Sachin Tendulkar: the greatest of them all

I echo mr Meher Homji´s opinion on the matter. Gavaskar, Amarnath and Vishwanath along with Viv, Greenidge, Wasim Raja, Majid Khan and the Chappels to name a few were in another league altogether. They made their reputations against genuine fast men. Tendulkars and Pontings were never comfortable against quality fast bowling. Hence he is over rated and the comparisons drawn with Viv are plain ridiculous.

I have never understood the 'pressure of Billions of people' argument. When you are in the middle explain to me how the pressure of a Billion people is any different to the pressure of 20million?

Dravid is an all round class act, but Tendaulkar would put nearly anyone in his shadow.

I agree, plugger, no one can take the Don's place. He was simply the greatest. The title to this story was given by the editors. Also, Sachin is also a rare phenomenon in his logevity at the highest level at Test and ODI levels for so long. In decades to come a new batting maestro will be compared with Bradman, Hammond, Harvey, Sobers, Greg Chappell, Gavaskar, Viv and Graeme Richards, Lara, Ponting and Tendulkar.

Sorry. Not until he averages 99.95 and plays on uncovered wickets and with old-fashioned bats, no helmet or viser. Till then, Bradman is number one.

Whay about Viv Richards for starters. He used to WIN tests off his own bat. Sachin does not. They hide India from the decent test nations.

Thanks to everyone for comments. At the end of the day I was just expressing an opinion. What I know is that when Tendulkar is batting I do not mind it if my wife demands that I turn the TV off, but if Lara or Gilchrist were putting on a batting display then even the threat of divorce could not get me to turn the TV off. To Freud: "there is only one way to win a test match, that’s right, one way – take 20 wickets." Indeed, no question. But it sure helps enormously if you have batsmen who post a lot of runs AND who leave the bowlers lots of time to take those wickets. To Kersi: "For once I disagree with you, Greg." Fine - see my opening comment. Let's agree on "few can excel Sunil Gavaskar. To me he is among the best opening batsmen ever." I only make judgments on cricket I have seen; for me there is no question that the best two opening batsmen of my cricket-watching time (starting 1970) are Gavaskar and Hayden (that's right, for me these two leave Greenidge and Haynes well in their wake). Hayden: tall, left-handed, and the destroyer of opposition with his aggression. Gavaskar: small, right-handed, and the destroyer of opposition with his pugnacity and implacability. What a perfectly matched combination they would make. Only problem is, I get the impression that Gavaskar cannot stomach Hayden, so they'd probably try to run each other out! To OJ: "I don’t know what’s happened in the last two years, but checking the statistics now Dravid and Tendulkar are almost neck and in neck in terms of converting centuries into Test match victories" You've driven me to cricinfo's statsguru (which is probably where you were!). Here's what I have found: Tendulkar: 42 centuries spread over 42 tests (so one of the few things he has not achieved - I didn't realize this until now - is a century in each innings of a test) for 16 Indian wins, a ratio of 38%. But here's the interesting thing: of his last 10 tests with centuries, 7 have been Indian wins. So up until Feb 2004, the stat was 9 wins from 32 tests with centuries, which is 28%. That's close to what I quoted. Further, it occurs to me that the article I was remembering was probably from the aftermath of India's 2003/4 tour of Australia, which ended with Tendulkar scoring a faultless 241* at the SCG ... for India to draw. Dravid: not counting the current test against SL (as its result is not yet known), he has 26 centuries spread over 24 tests for 9 wins, which is 38%, i.e., same as Sachin. However of Dravid's last 6 tests with centuries, 5 have been draws. Just before that (i.e., mid-2005), the record was 18 tests with centuries for 8 wins, i.e. 44%. Moral of this story? Some stats do change with time. The article that I saw just happened to be written at a time that was unfavorable for Tendulkar and favorable for Dravid.

Freud....I have no desire to label greats as selfish or self centred especially if I dont know them personally. Perception is often a dangerous thing and it must not be disguised as analysis. 17000 runs is unchartered territory for everyone..spectators and players included. Forget about walking on the moon this is walking on a as yet undiscovered planet in a galaxy yet to be named. Border,Lara and Ponting were all subdued in passing their own milestones and conquering their own everests. Ponting remarked he was glad to get it out of the way. It has to weigh on your mind. Especially if 1.2 billion people keep reminding you of it. If you are looking at intent in ODI's then Tendulkar's strike rate of 86 tells the tale. For those that want to compare Steve Waugh's was 76. Another comparison is the number of sixes hit in Tests. SW had 20 and ST had 51. But I would not use any of these numbers to define either batsman. Statistics in isolation do not illuminate. They only cast shadows. The greatness of Lara and Tendulkar is not diminished by playing in a losing side. In my opinion it is enhanced. I sometimes think that perception is a personal thing and should not be let loose in the public domain.

Back to Greg's statistic. I concur with Vinay and Kersi that this stat is slightly warped. People often seem to forget there is only one way to win a test match, that's right, one way - take 20 wickets. You can score 1500 runs and still not win, cricket is about wickets which is ironic as the rules have been swaying more and more in the batsman's favour for years now. That being said, I would agree with Greg's analysis of the batsmen he listed. Gilchrist was extremely unselfish, he played whatever innings the team needed, be it a quick start or an extended stay he adjusted whereas many of the others seem to "bat for stats". When Tendulkar needed 17 tuns to surpass the 17000 milestone, did anyone notice how careful he became? He was set at the time but he started looking at the scoreboard that carried the message to the crowd and it duly bought about his downfall. The way Tendulkar bats isn't the sort of thing one can merely base on statistics, it comes from watching a lot of cricket and most people have seen a lot of him over a long period of time, I think the statement that a brilliant Tendulkar innings is more important than a win is true for a lot of people. However Steve Waugh - Selfish? I can't agree with that. He made 3 ODI centuries for Aus, one of which (120*) gave them enough momentum to win the WC, he came to the crease with SAF on top and with Aus at 3/48. In tests, countless times when Australia had their backs to the wall he was the one to bail them out. Perhaps in the games when Australia was on top he was selfish but in general I'd say he put winning ahead of himself. If one were to call him selfish, for mine it could only be for not bowling himself. I think he could have done more with the ball and if he was fit enough to play the amount of cricket he did, I find it hard to accept that he wasn't fit enough to bowl the very handy gentle medium pacers (which were hardly stressful) he did early in his career.

