments on their behalf. Lara at his best was awesome, but he did have a clear cut weakness.
He was always uncomfortable against the real extreme pacers in the 90s (mcgrath was never fast).
Tendulkar , at his best, simply had no weaknesess- none. As perfect a batsman as you could humanly wish for.
Till his injuries around 2003, he was miles above the rest , including lara- amazingly in both tests and ODIs.
Ponting is third on the list.
But even if you take the triumvirate of tendulkar, lara and ponting as the best- it is instructive to note that both ponting and lara have always clearly and unequivocally maintained that tendulkar is the best.

By: ABH

ABH — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:22:48 +0000

Oh, and as i said many times a run scored in the 90s was worth much more than a run scored in the 2000s.
this should be obvious to you or anyone who has “watched cricket in since 1970″
And tendulkar has got many more runs than anyone else in the much more difficult 90s. what factor are you going to apply to those?
actually i wonder how much of tendulkar you actually did see in the 90s- since i dont think many indian matches (except for those directly involving Aus) were broadcast world over in the 90s, unlike now.
As ,i mentioned b4 if you dont like tendulkar for some personal reasons that is jus tfine- but most times ,like now- your slip tends to show.

By: ABH

ABH — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 06:01:18 +0000

Here we go.
I’ve been watching cricket from 1970 too, and i would have Tendulkar, Richards,Lara…..then the pontings, gillys(!-u serious. gilly a better batsman than tendulkar- and you expect to be taken seriously?.- you need to seriously what exactly you mean by “better” first-…more explosive, solid,better technique, consistent, better in all conditions, all types of bowling, more complete- what ? ) and several others all pretty much similar.
And as mentioned there are guys like benaud who have watched since 1948 and woodcock (even earlier) who would more or less agree.
cheerio
1)only sachin tendulkar can equal don bradman- john woodcock
2)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vthfSPF_LCw
Lets leave the Don out of it because obviously he played just 52 tests and No ODIs…so a direct comparison is impossible.
Aggregates are ofcourse important…
tendulkar aggregates over 30,000 runs at 48.3..just kallis has a higer avg among the top guys(49.1) but he has some 10,000 runs less.
as others have mentioned on the previous blog, let someone play for 20 yrs ,score 30,000 international runs, avg. almost 50, with 88 international hundreds..then we talk.
till then as Warney used to say “Its Tendulkar first, day light second…then the rest”.
Amen

By: Mina Anand

Mina Anand — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:46:00 +0000

Greg, this piece was meant to be an ironical one ! That’s exactly the point I’m trying to make – that it’s pointless trying to compare these great contemporaries, on the basis of numbers. And, as Mr. Saya supported his arguments with ‘selective’ stats, I have merely pointed out the futility of this kind of comparisons – by producing another set of figures ! To point out the ‘flawed’ reasoning !
And yes, Sachin is tops for me – based on his game, temperament and attitude.

By: Greg Russell

Greg Russell — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:04:48 +0000

A technical point is that volume (of runs, centuries, etc.) is important up to a point, but once one gets beyond a certain volume, it’s averages that are the barometer of excellence. For example, Tendulkar has scored a lot more runs and centuries than Bradman, but I don’t think the author would argue this means Tendulkar is better. Most of the arguments above are based on volumes.

Bradman is relevant. His average is so far above that the claim for him to be no. 1 of all time cannot reasonably be denied. All the players we are talking about here – Ponting, Tendulkar, Dravid, Lara, Kallis, etc. – have averages that are within noise of each other, especially when subjective factors such as docility of pitches are brought into the argument.

So let us all agree that on the basis of statistics one simply cannot say which of Ponting, Tendulkar, Dravid, Lara and Kallis is best. If one of these had averaged 70 across 100 tests, then the matter would be clear. But there is no such clarity.

This being the case, it’s just a matter of taste. I’m on record that Tendulkar isn’t in my personal top four (which would be Lara, Gilchrist, Ponting and Hayden in that order) of my lifetime of cricket watching, stretching back to 1970. Brett is on record that Tendulkar is tops for him. We would both be happy to argue our cases to each other, advancing all sorts of fancy and unsubtle arguments – around things like strike-rates, wow-factor of shots, difficulty of opening an innings, flatness of pitches, number of beers we had drunk when watching an innings, etc. – that ultimately would be largely subjective and/or arbitrary.

So let’s just give up trying to justify objectively what cannot be justified objectively. If Tendulkar is tops for you, then make that argument based on passion. Trying to base it on numbers just kills the whole thing because anyone can see the flaws.

By: davido

davido — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 02:10:27 +0000

This is real boring. Get over it.

And in defence / support of Kallis (as no one from SA appears to use this site) he averages over 60 batting at no. 4 while Tendulkar averages 56 at no. 4.