70
A 200* and Some Perspective
By Tabrez Janjua for Stani Army in International Cricket
152 ViewsYou’d think it was impossible for something negative to come out of Sachin Tendulkar’s brilliant World Record 200 not-out, but it seems to have started slanging matches everywhere. Pakistan versus India, Tendulkar versus Anwar, Tendulkar versus Bradman…Ponting, and the rest. For Tendulkar’s fans, it was proof he’s the greatest, for his critics, proof that he’s just an accumulator of runs.
There is no doubt that these comparisons with other cricketing greats would have been made as the record went but what is the need to bring one great down in the name of the other? Those that do, have to seriously reconsider their adherence to this sport. Certainly, even those with the burden of responsibility such as cricinfo.com, have erred when it comes to not adding fuel to the fire by describing the achievement as having “eclipsed” Saeed Anwar’s 194. They also happened to have ignored Charles Coventry’s 194* in this instance, demonstrating an undercurrent of an India/Pakistan clash of bragging rights.
The fact that so many are turning this into an Indo-Pak battle shows the mindset of many. You would wonder what these people would do if Saeed Anwar wasn’t Pakistani and Sachin Tendulkar wasn’t Indian. No doubt they’d find something to argue about.
Tendulkar’s critics maintained that his record was on a flat track and a small outfield, and Anwar’s was against the big rival Indian, in India. His supporters respond by saying Anwar needed a runner (he was unwell, so this makes it easier?), and that Tendulkar done it against a better bowling attack and remained not out.
Sachin Tendulkar gives thanks for his blessings
Had it been any other batsmen overtaking Anwar then there wouldn’t have been so much gloating, or from the other side, so much criticism. But this is what Sachin Tendulkar, India and Pakistan have to live with. Many of their fans and critics are not of the live and let live kind. At the time of Saeed Anwar’s 194, Tendulkar said himself that it was the best innings he had seen. Do his supporters ignore his opinion now?
I personally enjoyed watching Lara more than anyone because of his style, and if someone asked me to choose between Ponting and Tendulkar in my team for a must win game, I’d probably choose Ponting for his grittiness, even though I’m not the biggest fan of his conduct at times. In every other situation (that’s most of them!), I’d take Tendulkar. This is just a personal preference and doesn’t mean I dislike Lara, Ponting or Tendulkar as cricketers because how could you? All three would be in my greatest eleven.
This ‘who is the best’ argument is just about opinion and personal preference. Warne says Tendulkar’s the best, McGrath said it was Lara; is one right and the other wrong? We don’t have to always win an argument, we can agree to disagree. To praise Tendulkar, you don’t have to belittle Anwar, to praise Bradman, you don’t have to belittle Tendulkar. Anyhow, I don’t think anyone of the modern age can even have a real opinion of who was the best as they can’t have been around to see Bradman. His average of 99.94, whatever you may say about the cricket of the time, at the very least deserves that we do not give that ‘greatest’ accolade to anyone in his absence, even if we don’t give it to him.
So, let’s appreciate for a moment, Sachin Tendulkar’s achievement of staying in for 50 overs against a top bowling attack, scoring at more than a run a ball, and most importantly of all, not offering the opposition a chance. For all the extreme views, this was a great achievement and the record could not have gone from a nicer guy in Anwar, to a nicer guy in Tendulkar. A guy so nice in fact, that he’d probably disagree with some of the things his ‘supporters’ are saying on different sites, in his name. Grow up people, well done Sachin.
Loading ...
February 26th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Great post again. The record definitely could not have gone to a nicer guy and even Anwar’s statement couple of days back showed his class. All cricket fans should simply enjoy and celebrate Tendulkar’s acheivement and forget about comparisons.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Records are meant to be broken and this also won’t last forever. Any score above 140 in an Odi is a great achievement and this was 200* and that too against one of the most formidable pace attack it doesn’t matter if the ground was small or the pitch was flat the fact remains that this is the first 200 scored by any player in the history of Odi’s nobody can belittle this achievement.What I like about him is that age 36 his work ethics are still the same as day 1.
February 26th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
On the button man,
instead of arguing who’s better, may be a few of us could appreciate a good batting performance.
the comments section of some blogs don’t even look like they belong to a cricket related sites.
anyways, been following your blog since six odd months. It’s nice that mudslinging matches aren’t entertained here.
(turns out, i jinxed you and the next guy accuses you of trying to get more hits :p )
February 26th, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Rayden
Thanks mate. I didn’t catch Anwar’s statement, where did you see it? They’re both great guys and this is the thing we should be most proud of that it’s the squeaky clean nice guys at the top of the tree. It’s awesome for the game.
Wasim (cricfiles)
I think that is an excellent point. Anything over 140 is a great achievement in ODIs. Yes, Tendulkar himself suggested it will be broken. I think as more 200s are scored in future ODIs, the law makers will definitely try and do something about it. We are a long way from that though. Tendulkar is the ultimate professional and a great role model. Some of the people that go crazy over him and sling insults in his name should remember this and not taint his reputation even in the slightest.
I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, but the world record century Afridi got, was that not with the bat Tendulkar gave him…or someone who passed it on to him? It shows that cricket is a small world and by hating or insulting, we’ll only be doing ourselves harm in some way.
Prafs
Cheers mate. You should stop by and comment. I’m not sure you’re in India, but you know India is the second (after the U.K) on my list of hits on this blog but no one comments from there? I invite them to join in.
Yes, we do appreciate people respecting the Policy & Usage Statement, which is basically no swearing/insulting and only comments in English.
You’re right about the hits accusation! My guess is the guys from MTJAG will come over and accuse me of trying to get hits. They’ll probably even offer me some. I should explain, their ‘hits’ are of the sadomasochistic kind
February 27th, 2010 at 2:52 am
Stani
Sachin gifted that bat to Waqar Younis and asked him to see if the manufacturers in Sialkot can replicate it, but Waqar gave it to Afridi in Nairobi. Afridi has recieved many offers for that bat but he says he is never going to sell it.
February 27th, 2010 at 11:43 am
A wonderful article TJ.
February 27th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Well I am an Indian. And I think that Vivian Richards was the second-greatest batsman ever after Donald Bradman. Richards was also the greatest ODI bat ever, the best ever by quite a way against the fastest and greatest fast bowling, and the most devastating, entertaining and feared bat ever as well.
Richards’ 153* against Australia’s Lillee-Thomson-Hogg at the MCG in ’79 and his 189* against England’s Willis-Botham-Underwood at Old Trafford in ’84 were, are and will remain the greatest ever ODI knocks ever played. Tendulkar can only dream of achieving even a hundredth that level that the King did in those innings. The King did it in an era of zero protective gear (not even helmet), no batsmen-favoring rules, faster, bouncier and more difficult pitches, against far better bowling (Lillee, Thomson, Willis, Botham, Hogg, Underwood etc).
On the other hand, Tendulkar has played all his career in an era of top-notch protective gear, several batsmen-favoring rules, decent to extremely batsman-friendly tracks, decidedly inferior fast bowling (compared to the 70s and 80s), better bats and lot more money. In the case of this knock, add to these numerous factors, a very small boundary and a very quick outfield. King Vivian Richards would have scored 400* alone that day against that attack.
The 153* and 189* by the King, along with knocks like Clive Lloyd’s 102 vs Australia in the WC ’75 Final, Richards’ (again) 138* vs England in the WC ’79 Final and even Kapil Dev’s 72 in 38 balls against Garner-Holding-Marshall-Davis in the WI in ’83 are 10,000 times better, greater and more important knocks.
Even in this era (from ’90) Steve Waugh’s 120* in the WC ’99 vs SA was a far better knock. Anwar’s 194* was slightly better as he also did it in batsman-friendly conditions against a weak attack but was vs India in India.
