@madaboutsleep i let your mummy suck my dick every night. i hate it cause she is ugly but i let her cause she begs me to. an where did she learned to beg like that? she spreads her legs wide an asks to insert the coins in her various holes. it is hard to ignore such beggars.
but what is too much is that now she is not satisfied by just sucking my dick, she insists on undressing my penis and licking the cheese inside. yucks.
2:26 - Besides this great batting performance, the eventual dismissal of Brian Lara was majestic, what a great slower/off cutter ball to just knock of the off stump bail !
Also, i dont know if you remember but the wc was in 2003.
and i am SURE that you are unaware that tendulkar played that entire cup with a broken hand- yup, you heard right.
So, i guess the max a guy can do is grit through a tournament with a broken hand. but like i said the wear and tear injuries with no recovery period are worse.
there was a span there (dont rem exactly-04 around i think) that tendukar couldt pick up a tea cup for 6 mts, never mind a bat.
@alllman2000 Fyi regarding wc 2003 something I just came across, Tendulkar scored 373 of his 673 runs against the weaker teams. He scored 300 from 6 inns vs Aus-Eng-Pak-SL-NA. He managed only 40 runs in two attempts vs Aus. So the wc2003 stats are not quite as impressive as they first appear. Nonetheless he had an excellent world cup. The discussion in this thread though is mainly Tests.
SO, since it is OBVIOUS that comparisons across teams is fraught with error and across team mates would be more accurate...doesnt it strike you as odd that as of 2003 Tendulkar is miles and miles ahead of Dravid?
So, basically lara gets a few points as per your "icc averages" coz he had some poor batsmen around him and plus (if i remember) in those models you get xtra points for things such as "coming in early' that is fall of early wickets etc.
Basically, the NON performance of his teammates Boosts laras points!!! LOL
so, compare these points with CHanders etc...but not with other teams.
And AGAIN
WHY, oh why, as per some "icc model" itself is SRT the 2nd best of ALL time till 2002?/?
Oh, Imran...Actually I was just using shamsi's logic against himself.
What he does is pure "data mining"
i.e use only that data which suits his hypothesis. i.e x is better than y....and studiously avoid any contadictory data.
I suppose we all accept that all the greats will have this or that particular stat or stat window in their favour. so , just harping on that one thing to the exclusion of all others is ridiculous.
So, i used some "ratings" shamsi gave to put down the order.
Then the Rest...if you see what happened was that in the mid 2000s there was an unprecedented run orgy...in which ALL the modern "greats" - ponting, dravid, kallis etc etc absolutely feasted thereby immeasurably boosting their "overall" stats.
Lara too had the best years of his career in this period. Tendulkar unfortunately due to a string of serious injuries conversely had the worst period.
@alllman2000 why don't you people just add each other on twitter or facebook and argue there! why must every Lara video turn into a Tendulkar vs Lara battle?
@Imrankniazi , Don't know about Lara, but Ponting is much better than Dravid.....Dravid cannot bat aggressively and win you a game while chasing, Ponting can.
Say cut-off is 6 matches, Plyr-A has a head start of 100. Who averages higher? I hpoe you get the point. Despite plyr-B rising quickly his average will be lower than play-A. We are ignoring previous scores of plyr-A as we pick only scores involving matches in a particular period.
"
THEN realising that it is nonsense you quickly went back -LOL
You ALSO require to understand that most of these metrics apply (again from another blog)to "how dominant a batsman was *in his team* (comparisons across teams should be avoided)"....i.e you get additionaly points for things like % of team score, etc etc...i,e to a large extent points are relative to others in OWN team as opposed to other team.
and again why oh why:
Does the ICC rankings around 2002 have Tendulkar as the 2nd best batsman of all time?
1)what if Dravid had NOT started with an "avg icc rating " of zero ,but had a start at age 16 like Tenduklar. That would DRAG his "avg icc "points down.
2)Note the Lara drag is "actuall" NOT so much coz avg is a "function" of both runs and avg.- so just 244 runs
3)Also, the "differential" is not so great...as already discussed as compared to the 03-6 period between SRT and the rest
Dravid and a few others start from 0 as they debuted in 1996. Before 1993 Tendulkar had played 20 matches compared to Lara's 4. So Lara hasn't achieved his complete rating which usually takes 10 or more matches to achieve.
It is never good to start at ZERO! And why should someone be pnealised for a good start versus one that doesn't start good. Regardless ICC ratings doesn't allow a player to get high up in the ratings even if he starts very very well. And also ICC rating requires you to maintain form - a peak in one match followed by some bad scores results in your rating dropping quickly.
Say cut-off is 6 matches, Plyr-A has a head start of 100. Who averages higher? I hpoe you get the point. Despite plyr-B rising quickly his average will be lower than play-A. We are ignoring previous scores of plyr-A as we pick only scores involving matches in a particular period.
Looks like the mini-math lesson didn't work, you prob have limitations with math when they don't back your delusional image of Tendulkar (e.g. injury 2003-2007 affected him in Tests but stargely not in ODIs in the same period where he performed better than his career average). So let me give it another try. We are interested in the period between 1993-2003 and not what happened before that period.
Let's try a simple model where each of three players play 15 matches and score the same number of points but start at diff stages at this cut-off period of 10 matches. We also assume it takes 10 matches for a player to get full ratings and there is a 50% weight down for first 5 matches and 75% for next 5. You start getting full rating from 10 matches.
So A has played enough matches (20 > 15) to attain his complete rating, let's say his rating now is at 70. B has played 5 matches so he is not yet getting complete ratings and is at 40. C hasn't even started so he starts from 0. Now assume each of the players keep scoring the same points for the next 10 matches.
Since A has played enough matches to keep getting rewarded the fill points he scores 75 each time. His average for the 10 match period is 75.
Since B hasn't played enough matches to receive his full rating he gets (0.75 * 80) for his first 5 matches and then 80 each for his next 10 matches. His average for the period is 73.33.
C receives (0.50 * 80) for first 5 matches, (0.75 * 80) for next 3 matches and finally 80 for the last 5. His average for the period is 60.
Note that where you started from in terms of points at the start of the cut-off had little impact, but the number of matches you had played before the start of the period had a greater impact.
As you can clearly tell, A resembles Tendulkar, B resembles Lara and C resembles Dravid. When you take the entire career into account, all players go through the same initialization bias, so this is fair for everyone. During that analysis the order is Lara - Dravid - Tendulkar!
1)what if Dravid had NOT started with an "avg icc rating " of zero ,but had a start at age 16 like Tenduklar. That would DRAG his "avg icc "points down.
2)Note the Lara drag is "actuall" NOT so much coz avg is a "function" of both runs and avg.- so just 244 runs
3)Also, the "differential" is not so great...as already discussed as compared to the 03-6 period between SRT and the rest
I'm at a loss! We're discussing 1993-2003 - what does that have to do with the 2003-2006 period. Please revert to the Player A-B-C explanation to better understand the math which for some reason is lacking in your arguments regarding the ICC Avg ratings.
As already shown career ratings Tendulkar is behind Lara-Dravid and so you come up with all sorts of excuses.
The "average" points from 93-2003 will NOT be the same for both players because the Start point of 93 for "Player 1" will have a greater negative drag.
LIKE i said , probably the BEST thing that happened to lara...since his 94/95 then starts him off with a very high points avg. Tendukars 1000+ @ 37 is a CLEAR drag. Dravid also benefits by starting his "icc avg. points" from ZERO and then having a good start- avg. 50+ in the first 2 yrs.
I assume you are referring to entire career avgs now. Should a player not be judged on his entire career? Or do you conveniently want to restrict to periods only when you claim Tendulkar is 'light years' ahead and still come up with marginal advantages in this period!
And as explained before, starting from 0 is never good.
Till “dec 2001” Tendulkar was the 2nd best batsman of all time, behind the Don. With lara way off. In 2002 Tendulkar had a decent yr : 1392@55.68 with 4 100s. Lara 351@35.1 with 0 100s.
Suffice it to say,that till end 2002 Tendulkar would only have increased his lead. This ONLY makes it EVEN clearer that it was ONLY because of Tendulkars subsequent injuries that lara AND several others “caught up”
In matches “involving” your fixation with Mcgrath , lara has 19 inn. 617 @ 32.47.
Substantially worse than tendulkars single series at 46.33. This series alone included 2 rubbish decisions (including a daylight between bat and pad catch off warne and not to mention a
“shoulder before wicket- which would have been given not out 999 times out of 1000 in normal situations) so, 2 out of 6 dismissals right here were bull- nevermind prior and further tours.)
