The best batsman ever?

[Ajfar]

shakibrulz if you are going to almost force everybody to change their mind into sachin as the best batsman ever why put up all the other options up there?

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (iPhone)

[shakibrulz]

Skipping the first part because I dunno jack about Swimming, or about any sport other than cricket hence can't comment anything on it. Ok now back to discussion

Originally Posted by zman
in absolute terms Tendulkar is the most consistent batsman no doubt. that doesn't necessarily make him the most clutch or greatest match winner, does it?

And averageing 99 against weaker bowling attacks against same opposition on home ground doesn't make Bradman one eitherr does it?

known fact: Tendulkar averaged 40 against Pakistan's bowling attack in Pakistan. I can't tell you the exact number off the top of my head but I can assure you even at that point in his career his avg wasn't far off from where it is today. in other words, he hasn't really gotten significantly better since then (until very recently of course).

Yes he averages only 45 because he faced 2 of the greatest bowler (Wasim, Waqar) at home. He didn't have the advantage of pounding weaker attacks like bradman did.

how much easier batting has become ever since is well documented. sometimes I wonder if Lara rues the missed opportunity to significantly increase his average and run totals on flat tracks and easy batting conditions had he stuck around for few more years.

Well, lets just say that Sachin still outshined lara in the same era where lara batted. And about flat pitches how do you think he got his 400* eh? Sachin still maintains this average without a SINGLE TRIPLE HUNDRED. Shows how amazing his consistency is!

we'll never know, will we? just as we'll never know for sure how Bradman would've performed against the doosra or the reverse swing!

I can guarantee you that he won't have his magical average of 99.94 then. You must be in Lala land to think he'd average 99 facing Amrose, Pollock, Donald, Waqar, Wasim, Shoaib, Mcgrath, Warne, Murali, Murali, etc

so if we go by your line of reasoning, there's no "best ever" but only "arguably best in a given category" and this is precisely the reason why these arguments seldom lead to any concesus.

We're having a debate here, and debates are seldom 'conclusive'. Any of so called 'facts' are arguable. Just wanted to make my point that why DGB may not be great as the averages suggest. So you made your points and I'm countering it. Just inflated averages doesn't mean that DGB>>Sachin or anyone for that matters.

[shakibrulz]

About DGB being far ahead of his contemporaries, here are the top scorers against England, the non minnow Sir DGB played:

DG Bradman (Aus)	1928-1948	37	63	7	5028	334	89.78	19	12	6
AR Morris (Aus)	1946-1948	10	17	2	1199	196	79.93	6	4	0
GA Headley (WI)	1930-1948	20	37	4	2171	270*	65.78	10	5	2
L Hutton (Eng)	1938-1948	12	21	1	1232	364	61.60	3	6	1
H Sutcliffe (Eng)	1928-1934	17	30	4	1535	194	59.03	3	11	0
A Melville (SA)	1938-1947	10	17	2	855	189	57.00	4	3	2

The avg difference between him and his peers is a whooping 10 against a good opposition.

[zman]

Originally Posted by shakibrulz
Yes he averages only 45 because he faced 2 of the greatest bowler (Wasim, Waqar) at home. He didn't have the advantage of pounding weaker attacks like bradman did.

Average of 45? By not doing your home work properly you lost all your credibility right there...In test matches against Wasim and Waqar, Tendulkar averages less than 36 in Pakistan and about 30 in India. And he averages about 40.25 against Pakistan in Pakistan.

[zman]

Originally Posted by shakibrulz
I can guarantee you that he won't have his magical average of 99.94 then. You must be in Lala land to think he'd average 99 facing Amrose, Pollock, Donald, Waqar, Wasim, Shoaib, Mcgrath, Warne, Murali, Murali, etc

One of the most ridiculous things I've heard on this message board so far

[shakibrulz]

Originally Posted by _Rafi_
I feel detested after reading those arguments provided by Shakibrulz vai. This is too much obsession of Sachin.

Please feel free to counter my arguments if you feel detested. What is the part that you do disagree with?

Originally Posted by bangladesh_sy
shakibrulz if you are going to almost force everybody to change their mind into sachin as the best batsman ever why put up all the other options up there?

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (iPhone)

This is the funniest post eva. If there's only need of a poll and no debate, what's the point of this thread? In fact what's the point of the forum?

And since when debating is shoving my points down your throat? I'm making valid points here and you can question any of them - instead of making naive comments like this.

[zman]

Alright I'm done for now

[shakibrulz]

Originally Posted by zman
Average of 45? By not doing your home work properly you lost all your credibility right there...Against Wasim and Waqar in Pakistan Tendulkar averages less than 36. And against Pakistan in Pakistan he averages 40.25

Sorry for rounding the average, it's actually 44.75. I don't know from where you got this 40.25?
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/...;type=allround
Yes, he do average less against Pakistan - but that was his debut series and he played like what four matches against them at home?