And please, the attack was pathetic. There was only ONE good bowler and he had a VERY off-day. In fact, Karthik and Dhone punished Steyn more than Tendulkar did. Tendulkar punished no-names on the flattest track ever against the weakest attack ever in the best batting conditions ever on the smallest ground ever. Come to think of it, I find these ‘ever’s more striking than the ‘highest ODI score ever’. SRT’s record will be obliterated in a year (probably by Sehwag) and the ‘ever’ significance statistically will be lost but the ‘ever’s regarding the conditions will still stay.
February 27th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
Anup
Flat tracks and small grounds have existed in every era, it would be wrong to assume that Richards or any other great never played a match on a flat track, usually in 70′s and 80′s due to the fear of the West Indian pace attack their oppositions especially from the subcontinent used to prepare flat tracks.
The fast bowlers of 70′s and 80′s were no different or no better than the current lot they look better only because they never faced such restrictions as the modern pacer’s do, Micheal Holding, Garner, Lillee, Botham and Willis and Imran Khan never bowled @ speed of 150k which many of the modern fast bowlers of Tendulkar era consistently generate.
While I agree that Richards never used the helmet or other protective gear and was in an era where there were no restrictions on bouncers or on field placements, but with the exception of Thomson and Malcolm Marshall none of the old bowlers had the pace of Waqar, Shoaib Akhtar, Brett Lee, Tait etc and none of them had the capability to reverse the ball both ways like Wasim Akram or McGrath did @ speed of 140k. There were no Doosra’s at that time.
Richards was the greatest in his era and Tendulkar is the greatest in his it’s as simple as that, we can never compare the two as they existed in different era’s and faced different conditions.
February 27th, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Pak Star
Much appreciated
Anup/Wasim (cricfiles)
Thanks for your insight. I would have liked to have been around watching Richards as he is highly regarded by many. Mohammad Yousuf (who is not too bad himself) regards Richards as his favourite.
I think the issue of protective gear is a big one. It allows batsmen to play expansive shots that they would not otherwise. It also allows them to concentrate on scoring at all times rather than protecting their body (tail-enders excluded!).
Another interesting point is the emergence of the white ball. Many players say there is a difference, and certainly there has been issues in regards to the discolouration of the white ball during any particular innings. I take it that the ODI game did not use white balls back then?
I think all these aspects we spoke of merely highlight the fact that cricket of two different periods differs quite a bit and cannot be compared to the extent of saying A is definitely better than B; whether we were there to witness it or not.
The best comparison we can make is between players and their peers of one particular era compared to players and their peers of another i.e. how far was Richards ahead of his peers (if he was) compared to how far Tendulkar may be of his? This is a more interesting comparisons because it takes into account the period that they played the game and the conditions/rules that go with that period. Who were the Lara’s and Pontings of Richards’ era?
February 28th, 2010 at 7:02 am
Cricfiles,
Please back your these statements with evidence and not with merely more statements :-
1) Flat tracks and small grounds have existed in every era, it would be wrong to assume that Richards or any other great never played a match on a flat track.
2) Usually in 70’s and 80’s due to the fear of the West Indian pace attack their oppositions especially from the subcontinent used to prepare flat tracks.
3) The fast bowlers of 70’s and 80’s were no different or no better than the current lot they look better only because they never faced such restrictions as the modern pacer’s do, Micheal Holding, Garner, Lillee, Botham and Willis and Imran Khan never bowled @ speed of 150k which many of the modern fast bowlers of Tendulkar era consistently generate.
4) with the exception of Thomson and Malcolm Marshall none of the old bowlers had the pace of Waqar, Shoaib Akhtar, Brett Lee, Tait etc and none of them had the capability to reverse the ball both ways like Wasim Akram or McGrath did @ speed of 140k.
You WILL NOT BE ABLE TO.
1) Tracks in the 70s and 80s tended to be QUITE bowler friendly – uncovered, fast, and bouncy in WI, Aus and SA, swing-seam-friendly in Eng and NZ and spin-friendly in Ind, Pak and SL. Of course there will always be a 10% exception. What you have stated is PURE GUESSWORK. Most importantly you can go to Cricinfo and check that Richards flayed Lillee, Thomson and Hogg in his 153* on an unpredictable fast bouncy MCG deck; the Old Trafford track was also unpredictable and the ball was all over the place when he handled Willis, Botham and Underwood to score 189 of the total 272 (almost 70% of the team total alone). They were two innings played against far far far superior attacks, without even a helmet, when they could bowl 6 bouncers an over, down the leg-side, without fielding restrictions etc, and on much more difficult pitches; with an inferior bats, on grounds twice as large, as that at Gwalior. Some Aussies say that the 150+ at the MCG was like 200 in the 90s or this decade taking into consideration the size of the MCG ALONE as many more of the King’s shots would have been 4′s and 6′s with the ropes and smaller boundaries.
2) VERY UNTRUE. Through the 70s and 80s, Snow, Lillee, Thomson, Imran, Hadlee, Willis, Pascoe, Hogg, Ward, Botham, Procter, Van der Bijl, Le Roux, Nawaz etc reserved the bouncer for any set batsman so as to unsettle him and try to get him out. They never tried to injure (nor did the WI’ns like Roberts, Garner, Holding, Marshall etc) but they did employ the bouncer as much as the WI’ns. Please go back and read. If anything, the fast bowlers of either side never bounced those of the opposing teams. Even in his mid-30s in his last year (’84) on tour, Lillee had bounced Richards. AND AGAIN, Richards greatest knocks were ALWAYS in Australia or in England. He did not enjoy the super-flat tracks of the sub-continent like SRT did.
3) Lillee, Thomson, Roberts and Holding in ’75/’76 had bowled 92 to 100 mph AVERAGED over the 22 yards of the pitch. Through the 70s and early 80s these guys AVERAGED 140 to 150 kph over the 22 yards of the pitch. (Anyway there were hardly a couple of times when they were tested and that too in net conditions wearing four layers of clothing.) AVERAGED as that was the average pace over the 22 yards. The ball loses more than 10% of the velocity over 22 yards; add another 10% after bounce (if not a full toss). Then the batsman receives the ball at less than 80% the velocity that it had when out-of-hand from the bowler. So the average speed is about 90% the speed out-of-hand. The bowlers of this era like Younis, Shoaib, Lee, Tait etc have been measured out-of-hand. Add that extra 10% and you will find that quite a few in the 70s and 80s bowled at 100-105 mph – Snow, Lillee, Thomson, Roberts, Imran, Holding, Clarke, Daniels, Marshall, Patterson definitely. Many hit 95 mph regularly – Hadlee, Pascoe, Hogg, Prior, Ward, Dilley, Procter, Le Roux etc. We have got it all wrong about the bowlers of the 70s and 80s. Jeff Thomson used to hit the SIGHT-SCREEN behind the batsman after first bounce on the pitch in the early and mid-70s. In the 70s and 80s, many of these WIn and Aus fast bowlers had the wk stand 30-40 yards behind the wicket – i.e. well outside the ‘inner circle’ (the inner circle actually was introduced around ’84) I have always seen the wk stand WELL inside the circle for Younis, Donald, Shoaib, Lee, Tait, Steyn and all the quicks from the 90s and this decade.
4) A certain Sarfraz Nawaz was the inventor of reverse-swing. Had it not been for him, Akram and Younis and Shoaib would have been half the bowlers they were, I am sure you will accept. Nawaz was listed among the TEN SCARIEST BOWLERS OF ALL TIME. Imran-Sarfraz was more lethal in the 70s than Akram-Younis in the 90s. There was only a brief period – ’90-’92 when Akram-Younis (till Younis was injured) was slightly better. In terms of pace my rating is Imran > Younis > Akram = Nawaz. In terms of overall class and calibre, Imran > Akram > Younis > Nawaz. As Imran and Nawaz were relatively injury-free and were not mutually jealous and quarrelsome (unlike Akram and Younis) they were far more effective. Both had great pace (esp Imran), reverse-swing and Nawaz might even have doctored the ball some say. BTW, McGrath I doubt knows anything more than to literally spell reverse-swing.