Lara in india/pak avg. 33 and 21.5 resp.SRT in WI avg.47.22
So,PLEASE, STOP insulting my (and hopefully your) intelligence any further…
If only you had actually watched some cricket in the 90s instead of selective tapes and youtube highlights…but the stats above are SUPREMELY clear. The only place lara is even slightly ahead of tendulkar is NZ…the others forget it…
Tendulkars SA avg also goes above 50 in the Donald prime period. No wonder Donald said Tendulkar is “Best I’ve ever bowled to”…”Theres lara and theres steve waugh…and then ,a cut above- There’s Tendulkar”….
You know, it is notonly you who is deluded by the 03-07 period when tendulkars career was seemingly in terminal decline and looked like it was over. In 2003 even Mcgrath said Tendulkar was the best!
Then in ’07 he said lara was slightly more dangerous….so , I don’t entirely blame you…but hopefully ( dim hope!) you will see things clearly, and not through your coloured goggles…and see the light…
It is Tendulkar…then there’s a gap (huge one if you take all forms of the game which actually you must.lara had ample opportunity in the one day game to show what he had)….then there’s the rest…you can argue over lara,ponting,dravid etc till kingdom come….but when the history of cricket is written , this will be the Tendulkar era.
There you go bringing in ODIs into the picture. When Lara was interested in ODIs he was outperforming Tendulkar too (in the 1990s). But overall Tendulkar has lead in ODIs.
But tests, is another story. It becomes particularly clear once you opposition bowling quality into consideration. When you take performances outside the sub-continent it is even more evident. Add to this Lara generally had a weaker batting team!
@shamsmi Your DELUSION knows no end. you have created a MAKE BELIEVE world for yourself wherein you refuse to see stats or any other matter which is outside of your cocoon:
"When Lara was interested in ODIs he was outperforming Tendulkar too (in the 1990s). "
5)AGAIN, you forget (conveniently??) that in this case it is BETTER to start you average "icc points" with Zero.
6)SO, the icc "Averages" you put up from "93-03"are ONLY actually within those dates IF you have the start "score" as ZERO
7)a poor start creates a DRAG on future averages.SRT till 92: 1360@33.2 BCL :1068@34.5...so,SRT has more runs at a lesser avg. as of 92- this creates a negative DRAG from the 93 "start point"
YOu know, shams. YOu seem to be a relatively smart chap. which is why i dont understand why:
1)you clearly pick ONLY metrics/stats which suit you, and ignore the rest
2)EVEN AFTER being explained that it is BETTER to start with Zero in this "average icc points" metric if a batsman has a relatively poor preceding patch- you STILL attempt to pull these stunts
3)of course, i HOPE you understand by now that matches "including" bowlers are not head to heads and we DONT know the error invol
You know that Lara's stats relate to just one series in SA (as opposed to also home) and that was the series where the WIndies players were in a dispute with the board.
Btw, you're limiting to 2003 whereby you're skipping off any bad years Tendulkar had and all along include the 1996-2000 patch which included Lara's worst years mainly due to loss of interest esp due to his rift with the WICB.
@shamsmi as usual your mental filter keeps operating without you perhaps even knowing. vs pak from 93-03, tendukar played one series in attacks "including" Wasim...On the "easy" dead subcontinental tracks...Saqlain got him 3 times,Mush 1,Shoaib once, ONE RUN out (the controversial one where shoaib obstructed him)..Wasim NEVER got him...have you seen the 136 with Wasim bowling awesome and reverse swinging and the way he got DRAVID?
PLEASE actually WATCH some cricket- Tenduklar handled Wasim EASY
If you notice my claim is that their teams outperformed them and not that Lara/Tendulkar outperformed each other! Regardless presence of Wasim meant the bowling attack was stronger than without him. Also, note that Tendulkar didn't have to face Wasim/Waqar in their pomp early to mid 90s.
Strange he couldn't out-perform Dravid another batsman in his own team in tougher batting conditions!.
Note my comparison has been regarding batsman of similar era. All-time there are batsmen like Hobbs, Sobers, Hammond, Richards, etc who were very good. Both Lara and Tendulkar average lower than Bradman and Hobbs (at least) in the ICC ratings averages. Sobers' stats are amazing esp. considering he wasn't always sober while playing.
@shamsmi WHICH is why when i posted the stats below i did not put up a sep. table with tendulkar and just a footnote of how well lara did on the "easy" indian and pak tracks from 93-03
Lara had just one tour in India when he was honing his skills against spinners. It would have been interesting to see his stats if he had the opportunity to tour there once more.
1993-2003 what you fail to mention is Tendulkar played 85 inns (avg 65) in the sub-continent while Lara played only 19 (avg 54). It is unanmious that during the 90s and early 2000s the sub-continent was the single best place for batting.
Outside the subcontinent same period Lara 149 inns @ 53 and Tendulkar 62 inns @ 50.6. See the difference!!!
Keep rolling and get up when you have a serious argument. Do you argue that 90s WIndies was one of the tougher places to bat generally helpful to fast bowlers?
@shamsmi Sheesh! As USUAL , you have PICKED whatever FILTER suits you…sure Dravid,lara etc etc etc may have done slightly better vs X country, Y bowler, etc etc…As so many others mentioned when comparing spostsmen that you will ALWAYS find a filter which will suit you- whether arguing against Ali, Fed, or whoever
Dravid overall has performed better than Tendulkar outside the sub-continent. What other filter is applied here? This despite Dravid only making his debut and Tendulkar having head start of 7 years int'l cricket and toured some of the countries earlier. As usual your tendency is to look at wholesome numbers and not bother with other significant factors.
If you notice I've been saying to avoid minnows including pre-doosra Murali SL right from the very start of the comments if you look back. Dravid has only recently joined in on the discussion. So your claim falls flat on the face - it's not that I have had a sudden change of heart.
Do you think SL won the 1996 World Cup on their bowling strength? And do you seriously disagree their bowling attack before Murali became a match winner was anything to be feared about?
Have you seen Dravid play Murali? I have very rarely seen him handling him with ease. On the other hand, i have for the most part seen Tendulkar handle him easily.
If Murali was so very pathetic and Dravid "better than Tendulkar" then why on earth did Dravid struggle vs him in SL pre 2003 while Tendulkar pasted him???
In the early 90s Dravid issue was converting 50s to 100s. I think the only series before 2000 in SL is one of those and I hardly saw him struggle against Murali.
NOOOOOOOOO,,,I posted stats of tendukar and dravid AWAY vs major test nations....THAT is when u brought up the pre doosra murali and what not- pls dont distort things
The pre-doosra murali argument was mentioned very early on - not when you were comparing Tendulkar-Dravid. Please check before you post false accusations - or was that intentional on your part.
To repeat (ad nauseum) my argument - that in any "greatest" debate you will always, always find some "filters' to support your case. the point is how the finaly performances balance out....got it?
for eg. dravid may have got a marginal avg excess as per a filter of your chosing...
but WHY has he done poorly in India?
If batting was SO easy- why could a batsman who in your warped opinion avg. less than 50 in india while tendulkar avg 65?
Have you seen how many instances I've come up with, even in the period you claim are Tendulkar's best years! A player should be judged on his entire career not some particular phase.
The filters applied are to judge quality of bowling faced. ICC Ratings takes this into account and entire career Tendulkar Tendulkar is behind. Only the 1993-2003 Tendulkar's best years is he ahead of Lara and Dravid.
Does the ICC ratings fit the grand slam argument. Also I do not understand why the grand slams all of a sudden jump to 8 from 4? In any case you inadvertently state the exact point I'm making we shouldn't be looking at raw numbers.
Only in the case of Dravid-Tendulkar does the raw numbers comparison in matches in any country they both played make sense as they both faced similar conditions.
What i am explaining is that in cricket it is DIFFERENT from tennis.
in tennis a domination of a player over YEARS will TRANSLATE exactly into number of titles...because of the FIXED number.
in cricket pls look at the high CONCENTRATION of mathches which ponting,kallis,dravid and co. benefited from in good batting conditons which HUGELY INFLATED their stats......so this skews the "overall" issue drastically...and so you require basic sporting knowledge to intepret stats instead of
Ok, so outside subcontinent (5 countries exc Zim) Dravid was better than Tendulkar (event 1996-2003 period which you claim is Tendulkar's best) while inside (3 countries) Tendulkar was better. Overall who turns out to be better. Even if you look at continents and try to make an analogy with continents as Grand slams in tennis - who turns out better?