How about McWarne? Any batsmen who dominated them at home like SRT did?

http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/...s;type=batting

Originally Posted by zman
One of the most ridiculous things I've heard on this message board so far

Well, are you still living in lala land by presuming that Bradman would've averaged 99.94 playing reverse swing of W's? I can't help LOLing at that argument.

[zman]

Originally Posted by shakibrulz
Sorry for rounding the average, it's actually 44.75. I don't know from where you got this 40.25?
http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/...;type=allround

You're looking at the bowling stats!

[Nomadsoul]

Originally Posted by zman
Average of 45? By not doing your home work properly you lost all your credibility right there...In test matches against Wasim and Waqar, Tendulkar averages less than 36 in Pakistan and about 30 in India. And he averages about 40.25 against Pakistan in Pakistan.

So much of Cherry picking, yes pick the one that suits the agenda.

While we are on cherry picking.

Ponting Vs. Ambrose/Walsh :- 40, Tendulkar :- 62.81

Ponting Vs. Bishop :- 27.50, Tendulkar :- 50.25



Only Donald at his best troubled Tendulkar a few times. But hey, those bowlers at their best troubled everyone. And every player in the history of the game were troubled by some bowlers or the other. Even Bradman was troubled by Verity, and Larwood at times. That can't be a point against any batsman. Just like because Ponting has struggled against Harbhajan for the most part doesn't mean he has been mediocre against spin bowling.

Despite the greatness of Ponting and Lara, Tendulkar really is the pre-eminent batsman of his generation.

IMHO Sachin is best batsmen since Bradman, when Tendulkar started off (1993-2002), he played like Sir Viv Richards, During his tennis elbow injury when he tried to continue playing without getting the required corrective surgery. This was a period of 3-4 years when he averaged 31.51 excluding Zim + Ban. and somewhere down the line (2007-20XX), he turned into Gavaskar, Since recovering from surgery to today: A period of 3.5 years when excluding Zim + Ban he averages 60+. He is now a hybrid of Gavaskar and Richards.

So overall apart from the 3-4 years of injury, he scored 12500 runs over 17-18 years at an astounding average of 58.17. This is excluding Ban and Zim post 2004.

He is more of an accumulator nowadays, though he plays some fantastic shots throughout, he doesn't dominate. He just paces it to perfection. 90s version of Sachin is 10x > the current version in terms of excitement. Sachin is like the Lillee of batting. He has changed himself completely to adjust to injuries and age.

1992 to 2002 was a tougher period to bat than 1999 to 2008 by about 10% statistically, so perhaps Sachin has the edge.

I am not trying to force you to change your mind into Sachin as the best batsman ever, But you just have to consider the longevity of the man as even by the 10 year best period category, he can be listed twice among the best batsmen in history and that is sensational. Sachin has had 2 great careers tolled into one, where has faced ups and downs, got career threatening injuries and has played in right from mediocre teams to a very good one with and without batting support.

Originally Posted by zman
In terms of clutchness I rate Lara, Ponting and even Inzi at the same level as if not higher than the little master.

Inzi ? He is pathetic against Aus, SA. Zaheer Abbas/Hanif/Miandad > Inzi, Inzi was good ODI player but rubbish in Test cricket.

Originally Posted by Dilscoop
Even though Ponting's form has gone down a bit, I'd love to be some one like Ponting. He won Aus a lot of matches, he lead the team from the front. And he is a badass captain.

1998-2008 - Even Munaf Patel () in Australian squad would have been a great captain with the players they had.

In terms of match winners -
1. McGrath 2. Gilchrist 3.Warne 4. Hayden 5. Ponting 6. Martyn 7. S Waugh 8. Langer 9. Symmonds 10. Lee

[shakibrulz]

^^Nailed it bruv! Thx for saving me a lotta time

Posted via BC Mobile Edition (iPhone)

[zman]

@Nomadsoul,
First read my post#12 and you'll get my perspective on SRT. I don't see our views differing by much.

Maybe i should've added this disclaimer: posts that follow should be read carefully and not taken out of context since they contain arguments to counter shakibrulz's ridiculous effort to make Bradman look like a regular Joe just because reverse swing and doosras weren't invented in his time. In other words, IF AND ONLY IF such and such argument is used against Bradman THEN such and such argument can be used against SRT. I hope now you have a better idea of where I'm coming from...

Originally Posted by Nomadsoul
But hey, those bowlers at their best troubled everyone. and every player in the history of the game were troubled by some bowlers or the other. even Bradman was troubled by Verity, and Larwood at times. that can't be a point against any batsman. Just like because Ponting has struggled against Harbhajan for the most part doesn't mean he has been mediocre against spin bowling.