I agree, Vinay. Ashraful is delightful to watch but far too inconsistent. Talking of consistency, few can excel Sunil Gavaskar. To me he is among the best opening batsmen ever. Barely 5'5", he took on the Windies terrors (all five of them), the Australian Lilian Thomson, Pascoe and Mr Walker, Pakistan's Imran and Akram, England's Snow and New Zealander Hadlee. He was the first to reach 10,000 runs in Tests, without wearing a proper helmet. (Well, he did wear a funny sort of helmet later in his career). Gavaskar does not suffer in comparison with other great openers Trumper, Hobbs, Ponsford, Morris, Hutton, Hanif, Simpson, Lawry, Greenidge, Taylor, Hayden... But Gavaskar faced the fastest bowlers and did not flinch. The attacks Tendulkar and Ponting are facing today are not half as menacing as what Gavaskar faced.

Vinay, Agreed on Sakib. I wont ever say Eid is one of the greats. On his day, he can bat like it, but he isnt one of the greats. But I'll still pick him, because he'll win games. And he's got thirty-five days to prove that. As far as Bangladesh emulating Sri Lanka - I think Sri Lanka were lucky as well as good. They found some new tactics in ODIs, and it worked. All the Tigers did was knock India and South Africa out of a World Cup, give England a good game, and then fail conclusively to the two teams that played in the final. Oh yeah, and lose against the Irish side that sent Pakistan home. But thats history. We have India at home, New Zealand away, England at home and England away. We need two wins.

Had a look,Ian and I believe Shakib is the best thing to happen to the Tigers. Asraful has to convert his talent into consistent performances..he gets lazy and ahead of himself. Even the greats respect the opposition. Even the greats practice endlessly. Cricketers,composers,everyone has to continually hone their craft. Bangladesh can emulate Sri Lanka and have to work harder than they have ever worked before.They have to remember that Tendulkar at 16 was playing against the best. 20 years later he is still at the top of the tree. They need look no further than Tendulkar.

Btw, Vinay, if you like my stuff, look for the cover article at www.banglacricket.com :)

Nahh, mate, just good honest Australian Cab-Merlot, the stuff that th MacGilla would spit out in contempt ... but did you see him against Sri Lanka, and at Cardiff ?

Ian, ayoung Indian schoolboy has just eclipsed Tendulkars record as a twelve year old. Something in the 300's. So there will always be dreams. Cricket has an amazing regenerative power. In many ways like a Banyan Tree.

Steady on,Ian..you are not on the Marley are you?

Lets not forget Eid either ... Mohammed Ashraful has crap stats, because he'll score the prettiest 12 runs you've ever seen, and then get out to a get out shot. But when he's on ... you forget for a moment that he'll come once a year, and betray you the other 363 days, and you watch him with bated breath and heart in your mouth, and know you are seeing the batting Victor Trumper delivered, and the rest of us only dream of.

*grins manically* The Tigers get to play India in two tests early next year. As far as we can tell, thats the last Tests India are playing in 2010. They might be the last Tests Sachin Tendulkar ever plays. I'm split between Sachin giving a heroic farewell, and the Mighty Bangladesh Tigers dusting India up. Maybe a big fourth innings hundred in a losing side ? Sachin Tendulkar ... he isnt the greatest of them all. But he is one of those we discuss, after we accept the White Headley as the best there ever was, who we will discuss, together with WG, and Trumper, and Headley, and Viv, and Ricky, and Sunil, and all those others that we dream of when we think of the best batting there ever was. Ian Whitchurch

Too right,Ian..Let us celebrate Tendulkar and all the others mentioned. Interesting stat of 97 Test hundreds between Tendulkar,Dravid,Sehwag and Laxman and all except Laxman average over 50. Must not forget Jayawardene and Sangakkara..both exceptional batsmen at the height of their powers.

Kersi's analysis is spot on. Tendulkar's achievements are sometimes taken for granted by I(ndian critics. To score nearly 30,000 runs in international cricket with 85 centuries is mindboggling. His nearest rivals Lara and Ponting are far behind with the latter having opportunities to catch up especially in Tests, thanks to the warped logic of BCCI which does not look at Tests -worthy of support. India would have played only 9 Tests this year and 8 in 2010( Australia will play about 14 next year). When people compare Ponting with Tendulkar they miss a few important points. Ponting did not have to face McGrath, Warne, Lee, Gillespie, Merv Hughes, McDermott backed up by generally brilliant fielding. Neither he have to face the likes of Imran & Hadlee at the beginning of his career nor Donald, Walsh,Ambrose,Wasim , Waqar ,Shoiab, Qadir at their most potent. Playing against India he had to counter ,apart from Kumble and Harbhajan, only Srinath who could be termed world class. All this backed up by pathetic Indian fielding! These factors need consideration when comparisons are made. Kersi is right in saying that had geniuses of yesteryears to play today on covered wickets, with shorter boundaries, donning helmets and powered by bats which can send the ball miles how many runs would they have scored?