And the 2003-07 period Tendulkar had the same opportunity to score runs as any of the other batsman-injury excuse lame shown earlier
Suppose you have 2 TENNIS players. Tenduklar and Ponting
For 10 yrs Tenduklar is clearly the best player. During this time they have the standard 4 slams a year...Say tendulkar consistenly wins 2 out of the 4 slams.
He ends up with 20 slams.
THEN in a period of 5 yrs they increase the slams to say 8 a year. Ponting in top form and a WEAK field. Ponting wins 4 out of 8 slams for 5 yrs.
So, it takes EXTREME sporting ignorance to put Tendulakr and Ponting on the SAME pedestal....this is what happens when you take "overral" stats without any context
""f batting was SO easy- why could a batsman who in your warped opinion avg. less than 50 in india while tendulkar avg 65?"
Whom are you talking about? If Lara, he only had one series in India. It would be interesting if he had played there at least another series. Lara struggled in his first tours of Pak and SL too when he was working on his skills vs spinners.
GOOD god...it is OBVIOUS im talking about DRAVID in THIS particlar comment
With your utterly warped thinking you have him above Tendukar as "better" for the last 20yrs.........from Till 93-03 Tendulkar avg 65 at home to dravids sub 50 on the OH so easy batting conditions
In sub-continent pitches Tendulkar was better than Dravid. Maybe facing the newer ball has something to do with it. Among current batsmen only Jayawardena/Yousuf are probably better than Tendulkar in the sub-continent.
Did you notice it was a guess and not a strong statement? In any case facing the newer ball is almost always tougher than facing the older ball - why do you think we have specialist openers? Once the ball gets older and starts reversing its tough too. But an opening batsman has to face both the new ball and the reversing ball where as the middle order usually only faces the latter.
'focus to finesse your "guesses" and "strong statments"'
Did you see the "MAYBE" in "Maybe facing the newer ball..."
As mentioned earlier a top order batsman has to face the new ball + reversing ball compared to a middle order bat who only faces reversing only if top order does its job.
Yeah, right.....so a batsman who is "better" than tendulkar performs significantly less over a HUGE sample size since he is at no.3 instead of no.4....hats off
Actually if you only take Indian conditions since 1996, Sehwag averages (58.20) more than Tendulkar(53.68) and Dravid(49.75) despite being an opener. So Sehwag is better than Tendulkar wo is better than Dravid in Indian conditions.
Subcontinent excluding BD since 1996:
Sehwag: 62.57
Tendulkar: 53.41
Dravid: 49.94
So it appears Tendulkar has not been the best batsman in the team since 1996 either in or outside the sub-continent!
Laxman avgs 69.38 to Tendulkar's 68.88 with Sehwag at 55.75. Still the argument remains he wasn't the best batsman in the team! I don't know how you got the 78.8 cricinfo says 68.8.
LOL, sure so for 2 years Lax avg 1 run more than Tendulkar at home....but over longer periods? away vs all countries?.......dont u get it? you will always find stats to suit some highly selective filter.
from 93-03 lara avg 53 in wi...from cpaul debut to 03 he avg 54 in WI...
Is all this for real? It is blatantly clear that the major rivals for tendukar as the best batsman for the last 20yrs- lara,dravid,ponting- were actually better for just 3 yrs or so.....
You do realise you've been stating that 1993-2003 was Tendulkar's best period and those stats mentioned above were taken in this period. Where have I stated that 1993-2003 was Lara's best period? Isn;t it unfair to pick the best period of one played and try to implement it for players from other countries - Lara/Chanderpaul.
You do realize that you started talking about raw stats again when comparing players from different teams! During 1993-1996 raw stats Lara averages 59.41 to Tendulkar's 59.44 So 1993-1996 they were head to head despite Tendulkar playing in generally better batting conditions.
And do the year by year stats take the bowling quality faced into account or that on most occasions those inns were on the batting friendly sub-continent taken into account?
Did I not tell that Tendulkar performaed better than Dravid in the subcontinent wickets, but not necessarily better than on of his other teams mates - this from a batsman who is supposed to be light years ahead!
Also, did you miss my point of taking bowling quality into account! As always you revert to raw numbers as that helps you case - though you realise how weak the argument is.
Strange- i thought dravid and tendukar were in the same team (last i checked)...and on the dead ,"easy to bat on" indian wickets dravid avg. less than 50 till 03, while tendukar avg 65. odd
And like i said, since you have your own "homemade" programme on "average" "Icc" ratings pls lets us know from 93-03 (not 04) as per your previous comment.
Lara had a great 94/95 which keeps his "average" good through his flops...this high concentration of big runs/good avg. is what helps for the rest of the 90s
So two good/great years can overlap his 'bad' performances for the rest of the 8 years (1993-2003 period). And yet he can maintain an ICC rating average close to that of Tendulkar who is supposed to be light years ahead during that period according to you.
But, when you look at entire careers Tendulkar's 4 'average' years (not related to injury as you claim - check his ODI stats in same period) all the stats to suddenly start favoring Lara? See any inconsistencies in your logic?
Shamsi..so at least good you ADMIT that you were WRONG about your very BASIC math and concepts of "icc averages" and starting from zero etc.
AGAIN- there are several metrics- as mentioned (ad nauseum) as of 2002 using an ICC model itself - Tendulkar was rated 2nd best batsman of all time with lara, dravid and co. way off. On what basis do you continually chose to ignore this- because it doesnt gell with your prior hypothesis?
Btw 1993-2003 Lara had 72 inns compared to Chanderpaul's 48 inns meaning he missed matches. In common matches: Lara avgs 56.41 and Chanderpaul 54.69 in the west indies between 1993-2003
@shamsmi You know....i think you actually REALISE that your are merely desperately trying out all manner of statistical tricks......with every permution and combination possible...to arrive at your predetermined conclusions
No tricks! You're trying to use time periods to your advantage, but still it turns out Tendulkar wasn't the best in the team inside/outside the subcontinent. I think you will need to scope it down to a single year to achieve that since Dravid, Ganguly , Laxman debuted.
@shamsmi with the possible exception of Bradman…there has NEVER been a sportsman who is better than all his peers in EVERY single respect…what matters is that he is better than his PEERS in MORE respects than they are to him- UNDerstand??
He is actually CLEARLY better..;. actually with the notable exception of murali EVERY bowler, batsman etc would all pick tendulkar as the best batsman as of 2003...from 03 on things have admittedly changed drastically..
Tendulkar: 14 Inns @ 47.69 (avg 55.57 in wins/draw)
Where id you get your 70.8 stats? Are you reverting to lies? As mentioned earlier, Tendulkar was not even the best batsman in the team! Raw averages comparison is fair here as these players were facing the same bowling on similar pitch conditions in similar match situations.
HA,ha ....another one of your pathetic tricks....when it suits u you include the minnows, otherwise you keep going on about the bowling attacks...make up your mind dude:
VS MAJOR test playing nations: Eng, Aus,NZ, SA (OUTSIDE the subcontinent)
93-03 (OUTSIDE the subcontinent and for MAJOR test nations: aus, nz, sa, saf:
SRT 37inn 1995@57.00, 7 100s
BCL 58inn 2599@45.59, 8 100s Embarrasing! if you ask me!!
Between 1993-2003 which minnow did Lara play outside the subcontinent? If he did what were his scores there?
Note the significantly fewer inns for Tendulkar compared to Lara? This includes stats where he faced Caddick-Gough less English attacks, McGrath-Warne less Aus attacks to name a few too ;)
Also 1993-2003 are Tendulkar's best years according to you and include Lara's worst years for a major portion. Comparing Tendulkar's performance to Dravid is more revealing isn't it - Tendulkar was even the best batsman in the team.
@shamsmi Basically lara was a HOMETOWN bully...if you take away his home stats and dead rubber stats you may well get an avg. of around or less than 40
Make no mistake, lara was a great batsman- but he is EXTREMELY lucky tenduklar broke down in 2003...till then it was a no contest...from 03-06- lara ,ponting,dravid,kallis and NUMEROUS others filled their boots silly........and so a superficial looks at stats make them seem similar....they are NOT. tendulkar has and will always be a cut above
He was not even better than Dravid in the outside sub-continent matches thus not being the best batsman in the team. Regarding your dead rubber please corroborate it with stats.