My point exactly. The reason I leveraged the 6 test matches (3 home tests where he avges 30 and 3 in Pakistan where he avgs 36) in which Tendulkar actually got to play against the dynamic duo of Waqar and Wasim in tandem to make my point is because I rate them equal to the members of the mighty WIan pace battery of the 70s and 80s and higher than any other bowler in the 90s, followed by the likes of Ambrose, Walsh, Donald.

And to my point, when dynamic duos like the two Ws operate in tandem, they give the best of the best nightmares and make them struggle even if someone like Saqlain ends up picking up the wicket.

You mentioned SRT's struggle against Donald, and what's also interesting SRT didn't get to play against Ambrose and Walsh as a duo until 1997 where SRT avged around 48, but by then Ambrose was in his mid thirties waay past his prime at the fag end of his career.

So if shakibrulz can make ridiculous claims such as

Originally Posted by shakibrulz
I can guarantee you that he won't have his magical average of 99.94 then.

anybody is entitled to their own set of subjective arguments to counter the claim and that was the whole point of my argument.

btw...i think shakibrulz is a good guy, we're just having a friendly fight here

[shakibrulz]

**Ha, nevermind zman. I love discussions unless people start calling names which you obviously ain't. So fair deal.

About my point - I agree that all batsmen get troubled by some bowlers, but do you, honestly think that Bradman will average 99.94 against bowlers in the 80's and 90's? My statement was a bit exagerrated, don't read too much into it, but my point still stays. Do you seriously think that?

[Sovik]

No matter how many runs tendulkar scores, to me brian lara is the best batsman i have ever watched playing

[Beamer]

To me, Its always have been and always will be Viv Richards. Nobody like him. Once I saw him hit a six , violently pulled over midwicket, and the ball cleared the ropes barely from six feet above the ground. It was horizontal, stayed on a flat line, and luckily no fielder was around to attempt a catch. The ball would have surely taken his hands with it.

[al Furqaan]

in order to pick the "best" batsman, you have to define what is best, or what components should be considered as elements of that qualitative or normative statement.

different people have defined best in different ways. Beamer puts the onus on power hitting from his post on Viv. the Lara contingent asserts that the aura of a batsman is what defines "greatness". the tendulkar fans point to consistency.

its probably very difficult to make an absolute rank based on qualititave things like power hitting and "batsmanship" as very few cricket fans have seen most of the greats play most of their respective careers.

however on numerical analysis, definite things that come into play are averages, match-winning performances, quality of bowling faced, quality of pitches, protetective equipment, and of course consistency, and longevity of their career, etc.

[hoax]

Bradman..nuff said

[ammark]

Fans outraged at Tendulkar's exclusion from 100 Best Novels list

Anand Ramachandran

With Sachin Tendulkar having an absolutely brilliant year in Tests and ODIs, scoring bucketloads of runs and bagging the ICC Cricketer of the Year award, his millions of fans have had plenty of reasons to celebrate. However, they may have taken their enthusiasm a little too far when many of them vocally expressed their annoyance at Tendulkar's rather reasonable exclusion from Time magazine's list of Top 100 English Novels of All Time.

"Any Top-100 list without Sachin is not a valid list. Who are these people to decide that Sachin is not even among the top 100? It's a racist conspiracy against India!" screamed an angry fan, conveniently ignoring the crucial and indisputable fact that Tendulkar isn't a hardcover (or a handy paperback, for that matter).

Tendulkar fans all over India have started expressing their anguish - leaving angry comments on sundry websites (many of which are completely unrelated to the issue), recycling Rajnikanth facts (which are themselves recycled from Chuck Norris facts; the whole thing is like those crappy wedding presents which keep getting forward-gifted until they go around the world and eventually return to the original gifter) on Twitter as "Tendulkar facts", and spending several hours in heated arguments that eventually collapse into a meaningless sludge of half-remembered statistics, selective biases and a general consensus over the uselessness of Ravindra Jadeja.

"What is the batting average of Neuromancer? Has One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest ever scored a double-century in ODIs?" said a spokesman for Sachin Tendulkar United Partisans of India and Damascus, a particularly vocal group of fans. "It's clear to even the most casual of cricket fans that Sachin is far better than any of these stupid books which haven't played a day's cricket in their lives. In fact, the little master should be at No. 1 on this list."

Indian TV channels have done their bit to fuel the controversy, hosting a variety of discussion panels with topics like "Should Tendulkar Be Given Official Status as a Work of Literature?", "Sachin: Batsman, Novel, God" and "Lies. Racism. Toffee. Hummingbirds... er, what were we discussing?" Oddly most of these panels predominantly feature people who have little or no knowledge of cricket, such as Mandira Bedi, John Abraham and Boria Majumdar.