I started watching cricket live only in the early 90s. But have read and watched whatever less but significant footage I could get from the earlier eras. Its a rather theoretical analysis but the realism is not far from the conclusion. Batsmen from the 80s and 70s and earlier eras had to fear for their limb and life AND THEN their wicket and runs. From ’90 with restrictions of the fast bowlers, protective gear, better pitches, and a decline in fast bowling – pacewise and overall, batsmen had to fear for only their wicket and runs. Chances of getting injured were 10,000 times less. And that makes a BIG difference – to both the psychology and performance – of both the batsman and the bowler.
February 28th, 2010 at 7:22 am
And for T-J,
The greats of the 70s and 80s were Greg Chappell, Sunil Gavaskar and Zaheer Abbas. I would rate Gavaskar and Chappell among the ten greatest bats ever (below Bradman, Richards, Sobers, Hobbs, Hammond and Kanhai, but above everybody else)
Richards was considered super-human in his era and was nick-named the Black Bradman, the King, the Master-Blaster etc. He was considered far ahead of his peers and esp in ODIs he averaged nearly 48 with a sr of 90+ when a batsman like Srikanth with a average of 30 and a sr of 72 was considered explosive.
Tendulkar has OTOH played irrelevant ODI knocks against inferior attacks on flat tracks.
February 28th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Anup
Here’s your evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eym816XG2vc
None of the bowlers you mentioned as greats could bowl faster than 143K.
Anybody can see videos of Waqar, Lee, Steyn, Johnson, Shoaib, and Wasim and compare them with the pacers of 70′s and 80′s and figure it out themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8tFgtzeA2M
Above is a video of Thompson bowling look where the keeper is standing.
Now watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bk6XhlmS1E&feature=related
Before you start an argument and dismiss the opinions made by others you should do some research.
No doubt Richards was one of the greatest in his era and he played some really fine knocks but it does not prove in any way that the bowlers in his era were in any way superior than the bowlers of Tendulkar’s generation . By sticking to this argument you seem to me a person stuck in the past.
Tendulkar has faced bowlers like Murali, Saqlain, Warne, Qadir, Akram, Ambrose, Walsh, Bishop, Shoaib, Waqar, Mcgrath, Steyn, Asif, Lee, Johnson, and Vaas. Most of these bowlers have been declared all time great bowlers by the bowlers you think were the greatest.
Imran and Sarfraz were not even half the bowlers that Wasim Waqar or Shoaib were. It’s laughable that you are declaring the duo of Sarfraz and Imran more dangerous than Wasim and Waqar and also declaring Imran faster than Waqar.
And What? Imran Injury free, that must be the joke of the century. Do you Know for how many years he remained out of cricket and for how many years Sarfraz remained banned from international cricket?
Now watch this clip Mcgrath is spelling reverse swing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fezEkfXCqhA
You are claiming that in 70′s and 80′s 90% of the tracks were bowler friendly, from this statement I presume you were born after the 80′s.
You have admitted to the fact that you started watching cricket in the 90′s and then you are blaming me for the guess work.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Interesting article here:
Cold hard facts show Tendulkar is overrated
By Truf Saya November 25th 2009
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.
February 28th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Regarding the pace of the bowlers from the 70s and 80s I REPEAT – what you saw was the AVERAGE PACE over the 22 yards. NOT OUT-OF-HAND. In the 90s and this decade bowlers were measured out-of-hand. The earlier breed of speed-guns measured the average speed over the 22 yards. The speed-guns and test were designed by Dr Frank Pyke, then with the University of Western Australia. I repeat – you saw the AVERAGE SPEED OVER 22 yards.
The inside circle was introduced in ’83/’84. If you did simple Google searches you will find numerous greats like Gary Sobers, Mike Brearley, Kim Hughes, Rod Marsh etc say that the wk and slips used to stand 30 to 40 mts behind the wicket for Lillee, Thommo and some of the guys in the 70s and 80s. Its well-known that the inside circle is a 30-yard one. Go to the WIKI page for Thomson and see FOUR cases where he hit the sight-screen after first bounce on the pitch i.e. on the full and they were before ropes came in. Also Marsh opined that he might have hit 180 ks at peak.
About Imran-Sarfraz I also did say that Akram-Younis were more talented but less effective. Sarfraz was one of the ten scariest bowlers ever according to a poll and was the inventor of reverse-swing. Imran-Sarfraz-Bakht and later Imran-Qadir-Akram were ten times better than any bowling combination that came out of Pak in the 90s or this decade. Whether you like it or not. Akram and Younis were both 30+ when Shoaib surfaced in ’98. Are you telling me that the Akram-Younis-Shoaib attack of WC ’03 was the ‘gr8′ attack that SRT faced? Symonds scored 143 off 125 that time what about that? There were flat tracks, protective gear and rules restricting bowlers compared to pre-’90 conditions – how about that? Akram and Younis were being tonked around then by everybody and you say only SRT is great coz he did so? Oh and Akram himself said that 1990-98 was the real peak of Akram and Younis as a pair and that they played ZERO tests against SRT in that period http://cricketfiles.com/meet-the-stars/an-interview-with-wasim-akram/.
Oh and more name-dropping – SRT faced Ambrose and Walsh ONLY in ’97 in the WI in Tests and ODIs when they were 35 yo and 34 yo. So his peak coincided with four of the greatest bowlers of the 90s and yet he faced them ZERO times in the first half of the decade when they were at their youngest and strongest.
The only fast bowler of significance he faced in the 90s at peak was Donald and he averaged 36 or so in tests and 28 in ODIs against Donald in SA.
This decade – there is the conspiracy theory of flat tracks and weak attacks that are the reason that SRT fans put down Ponting, Pietersen, Sehwag, Gilchrist etc. Am sure if they are that flat and good for batting for these guys they should also be so for SRT. 186* against a pathetic NZ attack on a super-flat Nagpur pitch; 152* on a flat track against the worst attack ever (Nam); 163* on the flattest track against a NZ attack of no-names (they had Hadlee, Chatfield even Collinge in the 70s and 80s); 175 against the worst Aus attack ever on a flat track at home (no McGrath/Warne/Gillespie/Lee/Johnson/Tait); 200* against a one-man attack (even Steyn was hammered by Karthik and Pathan …. ha) on the flattest track ever and the smallest boundary ever. Thats how SRT’s five 150+ knocks stand. OTOH for two of his three 150+ innings the King flayed Lillee-Thommo-Hogg and Willis-Botham-Underwood on treacherous tracks, without even a helmet, no batsmen-favoring rules, twice as big boundaries, and inferior bats. Clearly shows me why he is the King.
Please explain reverse-swing to me and I shall look at that McGrath video again. Oh btw was this not that medium-pacer who made SRT use his brilliant judgment and genius to duck into a knee-level delivery, thinking it would be a bouncer, on a docile SCG track?
I cannot have been born after ’90 and started watching cricket live from the early 90s. I was a child in the 80s but was old and mature enough to watch, retain, read and judge from the early 90s.
March 1st, 2010 at 1:14 am
Hi Folks,
I hope this is an ok place to write this. The game of cricket has been in my blood for generations, admittedly I don’t follow it much nowadays but enough to know whats going on. I fell upon Stani Army by chance several months ago and come back frequently because of the quality post articles, arguments and opinions and a very clear separation from politics. Any country where politics interferes with its national sport is bound for failure, this is somewhat obvious if you look back. However my point is that this very much true for blogs and websites alike.
Although I’m not a frequent poster I love and enjoy reading quality critique(s) about cricketing current affairs like on Stani Army. I’d like to congratulate Stani Army, whom ever you are, for the time and effort.
Finally, I look forward to Pakistans visit to England later this year! Its been long overdue. Will Stani Army be around to support the Pak Team?
When can we expect a quality article on England team in relation Pak team?
From a silent but rather curious cricket fan,
Cm’on England
March 1st, 2010 at 11:11 am
As I said I do not believe in folklore, any bowler with a pace above 145k can hit the sight screen on one bounce if he bowls it too short, I have seen Marshall, Akhtar, lee, and Donald doing it on numerous occasions it’s not big of a deal.