LOL, if you take out ONLY 2 dead rubber stats( 375 and 400*)......lara's avg goes to 49.68......and TRUST me if you take out the other dead rubbers (since u are such a stats freak you should be able to check for yourself- what doesnt suit your prior hypothesis?)
basically, lara is a HOMETOWN bully and a dead rubber king....sure he's played some absolute inn...but except for the 03-06 patche when ALL batsmen piled on runs...he is a distant 2nd to the King tenduklar
One stat I'm very interested in is the averages when Lara/Dravid/Tendulkar had to come in to bat early. Since cricinfo doesn't provide suport for querying this I haven't been able to come up with those stats or the dead rubber one you wish.
Please do come out with real numbers as this is sthg you belive in and have made a statement about. That should help us analyze the performance of BOTH Tendulkar and Lara in dead rubbers.
You know...there was an analysis in criciinfo a while back....you know the BEST position for high scores? No.3..thats right...it is probably because to score big you need to come in EARLY on a good pitch...so then you have all the time in the world.
SO, although the stats may not be there, a GOOD argument can be made that on good pitches (especially the likes of which we have seen after the 90s) the BEST thing would be to come in early to bat
@alllman2000 vs Eng in Eng Caddick/Gough/Harmison/Jones Lara 22 I @ 32.61 Tendulkar 6 I @ 66.83 Chanderpaul 16 I @ 82.25 Dravid 6 I @ 100.33 vs Eng overall Caddick/Gough/Harmison/Jones Lara 43 I @ 52.75 Chanderpaul 37 I @ 49.80 Dravid 12 I @ 77.90 Tendulkar 11 I @ 65.44 Note fewer inns Tendulkar played vs these better bowlers from England over the last two decades. Also, as in Aus Dravid outperforms Tendulkar in these scenarios - another of my 'preconceived' notions corroborated by stats.
Yes they were all at their peaks, but how often did Tendulkar face these bowlers compred to Lara? As some of the stats show he hardly faced the better attack more often than Lara did - in addition, Lara was usually playing in a weaker batting team!
Actually , Lara was probably in a BETTER batting team especially AWAY...away outside the subcontinent esp. the Indians were pathetic...dravid helped to a certain extent in the late 90s...but as i said check out the stats till 03...it was Tenduklar , then daylight ,then the rest.
Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman all debuted around 96. Before them there was Azharuddin. I'd agree that till 95 WIndies had a better batting attack away, but after 95 WIndies batting in general has been woeful away from home. Chanderpaul has picked up the baton since Lara retired.
Even then (till 2003) Dravid was outperforming Tendulkar away from the sub-continent!
2002 - Lara injured. What happened after 2002. You'll draw that lame stick of him being injured despite him playing 37 Test matches in the 2003-2007 period!
if u think it is "lame" then obviously again u really dont know what happened in cricket/tendukars career at all...except for your blinded devotion to lara...
Plz read my comment earlier about over bowled as a part-timer for India. It seems unlikely an 'injured' player will be asked to bowl the most overs for his team as a part-timer?
If you take into account the quality of bowling faced, which the ICC ratings does using some sophisticated model, you end up with a weighted average/rating where Lara ends up higher.
Btw, if you notice from the stats above while both Tendulkar and Dravid played in similar conditions, Dravid averages higher than Tendulkar (and Lara too)!!!
"you're now clutching at non-existent straws by referring to away records!"
Doesn't look non-existent to me, does it to you now after this explanation?
@shamsmi The WORST, absolutely WORST.....part is that you will go on and on and on ad nauseum even after having been shown how you only filter particular stats or arguments to suit your preconceived notions....
THere was this other idiot who posted stats of ODIs vs strike bowlers !! (luckily he didnt try to pull the superstock trick)....KNOWIng full well that tendulkar opens and will face all those strike bowlers with the new ball whereas lara comes lower down............
Can you find loop holes in those? If I'm filtering out stats against weaker bowlers/bowling attacks is that mischievous on my part? Don't we necessarily do the same thing when we claim player X avergaes higher in Aus and ignore his stats in Zim - filtering out the weaker team?
Like i said : try that pre tendulkar injury: FROM 93-03...ALL the baddest bowlers u mention were at their peaks. lara and tendulkar were not seriously injured for long periods during this spell..
93-03, Lara was injured the entire series against India 2002. But he played all 5 matches, Tendulkar has never played with such an injury. The closest I remember was him having back troubles against pakistan which would surface only when he played longish inns.
As mentioned earlier, plz state the number of inns for each batsman against the bowlers mentioned earlier.
@shamsmi ............SO, this other guy may have been INTENTIONALLY devious...since he MAY not have known how way off these stats are from "Head to heads" since we have NO idea of whether and how many balls the batsman actually faced off the srike bowlers.
BUT at LEAST someone with even a teeny weeny bit of cricketing knowledge should know about opening batsmen in ODIS facing strike bowlers with the new ball ....and lower batsmen having an easier time in this regard???
@alllman2000 Why are you bringing ODIs into the picture, are you beginning to see that your case is weakening in Tests. I've already previously mentioned no one compared with Tendulkar in ODIs other than Viv. We are discussing performance in Tests, aren't we?
OH no! thats a new trick....it is YOU who are attempting to filter and distill away in the hope that at least some stats will be in favour of lara. and when u find them u swing away "eureka"
It is like a guy who is hellbent on getting federer down......what does he do? he will show his record vs nadal, prowess on clay courts, record in five setters etc....
BUT he will conveniently forget (coz it suits him) that the whole basis for CLAIM to greatness is obviously the overall game
@shamsmi ...and as per your beloved icc "average" rankings...doesnt it strike u as odd that numerous batsmen such as richardson etc all come out on top?
BTW check out tendulkars stats from 01 Jan 1993 to 01 Jan 2003 (got this from a writer on another blog)
After Bradman, ONLY tendulkar has been that far above the pack for a 10 yr period.
800 and 784, I wouldn't call that far away from the pack. Also note this includes Tendulkar's best years according to you while almost half that is in Lara's worst years! Overall career, you already we already know Lara is ahead as shown previously ;)
This has been flagged as spam show
@madaboutsleep i let your mummy suck my dick every night. i hate it cause she is ugly but i let her cause she begs me to. an where did she learned to beg like that? she spreads her legs wide an asks to insert the coins in her various holes. it is hard to ignore such beggars.
but what is too much is that now she is not satisfied by just sucking my dick, she insists on undressing my penis and licking the cheese inside. yucks.
sanjay49700 2 months ago
Believe u me, If WICB can get their act right what a squad they have :
Batters : Gayle, Edwards, Barath, Sars, Chanders, DM BRAVO, Nash, Simmons..
Fast Bowlers: Roach, Edwards, Taylor (All 90+mph), Rampaul, Powell
All rounders : Sammy, Bravo, Pollard
Spinners : Bishoo, Benn, Martin
hardikvyas21 6 months ago
2:26 - Besides this great batting performance, the eventual dismissal of Brian Lara was majestic, what a great slower/off cutter ball to just knock of the off stump bail !
Crkt4Eva 1 year ago
Lara is just a magic!!!
TheSiddiqui008 1 year ago 4
Also, i dont know if you remember but the wc was in 2003.
and i am SURE that you are unaware that tendulkar played that entire cup with a broken hand- yup, you heard right.
So, i guess the max a guy can do is grit through a tournament with a broken hand. but like i said the wear and tear injuries with no recovery period are worse.
there was a span there (dont rem exactly-04 around i think) that tendukar couldt pick up a tea cup for 6 mts, never mind a bat.
But of course- as per u those are "lame
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000 Fyi regarding wc 2003 something I just came across, Tendulkar scored 373 of his 673 runs against the weaker teams. He scored 300 from 6 inns vs Aus-Eng-Pak-SL-NA. He managed only 40 runs in two attempts vs Aus. So the wc2003 stats are not quite as impressive as they first appear. Nonetheless he had an excellent world cup. The discussion in this thread though is mainly Tests.
shamsmi 4 months ago
SO, since it is OBVIOUS that comparisons across teams is fraught with error and across team mates would be more accurate...doesnt it strike you as odd that as of 2003 Tendulkar is miles and miles ahead of Dravid?
alllman2000 1 year ago
So, basically lara gets a few points as per your "icc averages" coz he had some poor batsmen around him and plus (if i remember) in those models you get xtra points for things such as "coming in early' that is fall of early wickets etc.
Basically, the NON performance of his teammates Boosts laras points!!! LOL
so, compare these points with CHanders etc...but not with other teams.