However, experts agree that there is nothing surprising about this outpouring of public outrage, saying that Tendulkar's fans tend to scan virtually any published list for Sachin's name, and feel disappointed, hurt and angry if he isn't included - even if the list happens to be titled Wales All-Time Rugby XI, Top Ten Gaming Laptops, or This Week's Grocery Shopping''.

Indeed, the clamour for Sachin's inclusion on the Top 100 Novels list has raised the larger question of whether society needs to break down the barriers between books and cricketers.

"I look forward to the day when cricket players and novels can walk shoulder to shoulder, without being discriminated against because of their averages, strike rates, page numbers or maximum retail price. A day when Sachin Tendulkar can proudly claim his place as one of the greatest novels in history, and The Lord of The Rings can be selected as an opening batsman for India. Or perhaps for New Zealand," said an emotional Shilpa Shetty, pleased to have the opportunity to make ridiculous comments about cricket once again.

Tendulkar himself has displayed his characteristic composure and grace amidst all the brouhaha. "Top 100 Books? Heh. As long as I'm not being included in the Top 100 Bookies, I'm fine with anything," he winked.

http://www.cricinfo.com/page2/content/story/482979.html

[Baundule]

Bradmann >>Richards >>>Lara/Tendulkar

[BANFAN]

This debate of who is the best, will never end. Because it is almost impossible to compare two great players of different era. Individual choices will always be biased by his personal admiration for some one. Bradman, Viv, SRT, Lara all of them are greats of their time by their own merit. Highest score of an innings and 400 (Quad Century) is equally great as Highest number of centuries and runs. How can you compare them? As far as liking is concerned, I always liked to watch Lara batting if there was a choice between SRT / BCL.

So my fav is Lara (BCL) without doubt, but that doesn't take away anything from SRT, BDM, VIV or any other.

[shakibrulz]

Originally Posted by BANFAN
This debate of who is the best, will never end. Because it is almost impossible to compare two great players of different era. Individual choices will always be biased by his personal admiration for some one. Bradman, Viv, SRT, Lara all of them are greats of their time by their own merit. Highest score of an innings and 400 (Quad Century) is equally great as Highest number of centuries and runs. How can you compare them? As far as liking is concerned, I always liked to watch Lara batting if there was a choice between SRT / BCL.

So my fav is Lara (BCL) without doubt, but that doesn't take away anything from SRT, BDM, VIV or any other.

Disagree with the bolded part. Rest - fair enuff.

[al Furqaan]

Originally Posted by BANFAN
Highest score of an innings and 400 (Quad Century) is equally great as Highest number of centuries and runs. How can you compare them?

no way!

number of centuries, etc is gradually accumulated in a career. its a measure of durability an consistency. you cannot say thats better than highest individual score, unless that individual score was something un-human (ie a score 1000 on minefield, not 400* on a flat track).

that being said, i'd venture to say tendulkar is the greatest batsman of all time, simply because i like his style of play (not to mention his humility). yes, he has certainly glaring weaknesses, but the fact remains he'll prolly whatever batting record he doesn't already by the time he's puts his leg guards away for good.

[Bond]

I think you forgot to add Mohammed Ashraful.

[Hyro]

I think Tendulkar is the best batsmen..I rate him over the Don is because

1. The opposition knows your every stroke, Your weaknesses & strengths studying hours & hours of footage. So when u go to the crease to bat you are already in a disadvantage situation. Bradmon's era was not like that
2. To perform in different conditions like in SL/IND/SA/AUS/UK/WI consistently, is no easy task unlike in the bradmon era where u only played mostly in a couple of countries
3. Fielding & catching has improved immensely compared to the 30s
4. The extremely tight & demanding schedules these days will tax a batsmen. No breaks in between series some times & Tendulkar still performs. Don's era didnt have this
5. How many run outs wouldn't have been given in the dons era ? But now all runouts are correctly given..So less chances for Tendu. And I bet not many umpires gave bradmon out LBW after he became famous, unless it was plumb..But umpires these days tend not to give the benefit of the doubt to batsmen..so more disadvantages to Tendular
6. The skill of both Fastbowlers & spinners hav improved a lot compared to he bradmon's era. More new deliveries are bowled as well by bowlers.

So Tendular is the best batsmen for me

[mac]

I have not seen anyone Don, V Richards or S Gavaskar play. I have seen Tendulkar and Lara. Lara on his day is simply unstoppable. But I think Tendulkar is the best of all time. His batting is such a pleasure to eyes. I am biased because during my childhood I was always so eager to watch him play and thus got addicted to cricket.