The bowlers of 70′s and 80′s didn’t faced any bowling or fielding restrictions as the bowlers of post 90′s era have been facing and as you have said that these days there are more batting tracks all around the world then don’t you think that the greats from 70′s and 80′s should have had better averages than the modern bowlers.
Best fast-bowling pairs in terms of averages
Tests Wickets Average Strike-rate
Ambrose & Bishop 23 201 18.87 46.93
Marshall & Garner 23 231 20.09 44.61
Davidson & Meckiff 15 127 21.00 62.53
Donald & Pollock 43 364 21.42 50.82
Ambrose & Walsh 49 421 21.73 54.65
Akram & Waqar 53 497 21.92 45.46
McGrath & Fleming 16 133 23.05 52.62
McGrath & Gillespie 45 376 23.15 53.30
Imran & Akram 25 190 23.94 55.12
Lindwall & Miller 33 243 24.22 62.18
The Lillee-Thomson combination is only 14th in the list (among pairs who have shared the new ball in at least 15 Tests) with 148 wickets in 16 games at 26.71.Imran Khan and Sarfraz Nawaz (228 wickets in 27 Tests at 27.30). Richard Hadlee and Ewen Chatfield (135, 17, 29.00).
You can clearly see their is a marked difference in performance between the stats of Wasim & Waqar and Sarfraz and Imran. Similarly the other greats of the Richards Era are no where in the picture.
Imran for the most part of his career was an average bowler, he was renowned to waste the new ball, he starting bowling an outswinger effectively very late in his career. Sarfraz was only marginally faster than an off spinner. He didn’t invented reverse swing he also learned it from his predecessors.
Did Sachin started facing Akram & Waqar from 2003?
You are highlighting one single poor performance of a bowler and or one great performance of a batsman to prove your point and ignoring the whole career. In the last 15 years do you think only Sachin was batting on Flat tracks why the other greats of his era couldn’t match his records.
Richards only has 11 Odi 100′s from 187 Odis. Tendulkar has 46 now you can reject and dismiss all of them but the fact remains that no other player in the world has achieved what he has, he doesnot play cricket on another planet he plays it on the same grounds where others play, so this logic of yours that his oppositions are weak and his tracks are flat sounds silly, how many of his test and Odi innings you will reject on the basis of this excuse.
If you cannot identify reverse swing then I am wasting my time here, and btw this medium pacer also happens to be the best pacer of all times.
March 1st, 2010 at 2:29 pm
[...] trigger more debate (sarcasm intended)! A lovely little discussion is going on at my good friend, Stani Army’s website, with some very interesting and informative viewpoints. On the face of it comes this [...]
March 1st, 2010 at 2:35 pm
Great, great discussions on here Stani, Anup, Cric.
However, I think stats can be twisted and turned to suit our taste. I wrote Jurassic post about it on our blog to play the devil’s advocate a bit. Do let me know what you think.
I take Stani’s viewpoint here, it might be a little unfair to compare greats from different eras.
Here are some quick snippets/my thoughts on the same:
1. 1. Advent of technology – 2-fold
I think we’d agree that with new technology, extreme close-up and slow-mo cameras, statisticians, tacticians and hell even wannabe armchair cricket-analysts like me, the scrutiny on batsmen and bowlers are a LOT more. In my opinion, this favours the bowlers a little more than you’d think. A batsman has 1 delivery to get it all wrong and the innings is over, whereas a bowler can recover and get back, and “set-up” a batsman. Techniques, bat-lifts, tendencies can be scrutinized like never before, and the challenge is on the player to rise above all this and continue performing at a high level.
2. Fielding: The fielding standards have gone up quite a few notches for every generation, and with SA and Australia leading the race in the 90s to now, I think every team has drastically improved in the fielding department. Non-existent chances then are half chances now, half-chances then are dollies and sitters now. Sprinting and diving is the norm now, as opposed to strolling around the boundaries. A team often strategizes to stifle and suffocate the batsmen to go for the big shots. So much so that even Munaf Patel would look like Jonty Rhodes if placed in the previous era. Ok that wasn’t serious.
3. Opposition : I quickly derived the statistics for all major teams (Aus, WI, Eng, Pak, SL, SA, India, NZ) for 2 periods – 1975 to 1991 , and 1989 to 2010. Interestingly, except WI and Eng, ALL teams have improved on their winning % !!! WI, during Viv’s active time period, played only 2 teams with Winning records! Meanwhile, Sachin’s India has played 4 teams with winning records (Pak, SA, SL, Aus). What have we learned?
a. The playing field has evened out a bit more as time went by
b. Rise of SA and SL as competitive nations with different conditions, bowlers etc. This one’s big ,BIG.
Conclusion:
1. I am not for a second doubting that Viv was one of the greatest. With the kind of information you backed your arguments with, I’m even forced to think that he could be the perfect ODI batsmen.
2.But to do so by belittling Sachin’s achievements is a tad unfair, don’t you think? Different players, different teams, different opposition, different quality, and hence a different era.
3.I personally think that 15 to 20 years down the line, when the game evolves further, we would still be arguing over this without a common agreement.
4. Opinions are like Assholes. Everyone has one, and most stink
5. Agarkar can vapourize you.
March 1st, 2010 at 3:11 pm
Andy
Thank you for your support. There will be lots of Pakistan/England for you to get your teeth into later this year when Pakistan come over….barring any security problems in England
Anup/Wasim/Vicky
Interesting insight guys; I appreciate your knowledge. Whatever the case may be, we cannot say any of the conditions Tendulkar batted in (flat pitches, slower bowlers etc), are Tendulkar’s fault, obviously. His achievements are still good achievements because he largely performed better than players who were playing with him in these matches and conditions. I still stick with my assertion above, that comparing players of different eras with any degree of accuracy is pretty much impossible. But, we still have our opinions and that is the wonderful thing. I rate Inzamam-Ul-Haq as one of the best batsmen ever but many will not. His style and the ease with which he played pace was pleasing to the eye, not to mention his record of 50s and number of good innings in a winning cause.
Vicky
Cheers mate.
1. Definitely, it is much easier to be critical and find fault of the modern player due to all this analysis which technology has played such a large part in.
2. Yes, did we see those sliding dives, pick-up and throws in one motion in the past? Definitely not. Overtime, these things add to batsmen’s performances and harm bowlers figures significantly.
3. Very good.
4. Just a little concerned about how you know that some stink and some don’t?
5. Leave Agarkar alone…he will vaporize you with his eyes…and waft you away with his ears.
March 1st, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Vickerman
I have already said that Viv was the greatest in his era and Sachin is the greatest in his era.
Many cricket fans who were born after the 70′s or those who didn’t followed cricket during the 70′s have kind of given a higher status to some of the players belonging to that era. Because very few of us have actually seen matches in that era, Audio commentary was not as analytical as todays expert comments and video analysis as a result we never critically judged those players.
Many bowlers and batsmen of 70′s and 80′s were truly great but they were not in any way superior to the greats of this era.
I think a lot of bowlers from that Era were over hyped just due to the fact that the quality of batting wasn’t that great, lack of protective gear, poor pitch management and preperation techniques,no restrictions on the bowlers, the game was tilted in the favor of those bowlers.
But if you look at the old videos you will observe that the standard of the game was a lot inferior as compared to these days. Today almost all major test playing nations can give each other tough time, but in those days West Indian team created new standard in all departments of the game, they had a huge pool of fast bowlers their batsmen were extremely aggressive their fielding was exceptionally good,Only Australia was a distant second to that Windies team.
The West Indian batsmen never got tested against the best of the best of that era as they were all in their own team.
Lillee and Imran were express for a brief period of time in their career and their performances from those specific periods are still etched in our minds.
Can You imagine that a Shoaib Akhtar, Brett lee or Shane Bond finding a place in their respective teams when they can’t bowl around 140′k, but Imran, Lillee, Botham, and Hadlee kept on playing even when they were just reduced to gentle medium pacers because pace bowlers were scarce in that era and only West Indies were blessed with a large pool of pacers,lack of competition made those guys look better then they really were.