And AGAIN
WHY, oh why, as per some "icc model" itself is SRT the 2nd best of ALL time till 2002?/?
alllman2000 1 year ago
So, since their careers are NOT over as yet, while lara's is . i think the rankings for best modern day batsmen should be:
1)Tendulkar
2)Ponting
3)Kallis/Dravid
4)Lara/Cpaul
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000 How is Ponting better than Dravid and Lara?
Imrankniazi 1 year ago
@Imrankniazi
Oh, Imran...Actually I was just using shamsi's logic against himself.
What he does is pure "data mining"
i.e use only that data which suits his hypothesis. i.e x is better than y....and studiously avoid any contadictory data.
I suppose we all accept that all the greats will have this or that particular stat or stat window in their favour. so , just harping on that one thing to the exclusion of all others is ridiculous.
So, i used some "ratings" shamsi gave to put down the order.
alllman2000 1 year ago
@Imrankniazi
We can go on playing around on statsbases all our lives. With the exception of the Don...we can keep picking this or stat in favour of "our boy'.
However, when you consider all aspects of batting- my order of modern greats would actually be:
1)Tendulkar
2)Lara
3)S.Waugh (unfortunately unheralded- but till the late '90s,early 2000s spoken in the same breath as the Great 2)
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000 Nah, Lara is better than Tendulkar, you'll see next year against Pakistan and India, lol
manomogul 1 year ago
@Imrankniazi
Then the Rest...if you see what happened was that in the mid 2000s there was an unprecedented run orgy...in which ALL the modern "greats" - ponting, dravid, kallis etc etc absolutely feasted thereby immeasurably boosting their "overall" stats.
Lara too had the best years of his career in this period. Tendulkar unfortunately due to a string of serious injuries conversely had the worst period.
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000 why don't you people just add each other on twitter or facebook and argue there! why must every Lara video turn into a Tendulkar vs Lara battle?
MrMJ7 1 year ago 3
@Imrankniazi
So, naive cricket observers( or perhaps perversely deliberately) use "overall" stats completely obfusticating the issue.
I could go on, but what's the point
alllman2000 1 year ago
@Imrankniazi , Don't know about Lara, but Ponting is much better than Dravid.....Dravid cannot bat aggressively and win you a game while chasing, Ponting can.
YORKER876 7 months ago
This is what you posted earlier:
"
Ok, looks like you need a mini math lesson:
Plyr-A: 100, 120 140, 160, 180, 200
Plyr-B: 0, 40, 80, 120, 160, 200.
Say cut-off is 6 matches, Plyr-A has a head start of 100. Who averages higher? I hpoe you get the point. Despite plyr-B rising quickly his average will be lower than play-A. We are ignoring previous scores of plyr-A as we pick only scores involving matches in a particular period.
"
THEN realising that it is nonsense you quickly went back -LOL
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000 where have I gone back. The comment showing those values are still there for everyone to see!
shamsmi 4 months ago
You ALSO require to understand that most of these metrics apply (again from another blog)to "how dominant a batsman was *in his team* (comparisons across teams should be avoided)"....i.e you get additionaly points for things like % of team score, etc etc...i,e to a large extent points are relative to others in OWN team as opposed to other team.
and again why oh why:
Does the ICC rankings around 2002 have Tendulkar as the 2nd best batsman of all time?
Simple question really?
alllman2000 1 year ago
LOL....what a joke! so, then it ISNT a straight forward average as you keep going on about...I gave you a simple math lesson on AVERAGES!
which im sure even a person with limited math knowledge will agree to.
so, now you have come up with some OTHER methodology.
You know what...how about the ENTIRE methodology....i would like to know.
And i would ALSO, like to know why:as of 2002 using an ICC model itself - Tendulkar was rated 2nd best batsman of all time with lara, dravid way off.
alllman2000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For eg. till 93
SRT :1085 @ 37.4
BCL : 244 @ 30.5
R.D : 1643@51.3 (1st 2 yrs)
Now...
1)what if Dravid had NOT started with an "avg icc rating " of zero ,but had a start at age 16 like Tenduklar. That would DRAG his "avg icc "points down.
2)Note the Lara drag is "actuall" NOT so much coz avg is a "function" of both runs and avg.- so just 244 runs
3)Also, the "differential" is not so great...as already discussed as compared to the 03-6 period between SRT and the rest
so min distortion
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
1993-2003 ICC Averages:
Dravid and a few others start from 0 as they debuted in 1996. Before 1993 Tendulkar had played 20 matches compared to Lara's 4. So Lara hasn't achieved his complete rating which usually takes 10 or more matches to achieve.
1. S.R. Tendulkar = Mchs: 85, Avg: 803.02
2. B.C. Lara = Mchs: 86, Avg: 776.17
3. S.R. Waugh = Mchs: 109, Avg: 761.75
6. R. Dravid = Mchs: 69, Avg: 712.67
8. Inzamam-ul-Haq = Mchs: 80, Avg: 689.31
10. Saeed Anwar = Mchs: 54, Avg: 661.13
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
Like i said....it is probaly BETTER for "good starters" to start at ZERO.
because of the nature of "averages"
A "good start" will often give you a good base...and vice versa.
Lara had the best possible base from 93, with his great 94/95...which carries him in terms of "average" "icc" points
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
It is never good to start at ZERO! And why should someone be pnealised for a good start versus one that doesn't start good. Regardless ICC ratings doesn't allow a player to get high up in the ratings even if he starts very very well. And also ICC rating requires you to maintain form - a peak in one match followed by some bad scores results in your rating dropping quickly.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
? OF COURSE it is good to start from ZERO - if you can start well
this is BASIC!!
If a batsman has a poor start this is a DRAG on future performance. eg:
1)-Bat 1:30 inn; 1000 @ 40. Then 100 inn , 5000 @ 50.....the initial 30 inn will DRAG his avg down.
2)Bat 2 :START with ZERO..5000@50- who do you think will have the higher "AVERAGE"?
PLEAse note we are talking about "average" here , not cumulative totals. so a high base is better than zero is better than a low base
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Ok, looks like you need a mini math lesson:
Plyr-A: 100, 120 140, 160, 180, 200
Plyr-B: 0, 40, 80, 120, 160, 200.
Say cut-off is 6 matches, Plyr-A has a head start of 100. Who averages higher? I hpoe you get the point. Despite plyr-B rising quickly his average will be lower than play-A. We are ignoring previous scores of plyr-A as we pick only scores involving matches in a particular period.
shamsmi 1 year ago
Comment removed
alllman2000 1 year ago
Comment removed
alllman2000 1 year ago
@shamsmi
Dude , for all your stat assertions your math is poor.
We are NOT talking about STARTING an INNINGS with a ZERO
we are talking about starting the "average point" score with a ZERO.
So, for a batsman with a poor start it will DRAG his "average' down
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Looks like the mini-math lesson didn't work, you prob have limitations with math when they don't back your delusional image of Tendulkar (e.g. injury 2003-2007 affected him in Tests but stargely not in ODIs in the same period where he performed better than his career average). So let me give it another try. We are interested in the period between 1993-2003 and not what happened before that period.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Let's try a simple model where each of three players play 15 matches and score the same number of points but start at diff stages at this cut-off period of 10 matches. We also assume it takes 10 matches for a player to get full ratings and there is a 50% weight down for first 5 matches and 75% for next 5. You start getting full rating from 10 matches.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@alllman2000
So A has played enough matches (20 > 15) to attain his complete rating, let's say his rating now is at 70. B has played 5 matches so he is not yet getting complete ratings and is at 40. C hasn't even started so he starts from 0. Now assume each of the players keep scoring the same points for the next 10 matches.
Since A has played enough matches to keep getting rewarded the fill points he scores 75 each time. His average for the 10 match period is 75.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Since B hasn't played enough matches to receive his full rating he gets (0.75 * 80) for his first 5 matches and then 80 each for his next 10 matches. His average for the period is 73.33.
C receives (0.50 * 80) for first 5 matches, (0.75 * 80) for next 3 matches and finally 80 for the last 5. His average for the period is 60.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
LOL....what a joke! so, then it ISNT a straight forward average as you keep going on about...I gave you a simple math lesson on AVERAGES!
which im sure even a person with limited math knowledge will agree to.
so, now you have come up with some OTHER methodology.
You know what...how about the ENTIRE methodology....i would like to know.
And i would ALSO, like to know why:as of 2002 using an ICC model itself - Tendulkar was rated 2nd best batsman of all time with lara, dravid way off.
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Note that where you started from in terms of points at the start of the cut-off had little impact, but the number of matches you had played before the start of the period had a greater impact.