March 1st, 2010 at 5:29 pm
@ Wasim : interesting perspective. Which brings me to pose the following question:
Assumption: The game today completely favors the batsmen compared to the previous era. The 1-bouncer-per-over rule, wides/no-balls, field restrictions etc all favor a batsman.
Alright, fair enough till now. Let’s come to the hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (specially for those agreeing with Anup’s viewpoint): A batsman of the calibre of Viv , who dominated “better bowling” back then, would make mincemeat of the the kind of attack now.
Ok….. now this is what we wanted to test. Folks like TJ , Wasim and I feel it’s quite impossible to prove. But for the sake of an argument, let’s assume it can be proven 1 way or another. If it can, then how about:
Hypothesis 2: The “great bowlers” of yesteryear , with all the conditions/rules etc being more balanced would surely have the records to prove that they were significantly better performers than some of the recent greats right now.
Riddle me this , batman. If the assumption holds good, AND IF H1 is true, then H2 MUST be true too . The records however (deliveries/wicket being the fairest comparison since we can’t take most wickets as many more ODIS have been played now, and we can’t take economy rates because the rules later get skewed favourably for the batsmen).
Apologies for making the above sound a little geeky.
@ TJ: I agree with you dude. Cannot compare greats from different eras too easily. And Inzy was just an immense talent, no doubt. He has played some timeless test and ODI innings, with great class and effortless grace!
With regards to the asshole bit, I’ve been called an asshole quite often, but the ladies say I smell real good. I’ll take it man.
March 1st, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Wasim
Good point. In any Sport, it would be only reasonable to expect the game to develop over time. Develop in the sense that new technologies and knowledge making the players better. This may seem an over-simplistic argument, but in that sense, the average cricketer of today is better than that of yesteryear. Obviously, this is in general terms and individuals can be much better or worse than the average.
Vicky
Yes, so you are saying hypothesis 2 is not true right?
March 1st, 2010 at 7:15 pm
TJ,
with regards to hypothesis 2 – yep, it doesn’t seem to be true if we purely go by just data and statistics. Just think about it. If we use the stats and assumptions that it’s a batsmen favoured game in this era , we can conclude that :
Agarkar , a gentle medium pacer, was more effective in the “Batsmen favoured and dominated era” than LILLEE (who can supposedly bowl at escape velocities and can york the testicles out of the batsmen) was in a “more balanced era”!!
Now is that really accurate?
That’s the crux of exactly what I’m trying to convey:
1. Data/Stats are not EVERYTHING. They can be interpreted in different ways.
2. We might be giving way too much credit to this whole assumption that batsmen had it much tougher in the olden days than now.
March 1st, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Vickerman
It’s not as simple as that, there are many other factors things which we will have to take nto account.
1- Adaptability
The players in those days were accoustomed to bat without protective gear. Since the modern batsmen enjoy the luxury of protective gears, we cannot hold it against them as we never know how they would have adapted to earlier playing conditions. We can only compare the technique and temprament and consistency and their overall impact on the game in their era.
2- What was the average score in Odi’s in 70′s and 80′s?
What was the strike rate of the batsmen in that era? In test matches they used to continously leave the balls or duck under it, which many of the modern players also could have done at the expense of their strike rate if the protective gear or the bowling restrictions were not there.
It doesn’t prove in any way that the greats of this era possess less shots in their repertoire or their techniques is not good enough to maintain their class in the earlier conditions.
2-False Assumptions
We are assuming that with more protective gear Richards would have performed better, I think when he started playing all the protective gear was available if he had felt that the use of gear could enhance his performance he would have used it. All the players who were better at playing the pull and hook shot they deliberately didn’t used the helmet in order to invite the bowler to bowl short at them.
We are also assuming that earlier tracks were generally bowling friendly, this is not true even in that era flat tracks were regularly prepared. The only difference was that back in those days the drainage system and the system to protect the pitch from rain was not as effective as what we have today.
We are also assuming that those bowlers were more faster and accurate than the modern bowlers when we do not have any credible evidence to back this argument. The speed tests were conducted in net conditions, where the bowlers didn’t cared for accuracy and they didn’t had to save any stamina for the rest of the match just a couple of overs and thats it.
The film analysis and the logic that their speed was analyzed from behind the stumps also do not provide any conclusive evidence as many bowlers have been reported to be faster off the pitch it all depends on the bowling action. If we accept the argument that 10-20 k of reduction in speed can occur after pitching on the surface then how many times we have seen a bowler who bowls at 150k’s when bowls a full toss bowls it at 160-170k.Even if we average it to 22 yards the difference cannot be 10-20k.
The simple solution is to compare the videos of the bowlers of 70′s with the bowlers of post 90′s.
We are also ignoring that the quality of balls used back then was not good and the ball change rules were not implemented back then.
3- Every sport evolves for the better
Better technology, better facilities, better training,coaching and fitness regimes results in the improvement of technique and performance.
I don’t think that H2 is true, however we can only regard H1 as true if we believe that the bowlers of today are not better skilled than the bowlers of yester years and we also believe that flat tracks were not being prepared back in 70′s.
March 1st, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Stanis> I’m actually surprised it took this long to crack the 200 barrier. Smaller grounds, sympathetic pitches, T20 cricket and arguably weaker bowling attacks suggests it should have been reached years ago. I would have loved to have seen Anwar’s knock – he had none of these benefits and still got within mosquito testicles of the double ton. Congrats Anwar for holdng the record for so long – behindsquare!
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:14 am
Cricfiles,
I think I have to do a better job of explaining and not getting misunderstood. I agree with you on the whole man! If you read up , I have stated that H2 is NOT TRUE too!
1. The Hypothesis part was specifically for Anup and folks who tend to believe that great batsmen (Viv) of the previous era would be miles ahead of great ones of this era (specifically Sachin). I was trying to say that if someone believes that the above is true, then we should also believe that great bowlers of that era (the fast bowlers mentioned) should have better records of the ones from this era (this was Hypothesis 2).
2. Like you mentioned, it’s not so simple – agreed. There are far more parameters and assumptions to make such extrapolations across eras. I have a post on my blog about it, and just pasted some of the points here.
3. I wholly agree with you on the crucial point you made. Typically – Sport evolves for the better. I thought of writing about it too but it somehow skipped my mind.
I feel the same for football too, where many folks say that Pele and the gang would have ripped apart teams and defenses of today. I disagree.
Thanks for the inputs!
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:04 am
Hello,
What a great website by Stani Army. I enjoyed reading most of the articles here. Keep up the unbiased good work. As I stumbled upon this article and its arguments, I would like to share my opinion as well.
Before I start, I am an Indian fan and a great fan of Sachin Tendulkar. I’ll try my best to write an unbiased opinion.
Like how Anup stated earlier, I used to think even Gavaskar was a greater player than Tendulkar. Just because I thought he hadn’t faced one of the so called “Best” attacks in the world. Until recently I had to change my view points. I have enjoyed cricket since the late 80′s watching Walsh, Waqar, Akram, Lara, Ponting, Michael Bevan besides Tendulkar.
I have thoroughly enjoyed Lara’s batting style and technique. But I’ll still put Tendulkar as the best in his Era just due to the pressure, impeccable style, the sportsman spirit, and the love towards cricket. I am yet to see that much dedication in any other single cricket player today.
During the 90′s there were times when Tendulkar is out, people automatically knows that India is not winning the game and turn their TV’s off. World cup in Indian in 1996 and South Africa in 2003, I think it is fair to say that India reached Semi-finals and finals consecutively just because of Tendulkar.
My cricket knowledge is limited, however from what I know, nations have won world cups and remained top either because of an all round performance or best bowling attack. Since Tendulkar has reached one of the best (consistently between 1-17 ranking wise, he never have gotten worse ranking since ranked number one), India was always on top.