As you can clearly tell, A resembles Tendulkar, B resembles Lara and C resembles Dravid. When you take the entire career into account, all players go through the same initialization bias, so this is fair for everyone. During that analysis the order is Lara - Dravid - Tendulkar!
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
If you want to take entire careers into account - you conveniently forget (as is your want) that tendulkar (or dravid) are not retired as yet.
Lara has gone....so, then i suggest you wait. or then we play the date game- simple.
you want to have your cake and eat it too............
alllman2000 1 year ago
@shamsmi
For eg. till 93
SRT :1085 @ 37.4
BCL : 244 @ 30.5
R.D : 1643@51.3 (1st 2 yrs)
Now...
1)what if Dravid had NOT started with an "avg icc rating " of zero ,but had a start at age 16 like Tenduklar. That would DRAG his "avg icc "points down.
2)Note the Lara drag is "actuall" NOT so much coz avg is a "function" of both runs and avg.- so just 244 runs
3)Also, the "differential" is not so great...as already discussed as compared to the 03-6 period between SRT and the rest
so min distortion
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
I'm at a loss! We're discussing 1993-2003 - what does that have to do with the 2003-2006 period. Please revert to the Player A-B-C explanation to better understand the math which for some reason is lacking in your arguments regarding the ICC Avg ratings.
As already shown career ratings Tendulkar is behind Lara-Dravid and so you come up with all sorts of excuses.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
Strange. Even after explaining school level to you - you dont seem to get it.
so, i will repeat.
1)player 1: 1989-93: 1000@33. 93-2003; 7000@60.
2)player 2: 1989-93: 500 @33. 93-2003: 7000@60
The "average" points from 93-2003 will NOT be the same for both players because the Start point of 93 for "Player 1" will have a greater negative drag.
alllman2000 1 year ago
@shamsmi
LIKE i said , probably the BEST thing that happened to lara...since his 94/95 then starts him off with a very high points avg. Tendukars 1000+ @ 37 is a CLEAR drag. Dravid also benefits by starting his "icc avg. points" from ZERO and then having a good start- avg. 50+ in the first 2 yrs.
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
I assume you are referring to entire career avgs now. Should a player not be judged on his entire career? Or do you conveniently want to restrict to periods only when you claim Tendulkar is 'light years' ahead and still come up with marginal advantages in this period!
And as explained before, starting from 0 is never good.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
No-
i simply make the case that a fit tendulkar is the best.
alllman2000 1 year ago
@shamsmi
As i explained - you chose your "icc average"metric when it suits you and if it suits you- even after a lack of understanding of basic math.
alllman2000 1 year ago
Till “dec 2001” Tendulkar was the 2nd best batsman of all time, behind the Don. With lara way off. In 2002 Tendulkar had a decent yr : 1392@55.68 with 4 100s. Lara 351@35.1 with 0 100s.
Suffice it to say,that till end 2002 Tendulkar would only have increased his lead. This ONLY makes it EVEN clearer that it was ONLY because of Tendulkars subsequent injuries that lara AND several others “caught up”
alllman2000 1 year ago
01 jan 1993 – 01 jan 2003:
SRT : 138 inn. 7726@62.3 ,with 27 100s
BCL: 14 inn. 7328@50.5, with 18 100s
In this period practically ALL the bowlers you mention were at their peaks:
Here’s their away records in this period:
AUS:
SRT : 6 inn. 278@46.33 , 1 100 (just one series)
BCL:23 inn. 969@42.13, 3 100s.
I
alllman2000 1 year ago
In matches “involving” your fixation with Mcgrath , lara has 19 inn. 617 @ 32.47.
Substantially worse than tendulkars single series at 46.33. This series alone included 2 rubbish decisions (including a daylight between bat and pad catch off warne and not to mention a
“shoulder before wicket- which would have been given not out 999 times out of 1000 in normal situations) so, 2 out of 6 dismissals right here were bull- nevermind prior and further tours.)
alllman2000 1 year ago
SA
SRT : 11 inn. 507@50.7 , 2 100S
BCL:10 inn. 310@31, 0100s.
NZ
SRT : 9 inn. 381@47.62 , 1100S
BCL:6 inn. 316@52.66, 1 100s
ENG
SRT : 11 inn. 8329@75.36 , 3100S
BCL:19 inn. 1004@55.77, 4100s
alllman2000 1 year ago
Lara in india/pak avg. 33 and 21.5 resp.SRT in WI avg.47.22
So,PLEASE, STOP insulting my (and hopefully your) intelligence any further…
If only you had actually watched some cricket in the 90s instead of selective tapes and youtube highlights…but the stats above are SUPREMELY clear. The only place lara is even slightly ahead of tendulkar is NZ…the others forget it…
alllman2000 1 year ago
Tendulkars SA avg also goes above 50 in the Donald prime period. No wonder Donald said Tendulkar is “Best I’ve ever bowled to”…”Theres lara and theres steve waugh…and then ,a cut above- There’s Tendulkar”….
You know, it is notonly you who is deluded by the 03-07 period when tendulkars career was seemingly in terminal decline and looked like it was over. In 2003 even Mcgrath said Tendulkar was the best!
alllman2000 1 year ago
Then in ’07 he said lara was slightly more dangerous….so , I don’t entirely blame you…but hopefully ( dim hope!) you will see things clearly, and not through your coloured goggles…and see the light…
alllman2000 1 year ago
It is Tendulkar…then there’s a gap (huge one if you take all forms of the game which actually you must.lara had ample opportunity in the one day game to show what he had)….then there’s the rest…you can argue over lara,ponting,dravid etc till kingdom come….but when the history of cricket is written , this will be the Tendulkar era.
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
There you go bringing in ODIs into the picture. When Lara was interested in ODIs he was outperforming Tendulkar too (in the 1990s). But overall Tendulkar has lead in ODIs.
But tests, is another story. It becomes particularly clear once you opposition bowling quality into consideration. When you take performances outside the sub-continent it is even more evident. Add to this Lara generally had a weaker batting team!
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi Your DELUSION knows no end. you have created a MAKE BELIEVE world for yourself wherein you refuse to see stats or any other matter which is outside of your cocoon:
"When Lara was interested in ODIs he was outperforming Tendulkar too (in the 1990s). "
'90s
ODIs
SRT 221 inn 8571@43.1, SR 86.8 , 24 100s
BCL 159 inn 6166@42,8, SR 79.3 , 13 100s
93-03
SRT 246 inn 10184@46.29, SR 88.5 ,33 100s
BCL 165inn 6481@44.39, SR 81.1 , 15 100s
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Regarding ODIs outside the sub-continent, 1993-2003:
MG Bevan 114 I 4066 R 54.94 Avg 74.10 SR
...
SC Ganguly 80 I 3360 R 46.02 Avg 73.33 SR
...
BC Lara 107 I 4064 R 44.65 Avg 78.42 SR
...
SR Tendulkar 80 I 2935 R 41.92 Avg 85.74 SR
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
sorry, the above stats is outside Asia (cricinfo filter) not just the sub-continent.
shamsmi 1 year ago
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
Btw, 170 @ 818.54 means 170 Matches at an average rating of 818.54.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
LOL,
1)so you at least agree that Tendulkar was better when he was fit!!
2)i could easily turn that around and state that tendulkar "was not interested in odis from 93-03"
3)Im sure you also know that Tendulalkar as of end 01or so was the 2nd greatest ODI batsman of all time behind Richards.
4)As i mentioned, the icc model for "best batsman" may perhaps be better than the "average points'
alllman2000 1 year ago
@shamsmi
5)AGAIN, you forget (conveniently??) that in this case it is BETTER to start you average "icc points" with Zero.
6)SO, the icc "Averages" you put up from "93-03"are ONLY actually within those dates IF you have the start "score" as ZERO
7)a poor start creates a DRAG on future averages.SRT till 92: 1360@33.2 BCL :1068@34.5...so,SRT has more runs at a lesser avg. as of 92- this creates a negative DRAG from the 93 "start point"
alllman2000 1 year ago
@shamsmi
YOu know, shams. YOu seem to be a relatively smart chap. which is why i dont understand why:
1)you clearly pick ONLY metrics/stats which suit you, and ignore the rest
2)EVEN AFTER being explained that it is BETTER to start with Zero in this "average icc points" metric if a batsman has a relatively poor preceding patch- you STILL attempt to pull these stunts
3)of course, i HOPE you understand by now that matches "including" bowlers are not head to heads and we DONT know the error invol
alllman2000 1 year ago
@shamsmi
5)the rankings for best batsmen were created by the icc too...perhaps a little different model.
6)but as of around 2002 they had Tendulkar as the 2nd best batsman of all time in both formats (behind Bradman and Richards resp)
7)For every 1 stat you find in favour of lara,dravid etc one can easily find some 2/3 in favour of tendulkar
alllman2000 1 year ago
@shamsmi
8)It is quite clear that barring the don noone has dominated over his peers for a decade like Tendulakr.
9)Bottom line: a fit tendukar = simply the best.
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
I ask you for stats with specific bowlers in the team and you give stats for entire teams!!! let me help you:
SA: One of Donald-Pollock-Ntini playing
BC Lara 35 Inns @ 49.00
SR Tendulkar 34 Inns @ 34.53
Support:
R Dravid 32 Inns @ 36.86
S Chanderpaul 31 Inns @ 47.10
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
Vs. Donald,Polly ,Ntini and co. too from 93-03
SA
SRT : 11 inn. 507@50.7 , 2 100S
BCL:10 inn. 310@31, 0100s.
You know what that Donald rates Tendulkar as the best he's ever bowled to ,right?
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
You know that Lara's stats relate to just one series in SA (as opposed to also home) and that was the series where the WIndies players were in a dispute with the board.
Btw, you're limiting to 2003 whereby you're skipping off any bad years Tendulkar had and all along include the 1996-2000 patch which included Lara's worst years mainly due to loss of interest esp due to his rift with the WICB.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@alllman2000
vs NZ in NZ: involving Cairns/Bond
SR Tendulkar 7 Inns @ 46.71
BC Lara 7 Inns @ 36.42
Support:
R Dravid 8 Inns @ 64.57
CH Gayle 3 Inns @ 45.66
shamsmi 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Finally in mchs vs Pak Wasim/Waqar
SR Tendulkar 12 I @ 32.91
BC Lara 13 I @ 30.30
CL Hooper 27 I @ 45.36
M Azharuddin 19 I @ 40.47
DL Haynes 21 I @ 40.72
SV Manjrekar 7 I @ 94.83
Fairly even here between Lara-Tendulkar. They were outperformed by their team mates easily.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi as usual your mental filter keeps operating without you perhaps even knowing. vs pak from 93-03, tendukar played one series in attacks "including" Wasim...On the "easy" dead subcontinental tracks...Saqlain got him 3 times,Mush 1,Shoaib once, ONE RUN out (the controversial one where shoaib obstructed him)..Wasim NEVER got him...have you seen the 136 with Wasim bowling awesome and reverse swinging and the way he got DRAVID?
PLEASE actually WATCH some cricket- Tenduklar handled Wasim EASY
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
If you notice my claim is that their teams outperformed them and not that Lara/Tendulkar outperformed each other! Regardless presence of Wasim meant the bowling attack was stronger than without him. Also, note that Tendulkar didn't have to face Wasim/Waqar in their pomp early to mid 90s.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
As rgds Wasim.:
read this
"Tendulkar: One of the "unbowlable" batsmen of my era"
alllman2000 1 year ago
@shamsmi Dude , you dont get it ....
From 93-03 Tendulkar outperformed ALL batsmen...NOONE except for Bradman has had such a gulf between him and ALL the rest....
Lara, Dravid etc NEVER outperformed the world for any great length of time....from 03-06 EVeryone scored.!
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
"From 93-03 Tendulkar outperformed ALL batsmen"
Strange he couldn't out-perform Dravid another batsman in his own team in tougher batting conditions!.
Note my comparison has been regarding batsman of similar era. All-time there are batsmen like Hobbs, Sobers, Hammond, Richards, etc who were very good. Both Lara and Tendulkar average lower than Bradman and Hobbs (at least) in the ICC ratings averages. Sobers' stats are amazing esp. considering he wasn't always sober while playing.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi WHICH is why when i posted the stats below i did not put up a sep. table with tendulkar and just a footnote of how well lara did on the "easy" indian and pak tracks from 93-03
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Lara had just one tour in India when he was honing his skills against spinners. It would have been interesting to see his stats if he had the opportunity to tour there once more.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@alllman2000
1993-2003 what you fail to mention is Tendulkar played 85 inns (avg 65) in the sub-continent while Lara played only 19 (avg 54). It is unanmious that during the 90s and early 2000s the sub-continent was the single best place for batting.
Outside the subcontinent same period Lara 149 inns @ 53 and Tendulkar 62 inns @ 50.6. See the difference!!!
shamsmi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
alllman2000 1 year ago
@shamsmi
What u fail to understand (conveniently) is that from 93-03 Tendulkar avg 70.8 IN the West Indies!! Guess it was not too difficult to bat there ha?
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
When I say "Outside the subcontinent ", does it not include West Indies. Or is West Indies considered to be IN the subcontinent?
I repeat: Outside the subcontinent same period (1993-2003) Lara 149 inns @ 53 and Tendulkar 62 inns @ 50.6.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
LOL
i am LITERALLY rolling on the floor laughing..
so you slimely INCLUDE laras HOME record while EXCLUDING tendulakrs!!!!!!!!
Ha ha ha
what a joke
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Keep rolling and get up when you have a serious argument. Do you argue that 90s WIndies was one of the tougher places to bat generally helpful to fast bowlers?
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi Sheesh! As USUAL , you have PICKED whatever FILTER suits you…sure Dravid,lara etc etc etc may have done slightly better vs X country, Y bowler, etc etc…As so many others mentioned when comparing spostsmen that you will ALWAYS find a filter which will suit you- whether arguing against Ali, Fed, or whoever
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Dravid overall has performed better than Tendulkar outside the sub-continent. What other filter is applied here? This despite Dravid only making his debut and Tendulkar having head start of 7 years int'l cricket and toured some of the countries earlier. As usual your tendency is to look at wholesome numbers and not bother with other significant factors.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
GOOD GOD!!!
and why should we not include sl etc...considering they were so poor and "pre doosra" murali and a bowling attack like bangladesh?
i will tell u why - because dravid did poorly there and so they impact his away figures- thats why!!
so, the solution? filter it away!!
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
If you notice I've been saying to avoid minnows including pre-doosra Murali SL right from the very start of the comments if you look back. Dravid has only recently joined in on the discussion. So your claim falls flat on the face - it's not that I have had a sudden change of heart.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
LOL...now SL are minnows. they were the bloody world champs in 1996...you must be the only ones calling them minnows after that
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Do you think SL won the 1996 World Cup on their bowling strength? And do you seriously disagree their bowling attack before Murali became a match winner was anything to be feared about?
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
Have you seen Dravid play Murali? I have very rarely seen him handling him with ease. On the other hand, i have for the most part seen Tendulkar handle him easily.
If Murali was so very pathetic and Dravid "better than Tendulkar" then why on earth did Dravid struggle vs him in SL pre 2003 while Tendulkar pasted him???
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
In the early 90s Dravid issue was converting 50s to 100s. I think the only series before 2000 in SL is one of those and I hardly saw him struggle against Murali.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi Yeah right, till 03 in their "parallel" careers tendukar avg some 111 in SL and dravid 46
alllman2000 1 year ago
@shamsmi
NOOOOOOOOO,,,I posted stats of tendukar and dravid AWAY vs major test nations....THAT is when u brought up the pre doosra murali and what not- pls dont distort things
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
The pre-doosra murali argument was mentioned very early on - not when you were comparing Tendulkar-Dravid. Please check before you post false accusations - or was that intentional on your part.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
To repeat (ad nauseum) my argument - that in any "greatest" debate you will always, always find some "filters' to support your case. the point is how the finaly performances balance out....got it?
for eg. dravid may have got a marginal avg excess as per a filter of your chosing...
but WHY has he done poorly in India?
If batting was SO easy- why could a batsman who in your warped opinion avg. less than 50 in india while tendulkar avg 65?
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Have you seen how many instances I've come up with, even in the period you claim are Tendulkar's best years! A player should be judged on his entire career not some particular phase.
The filters applied are to judge quality of bowling faced. ICC Ratings takes this into account and entire career Tendulkar Tendulkar is behind. Only the 1993-2003 Tendulkar's best years is he ahead of Lara and Dravid.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
Have you even SEEN the grand slam eg I have mentioned??!!
In cricket you HAVE to apply sporting common sense since you DONT have the fixed no. of slams per year.
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Does the ICC ratings fit the grand slam argument. Also I do not understand why the grand slams all of a sudden jump to 8 from 4? In any case you inadvertently state the exact point I'm making we shouldn't be looking at raw numbers.