Why do I rate him better than Ponting, Bevan, or Kallis. Just because of his style, balance, and talent. I would even rank Michael Bevan over Ponting just beacuse of his way of handling the pressure and playing all around the ground. Ponting is of course a World-Class batsman, but through out his career in 90′s and 2000′s he had a fantastic team to support him. So he has not faced any pressure like Tendulkar. Also, he became the class he is today by facing Mcgrath, Gillespee, Tait in practice where Tendulkar did not have such privileges.
Lets come to the dedication and love of the game. This guy is playing cricket for 20 years, with arguably some rough patches here and there it was a consistent performance. Someone earlier said Tendulkar’s top scores were in flat pitches. This guy has 47 International centuries and still hungry for more.
Due to all this I would rate Tendulkar, Lara and then others as the best batsmen of my era. Tendulkar might not be as great as Viv Richards or we will never get a chance to know that. But if someone asked me, I would personally rate him over Sir Richards, just due to the fact that Richard had the privilege of facing and practicing with some of the fierce and best bowlers of all time. And if you have the best with you, you should perform the best. Something Sachin didn’t always have most of his career.
Sorry for such a long opinion. But thank you and this is not written to offend any player or anyone.
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:50 pm
We can forever debate greatness. There is no doubt that the names mentioned in this debate are great players.
In my opinion, greatness is time specific not infinite. The facets that make ‘greatness’ change over time. Alot have been discussed already, pitches, quality of bowlers, pitch sizes, quality of teammates etc.
I started watching cricket in the late 80s and have seen some great batsmen along the way. But some have been ‘greater’ than others. The key variable for me has always been, the ability of the batsmen to ‘take their team home’ i.e. their match winning abilty – scoring runs when it really matters. This is when the statistics matter, everything else is secondary.
March 3rd, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Vicky
Yes. Aberdeen boss Ebbe Skovdahl once said “Statistics are like mini-skirts…. they give you good ideas but hide the most important parts”. Now, whilst I wouldn’t have used the same words (although he does seem a man after your own heart Vicky!), his message is true.
I think there are ways in which batsmen certainly had it easier in those days. Of course, there are things which they had more difficult also (no helmets etc). But, I think we cannot say this made them ‘greater’ because Wasim’s point on adaptability.
Wasim
That adaptability point is a very good one and merely highlights the difficulties in comparing. I think the affect that air resistance has in slowing the ball over the 22 yards is greater than the affect pitching does.
Cricket Fan
Thank you for your kind words. We may be bias but I think the late 70s and 80s child has had the pleasure of watching some of the best that have ever graced the game. I can’t help think that the older game may have been quite unexciting comparatively; just a personal opinion. We have been fortunate to watch the likes of Lara, Tendulkar, Ponting, Waqar, Wasim, Murali, Warne and McGrath.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but Tendulkar has never won a World Cup has he? Do you think that a lack of a World Cup to his name will be a stain, for want of a better word, on his record when he retires (assuming India do not win a World Cup during his time)…especially as he is the highest total scorer in World Cup history
Essex
Well said. In a team sport, this is the be-all and end-all. Sadly, this is not the barometer by which the individual is measured by in today’s game, even by people in the game that should know better.
March 4th, 2010 at 6:20 am
Great points in the post above.
Imo Tendulkar’s knock is certainly not the best ODI innings, but he deserves the record because he is probably the best ODI batsman ever.
In test matches, though, I have noticed that Tendulkar has a huge flight against quality. Against W-and-W he averages 30-odd, against Mcgrath he averages in the low-mid-30s, against Donald he averages low-30s again.
Against Australia his average is inflated because he has fed on Lee. Imo Lee is an overated bowler, he averages above 30, and averages above 50 in the subcontinent. He is a very one-dimensional bowler.
Sehwag and Lara are the greatest batsman I have seen in test matches (that would be since the 90s).
March 4th, 2010 at 6:32 am
Wasim,
Thanks for debunking a lot of myth regarding the 70s. In terms of bowling talent, 90s are at the least comparable to the 70s. However, a typical 50-60-year old commentator now would have played in the 70s, so that might add to the folklore. The question is, why didn’t these bowlers average substantially lower despite the lack of protective gear?
Tendulkar has certainly played during the time of many great bowlers, the question though is, how has he fared against them?
And, it is hard to find a test innings comparable to Lara’s 153 not out, 400 not out, or his 7 double hundreds apart from these scores against very fine oppositions (without Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, Tendulkar has two double hundreds, and no three hundreds– and that is despite such longevity). On the other hand, Sehwag is probably the most destructive and talented player to have graced the game and he is the reason why India are ranked number 1. Therefore, I am inclined to rate Sehwag and Lara higher in tests, though I don’t think anyone compares to Sachin in one days.
March 4th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Omer
It’s very hard to pick between Lara and Tendulkar both of them are great players their averages are not very different, against Wasim and Waqar in test Tendulkar’s average is 32 and Lara’s average is 30, against Mcgrath Lara’s average is 43 and Tendulkar’s average is 37.
Lara and Sehwag both have 300′s but I don’t think it is a bench mark to judge a player, Younis Khan has a 300 and Miandad and Zaheer don’t, but one cannot declare Younis a better batsman than Miandad or Zaheer. Look at the number of centuries Sachin has scored in tests and Odi’s. Lara is way behind. But I still believe that both these players are very close and it’s hard to pick between them.
March 4th, 2010 at 7:25 pm
Omer
Very succinctly put. Which in your opinion would be the best ODI innings? From the Aus v SA record-chase? I agree about Lee’s one dimension-ess and to a good player of pace, he is usually relatively easy to play.
In regards to bowlers having a lower average against batsmen without protective gear; whilst the batsmen of that time would have adapted (Wasim’s point above), I still think this is a valid enough point, to an extent, to conclude that the bowlers of the older days were not as good generally.
Wasim
Interested to know if you’d hold Lara’s number of 200+ scores as greater an achievement as Tendulkar’s number of centuries? No one is close to Tendulkar’s number of centuries, but is anyone close to Lara’s number of 200+ scores?
March 4th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Stani
I don’t think it is fair to compare centuries with double centuries as a score of 200 will be a double century and 199 a century, the difference is immaterial in terms of the quality of a player or his contribution toward his teams overall score.
Lara has 9 scores over 200 including a score of 400 and a score of 375, interestingly he was criticized for both his 375 and 400 as his team wasn’t able to win both matches he wasted too much time in pusuit of the record as a result of which the matches were drawn.
He has 19 scores of above 150.
Tendulkar has only 4 double centuries but has 18 scores of over 150. What I like about him is that he still plays with the same passion as played on day 1, was never involved in match fixing, never had any other scandal, and has maintained his greatness over a longer period of time than any other player.
March 5th, 2010 at 5:53 am
Wasim,
I kind of agree with you, it is an acievement to have played so long and made so many runs with such remarkable consistency. Eventually, it is all about personal opinion though. When I think about it, there are so many other good test players such as Kallis, Ponting, Dravid, and the like– but what sets Tendulkar apart in tests? And, the natural answer of people is, longevity. In other words, if you were drawing Tendulkar’s innings randomly and watching them, eventually you will realize that Tendulkar is a Kallis, Ponting, or a Dravid most of the time, just that the video tape runs a little longer.
But if you are picking someone after the don, and if you are going to tell someone he is the best, and if you are going to play a video and say, just look at him bat, he is the best– then you might show the artistic batsmanship of Lara or destructive nature of Sehwag, but would a Kallis be indistinguishible enough to compare or be right after the don?
This is the way I think of it, there has to be something about him that makes him stand out, just by watching him bat, as Wasim Akram sets himself apart from others in bowling.
March 5th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Omer
Kallis, Dravid, Ponting, Lara and Sehwag are also undoubtedly great players with different achievements and different playing styles.
One cannot undermine the greatness of Dravid just because he is more classical and less destructive.
What I admire about Tendulkar and Kallis is that they can play defensive like Dravid and at the same time be destructive like Lara or Sehwag and his consistency over a very long period of time.
In my opinion it’s too early to rate Sehwag with Tendulkar, Lara, Kallis and Dravid. If in the next three years he continues to score like this and is able to match his list of accomplishments with the other greats then we can certainly rate him with other greats.
You are right Lara was an artist, his high back lift, his impeccable timing and the amazing ability to play the ball on the up made him very destructive, on top of that he was undoubtedly the best player of spin bowling I have ever seen, an area in which King Richards lacked.
The only reason I don’t consider him the greatest in this era is because I think for a long period of time he was part of a West Indian team which still had the potential to be the best but it didn’t, his involvement in match fixing and at certain times he was very casual and didn’t played upto his potential especially in his last few years.
March 5th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
TJ for Stani Army,
Its true that Indian team with Tendulkar has never achieved a World Cup. But I would say it is merely because the lack of other talent in the team. All the teams who have won world cup in the past is not with the talent of one person. Kapil Dev’s India had about 8 all rounders in the team who were very consistent. England, Australia, and West Indies also had either consistent all rounders or very good batsmen and bowlers who have performed well when needed. Hence they also won the world cup. Pakistan in 1992 and 1999(didn’t win the WC) had a great run, again if you look at that team there were both bowlers and batsman that performed consistently. SriLankan 1996 team, another good pack of all rounders.
India since Tendulkar, had good all rounders in the team, but were very inconsistent in delivering. If you look through the Indian world cup history since the emergence of Tendulkar’s greatness since 94-95, India won some matches in world cup, single handedly because of Tendulkar. You can be the best player the world have ever produced, but cricket is still a Team game. You need the team to win the game. With that said, Tendulkar almost single handedly won India the world cup in 2003. But when he failed in the final, so did India.
Indian team was heavily dependent on Tendulkar in the past and when his wicket fell, it was sort of a shock and that they have to recover from that Shock. But today the likeness of Shewag, Dhoni, Yuvaraj have brought that down quite a lot. With one or two more consistent bowlers and all rounders in the middle I think India will have the best chance to win the world cup in 2011. Especially if Tendulkar carries his form till then.
Omer,
Sehwag has no foot work what so ever, but still his balance is just unbelievable. He is a world class batsman there is no doubt about that. But its def. too early to consider him to the greats of Tendulkar, and Lara. Tendulkar and Lara..its just absolute beauty to watch them when they are on the full swing. They could play any shot, anywhere, regardless of what kind of ball it is. Shewag, just because of his non existent foot work don’t have that much variation, at least not yet.
And I share my thoughts with Wasim about Lara. Even though Lara had the talent, he never took West Indies where it could have been, like India did for Tendulkar.
March 5th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
Cricketfan
Just one correction Pakistan did won the world cup in 1992.
March 5th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Omer
In Tests the factors you have stated to assess the relative qualities of the batsmen are well founded.
As I have expounded earlier my basis for assessing quality is not longevity in terms of exceptional individual innings or numbers of 50s, 100s or 200s.
The measure I endorse is simply the split second when the bowler releases the ball and the batsman gets into position and executes a shot. To me, this measure subverts all others and I have not seen a batsman do that better than Tendulkar. The way he creates shots is what puts him above everyone else. Not only is the creation exceptional, the execution is perfect, too. You made a distinction between being a genius and being a technician- I will mingle both terms when it comes to Tendulkar.
I have a great deal of respect for Lara, Ponting and Dravid. And I completely agree that the world has not seen a player like Sehwag.
March 5th, 2010 at 11:33 pm
Wasim,
I can see what you are saying, but the way I rate players, playing style is the very essence of a player– in terms of what can set him apart. Tendulkar and Kallis are generally puritinical in their style of play (in test matches), whereas Lara and Sehwag are more unique and innovative, apart from being more destructive.
March 6th, 2010 at 12:32 am
Omer
Kallis and Tendulkar can match the destructiveness of Lara or Sehwag and can also play a pure grinding innings in Dravid’s style don’t you think they are more well rounded players since they can play in both styles.
March 6th, 2010 at 1:14 am
No, imo they aren’t. You and I can also play destructively and try to hit everywhere, but not average above 50+ while doing it.
March 6th, 2010 at 1:26 am
That’s very true, but both Sachin and Kallis have played numerous big innings in which they played as aggressively as Lara or Sehwag. They do not always play in that mode but certainly they have the capability, but you are right it’s hard to maintain an average of 50 while playing in full destructive mode over a long period of time.
Sachin has on numerous occasions outscored Sehwag while batting together and remember the man himself regards Sachin as his idol.
March 6th, 2010 at 4:38 am
No, none of them were like Sehwag’s or Lara’s. Maybe you are confusing one day and test cricket?
Here’s the way I think of it– Tendulkar and Kallis are gifted players in their own way. Think about them as Masters of risk-aversion. As though portfolio managers, they hedge all their risks and are quite successful that way.
On the other hand the Sehwags are master risk-takers. It is as though they are not really indifferent to it, but they seek it and thrive on it because they totally command it– as though traders.
Anyway, this is just my opinion, I know what Tendulkar means to people in India…therefore I’d rather not prolongue the argument too much.
March 6th, 2010 at 5:21 am
Here’s an interesting stat:
WE have discussed Tendulkar’s and Lara’s travails against quality bowling, but King Richards stats don’t decrease as dramatically against the best bowlers of his time.
His overall average is 50, against Lillee it drops down to 48, against Thommo it drops down to 48, and against both Lillee and Thommo it drops down to 45. Against Imran Khan his average against Pakistan in fact climbs to 48 from 44,45. In essence, on average against the great bowlers of his time, there is zero effect in the sum. So, there might be some veracity in the fact that he is the king.
Khansahab,
Yeah, for you that may be the most important aspect of cricket indeed. However, the way I think is, if it works, it is good.
March 6th, 2010 at 5:45 am
They say in Australia that Lillee is the greatest bowler of all time. Here’s another interesting stat of Lillee: he averages more than 100 in Pakistan.
They say in Australia that the ultimate test of batsmanship is in Australia and England because conditions aren’t conducive for batting there, so why the subcontinent shouldn’t be cosidered a barometer for a pace bowler?
After all it is in the subcontinent that all the skill that theh bowler may or may not have is required. And, why when Pakistani bowlers bowl in Multan, no one spares a word for ‘poor’ them.
Stani Army you could perhaps change the name of the blog to, “Wherein is revealed all that is concealed”
March 6th, 2010 at 9:56 am
Omer
Most cricket fans in the world regard Tendulkar to be the best batsman of the modern era. So, how does it matter how people perceive him in India?
Of course, many people in Pakistan revere Inzamam, Miandad, Wasim, Waqar etc. There is always a natural bias.
March 6th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Ovais Khan nice to see you here NOT
Nice thread Stani. That 200* was adorable.
March 6th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Stani, I would ban this guy from posting on your site. He had verbal fights with many bloggers including yourself on WP in the past. His views are so baseless and disgraceful. He is Arshad Khan who used to post on here and make these _______ accusations.
March 6th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
Maz
Thanks for your compliment.
Yep, I know who this his. I did have khansahab’s comments on moderation (not anymore) as he is well aware but as long as people just talk about cricket and do not swear or insult, then I am willing to allow their comments on here…even if their name is Lalit Modi! (just!) Closing people out won’t solve anything so I am willing to give people a chance. Let’s try to be inclusive in the hope that people may change. It is also nice to hear from people who have opposite views as it aids discussion and debate.
There’s plenty of hatred in the world without us Pakistan fans fighting amongst ourselves. By all means, you do not have to like each other and if you want to engage in verbals then please do so elsewhere so we can just talk about cricket here. So let’s get along hey guys? Thanks
March 6th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Omer
“Wherein is revealed all that is concealed”, now why didn’t I think of that?! Just roles off the tongue it does!
March 6th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
TJ for Stani Army
Look how your blogger is trying to insult me and calling me names.
Anyway I am not here to fight or insult because I am not a baby anymore. If you want this to be a blog for babies and for 44 year olds who act like they are 10, then surely I will not “fit in”. Just like how babies don’t fit in on Legslip
March 6th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
By the way I am not going to respond to any rude or stupid remarks, so whoever wants to act like they are 10 can do so but I will not act like I am 10. So, let me clarify this.
March 6th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
khansahab
I appreciate that but I hope you do not violate my trust in you. I don’t want you and Maz to agree all the time but when you disagree, please do so in a civilised manner. Our team has embarrassed our people enough recently (whitewashes, ball tampering), let us, the fans, restore some dignity.
khansahab/Maz
Let’s shake on it an get on with it. Thanks guys.
March 6th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
Omer
The only stat which highlights the destructiveness of a batsman is the SR.
SR and batting average are inveresly proportional to each other because of the risk associated with being over aggressive.
Sehwag does have a better SR than Sachin in Odis but has an average of just 34.
I couldn’t get Sachin’s SR because it is not available on Stat guru.
But Sachin’s SR and average is better than Lara in ODis.
March 6th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Stani
I have no reason to violate anyone’s trust but your moderation of comments must be unbiased.
You should recall what happened on Wellpitched where I was not the person who initiated the abusive language or personal remarks about families. I am refined and mature enough not to succumb to that level. I don’t use “F” words when I write, for example.
So, I also hope you will be unbiased as the moderator and will treat everyone equally.
March 6th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
khansahab
You have my word. This is not just my site but all of ours. Let’s keep it nice and tidy and free from garbage just like we would keep anything else of ours.
I am in the process of setting up a guest article facility which will allow anyone who wants to post an article to do so. In the mean time, if anyone has anything on cricket they wanted published, please send it to info@staniarmy.com and I will put it up. Do include your name and other details e.g if you have a blog or online shop etc.
Thanks
March 6th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Stani
Thanks. I have no intention to advertise my, Awas and Javed A Khan’s blog here which is why I am not using the link in my name.
My policy has always been that I write on a blog just because I want to write, and I don’t expect anything back. I am not here to do business.
The only blog I want to advertise on is Pakspin. We have all tried to do that at some point.
March 6th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Wasim,
Imo Sachin is the greatest ODI player as well.
March 6th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
I acknowledge that TJ. No problem with me. However, I always have thought people that think Punjabi conspiracy is associated with everything are a “baby”. I am not sure Wasim will like Khansahab on here but at the end of the day its TJs choice and I respect that.
March 6th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Maza
Please refrain from making comments about regionalism. Thanks.
March 6th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Maz
Thanks for your understanding, I do appreciate it. I’m sure we can all accept our differences and just move on.
March 7th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
My Team for T20WC following RBS tournament
Nazir
Akmal
Afridi
Hafeez
Malik
Umar
Fawad
Razzaq
Yasir
Aamer
Ajmal
Reserves
Asif
Raza Hasan
Rana
Khalid
March 7th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Maz
Which Yasir is this? No Gul or Shoaib? Batting looks good.
March 8th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Hey, you said you’ll back Ponting to bat for your life. But what if Harbhajan, or any half-decent spinner or a young tearawy fast bowler is in the bowling attack? Our man does have a weakness, eh? I mean, not the sort of weakness where he has a 30+ avereage and grits it out for less returns but a sub-20 avg, and a complete capitulation kind of (lack) of ability against quality spinners, eh?
I reject this myth of Ponting being a more robust batsman.
March 8th, 2010 at 3:04 pm
raj
I wouldn’t back anyone to bat for my life and I certainly did not write that. Of course, all cricketers have weaknesses but you cannot use this one thing against Ponting and conclude he’s not a tough cookie. You’d certainly be ignoring a lot of other things in Ponting’s favour if you did so.
Yes, Ponting may have had trouble against Harbhajan in India but in the main series in question, he was out form generally anyway. There are other aspects to consider also, like how has Harbhajan performed outside of India etc. Plus, there are times Ponting has done well against India with Harbhajan in the team. Take the World Cup final in 2003 for instance, when he scored 140 not out. How many batsmen have done that in such a situation?
It’s a freak statistic and you cannot just go on that whilst the evidence against it is overwhelming.
I do reiterate that it is just a personal choice of mine to pick Ponting and only for a specific situation as I have highlighted in the post.
March 8th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Umar Gul is the leading T20 wicket taker of all time. He has taken 43 wickets @ 13 and an economy of below 6. He played an instrumental role in the national side’s success in both T20WCs in 2007 and 2009. No doubt he is an asset in this format, the stats speak for themselves. He has the credentials and experience.
I am not anti-Gul. He is an asset in T20 for sure. But, because of his past does that mean he has to be an automatic selection in the 2010 tournament ? I don’t think this necessarily should be the case. Off late he has looked off color completely. He has lost his line and direction and is too easy to score off, even mediocre players can hit him out of the park. He is really struggling for rhythm and consistency.
I hope he regains his form and lethal brilliance soon. Then I will be his supporter again.
That was Yasir Arafat btw. He is a more reliable operator than Rana in my view. If Rana plays he should be trial at no3. He is an effective pinch hitter and is one of those players that once performs well in one aspect, performs well in both aspects, bat and ball.
Hafeez was the batsmen of the tournament in the RBST20. He is also a very athletic and ace fielder. A more than useful bowler, better than Malik.
Nazir had scores of 4,1,38,10 in the competition but, is a proven performer in this format. I want him in my team although others would question his liability and unpredictability. But, in T20 you need to have aggression and uniqueness and Nazir provides this. A good fielder also.
I didn’t include Shahzaib because he gives his wicket away too easily. In all the matches I saw him play it was the same old scenario. Such a wasteful player, all he needs to learn to do is to control his instincts and then he is undefeatable in T20 especially. But, hopefully he would have learnt his lesson.
Khalid Latif on the other hand, played very well in the KCL and Quarter final virtual game against Lahore Eagles. We can’t write him off. He can play for sure.
Please share your team Stani.
March 8th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Maz
I agree with you on Umar Gul if he regains his fitness he should be in the playing eleven, I doubt that he will get dropped from the squad.
As regards Nazir and Shahzaib don’t you think they belong to the same breed their role is to score as many runs as they can in the first six overs but neither of them have survived the first six overs in key matches.
March 8th, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Looks like Malik and Rana are facing a ban. PCB is seriously considering to make Razzaq the new captain. It won’t be a bad decision. They should kick out all the trouble makers.
Courtsey India times
The PCB inquiry committee, probing into Pakistan’s poor performance in Australia, has recommended disciplinary action against five players including former captain Shoaib Malik and Shahid Afridi.
According to reliable sources, PCB Chairman Ejaz Butt has discussed the report with the national selection committee.
“The inquiry committee has recommended that the board should suspend former captain Shoaib Malik and Rana Naved and fine Shahid Afridi, Kamran and Umar Akmal for various violations of the code of conduct,” one source said.
The source said the captain, coach and the manager on the Australian tour had reported Malik and Rana for misbehavior and not cooperating with the management.
“The committee has recommended fines on Afridi for his ball tampering act and on Kamran and Umar Akmal for giving press statements against the will of the management,” the source disclosed.
He said the inquiry committee had also advised the Board to make no compromise on discipline and not select any player who was found guilty of violating the code of conduct.
The Chairman of the Board, the source said now had the final authority to accept the recommendations of the committee or dismiss them.
“But by the looks of it, the report of the committee will have far reaching effect on the selection process and appointment of captain for the T20 World Cup,” the source stated.
Indications are that with Afridi, Kamran Akmal and Malik all recommended for disciplinary action, the Board is likely to pick either Misbah-ul-Haq or Abdul Razzaq as the captain for the coming World T20.
The board has said it would announce the captain and team after releasing the report of the inquiry committee later this week.
March 9th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Omer,
It would be incorrect to group Sachin and Kallis together for with respect to their capability for destructive innings.
Kallis’ SR is 44. Sachin’s SR is about 54.35. Thats nearly 25% more.
Half of Kallis’ centuries have come at a SR below 50. For Sachin it is 5/47.
Kallis is similar to Dravid in batting style. Not to Sachin.