Only in the case of Dravid-Tendulkar does the raw numbers comparison in matches in any country they both played make sense as they both faced similar conditions.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
What i am explaining is that in cricket it is DIFFERENT from tennis.
in tennis a domination of a player over YEARS will TRANSLATE exactly into number of titles...because of the FIXED number.
in cricket pls look at the high CONCENTRATION of mathches which ponting,kallis,dravid and co. benefited from in good batting conditons which HUGELY INFLATED their stats......so this skews the "overall" issue drastically...and so you require basic sporting knowledge to intepret stats instead of
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Ok, so outside subcontinent (5 countries exc Zim) Dravid was better than Tendulkar (event 1996-2003 period which you claim is Tendulkar's best) while inside (3 countries) Tendulkar was better. Overall who turns out to be better. Even if you look at continents and try to make an analogy with continents as Grand slams in tennis - who turns out better?
And the 2003-07 period Tendulkar had the same opportunity to score runs as any of the other batsman-injury excuse lame shown earlier
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
NOOO, good GOD shams!!! dont u still get it !!??
The "5 countries" "away" is another trick your brain is playing on you....first you have conveniently clubbed the 5 countries..
From dravids debut to 03
SRT was better away in Aus, saf,SL
Dravid in Eng,nz, wi
Again, i dont know whether you INTENTIONALLY club stats and figures to suit your purpose or whether it is subconscous-- combination of both i suppose
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
"i dont know whether you INTENTIONALLY club stats and figures"
At the rate I'm replying to your comments do you think it is humanly possible for me to selectively filter stats as you claim?
shamsmi 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Oh btw, I just notced this grand slam argument of your is from a comment to an article by Ananth. He clearly lambasts the person making that comment.
shamsmi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@shamsmi
TO REPEAT:
Suppose you have 2 TENNIS players. Tenduklar and Ponting
For 10 yrs Tenduklar is clearly the best player. During this time they have the standard 4 slams a year...Say tendulkar consistenly wins 2 out of the 4 slams.
He ends up with 20 slams.
THEN in a period of 5 yrs they increase the slams to say 8 a year. Ponting in top form and a WEAK field. Ponting wins 4 out of 8 slams for 5 yrs.
alllman2000 1 year ago
@shamsmi
So, it takes EXTREME sporting ignorance to put Tendulakr and Ponting on the SAME pedestal....this is what happens when you take "overral" stats without any context
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
""f batting was SO easy- why could a batsman who in your warped opinion avg. less than 50 in india while tendulkar avg 65?"
Whom are you talking about? If Lara, he only had one series in India. It would be interesting if he had played there at least another series. Lara struggled in his first tours of Pak and SL too when he was working on his skills vs spinners.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
GOOD god...it is OBVIOUS im talking about DRAVID in THIS particlar comment
With your utterly warped thinking you have him above Tendukar as "better" for the last 20yrs.........from Till 93-03 Tendulkar avg 65 at home to dravids sub 50 on the OH so easy batting conditions
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
In sub-continent pitches Tendulkar was better than Dravid. Maybe facing the newer ball has something to do with it. Among current batsmen only Jayawardena/Yousuf are probably better than Tendulkar in the sub-continent.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
LOL....now "facing the new ball" is more difficult on the "dead" subcontinent pitches but easier away........you are one CONFUSED dude!
You will go on and on making excuses to suit your preconceived notions
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Did you notice it was a guess and not a strong statement? In any case facing the newer ball is almost always tougher than facing the older ball - why do you think we have specialist openers? Once the ball gets older and starts reversing its tough too. But an opening batsman has to face both the new ball and the reversing ball where as the middle order usually only faces the latter.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
Ah,,,,now ive got to focus to finesse your "guesses" and "strong statments"
And u know dont u that the new ball is available every 80 overs, unlike ODIS?
also, as the match wheres on with the wearing pitch the chances of reversing increase since the ball may face more wear and tear
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
'focus to finesse your "guesses" and "strong statments"'
Did you see the "MAYBE" in "Maybe facing the newer ball..."
As mentioned earlier a top order batsman has to face the new ball + reversing ball compared to a middle order bat who only faces reversing only if top order does its job.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
Yeah, right.....so a batsman who is "better" than tendulkar performs significantly less over a HUGE sample size since he is at no.3 instead of no.4....hats off
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Actually if you only take Indian conditions since 1996, Sehwag averages (58.20) more than Tendulkar(53.68) and Dravid(49.75) despite being an opener. So Sehwag is better than Tendulkar wo is better than Dravid in Indian conditions.
Subcontinent excluding BD since 1996:
Sehwag: 62.57
Tendulkar: 53.41
Dravid: 49.94
So it appears Tendulkar has not been the best batsman in the team since 1996 either in or outside the sub-continent!
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
SOmetimes, i DOnt know if you are JOKINg or what??
Sehwag DEBUTED in 2001!
(sometimes i seriously think you dont have a clue about 90s cricket)
Till 03 at home he avg 55.75
Tendulkar from sehwags debut to 03- avg 78.8!!!
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Ok, 1 Jan 2001 - 1 Jan 2003 in India:
Laxman avgs 69.38 to Tendulkar's 68.88 with Sehwag at 55.75. Still the argument remains he wasn't the best batsman in the team! I don't know how you got the 78.8 cricinfo says 68.8.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
LOL, sure so for 2 years Lax avg 1 run more than Tendulkar at home....but over longer periods? away vs all countries?.......dont u get it? you will always find stats to suit some highly selective filter.
from 93-03 lara avg 53 in wi...from cpaul debut to 03 he avg 54 in WI...
Is all this for real? It is blatantly clear that the major rivals for tendukar as the best batsman for the last 20yrs- lara,dravid,ponting- were actually better for just 3 yrs or so.....
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
You do realise you've been stating that 1993-2003 was Tendulkar's best period and those stats mentioned above were taken in this period. Where have I stated that 1993-2003 was Lara's best period? Isn;t it unfair to pick the best period of one played and try to implement it for players from other countries - Lara/Chanderpaul.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
in Laras "best consecutive" period for more than a few yrs (03-06) he was just one among MANY who filled their boots- no big deal.
In TEndulkars best period for a Decade- he was better than ALL others
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
You do realize that you started talking about raw stats again when comparing players from different teams! During 1993-1996 raw stats Lara averages 59.41 to Tendulkar's 59.44 So 1993-1996 they were head to head despite Tendulkar playing in generally better batting conditions.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
YOu do realise that if you see the year by year stats... lara is effectively better than tendulakr for 1 yr till 2003.
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
And do the year by year stats take the bowling quality faced into account or that on most occasions those inns were on the batting friendly sub-continent taken into account?
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
Strange. when it comes to dravid you seem to get amnesia about the "batting friendly " subcontinent wickets.
Also, as far as lara is concerned WI was probably easier to bat on...i think i wil get at least a double in st.johns....
ALSO, as far as lara, dravid, s.waugh,ponting etc are concerned the WI wickets seemed to have been better than Indian wickets.
In ANY case. we have seen how pathetically lara comparest to SRT away and outside the sub cont from 93-03
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Did I not tell that Tendulkar performaed better than Dravid in the subcontinent wickets, but not necessarily better than on of his other teams mates - this from a batsman who is supposed to be light years ahead!
Also, did you miss my point of taking bowling quality into account! As always you revert to raw numbers as that helps you case - though you realise how weak the argument is.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
Strange- i thought dravid and tendukar were in the same team (last i checked)...and on the dead ,"easy to bat on" indian wickets dravid avg. less than 50 till 03, while tendukar avg 65. odd
alllman2000 1 year ago
@shamsmi
And like i said, since you have your own "homemade" programme on "average" "Icc" ratings pls lets us know from 93-03 (not 04) as per your previous comment.
should be interesting
alllman2000 1 year ago
@shamsmi Strange.
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Is Tendulkar "far and away" better despite having a head start?
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
Lara had a great 94/95 which keeps his "average" good through his flops...this high concentration of big runs/good avg. is what helps for the rest of the 90s
dravid too had a great start..
This is all BASIC math for crying out loud...
i mean u do know what "averages" are for sure
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
So two good/great years can overlap his 'bad' performances for the rest of the 8 years (1993-2003 period). And yet he can maintain an ICC rating average close to that of Tendulkar who is supposed to be light years ahead during that period according to you.
But, when you look at entire careers Tendulkar's 4 'average' years (not related to injury as you claim - check his ODI stats in same period) all the stats to suddenly start favoring Lara? See any inconsistencies in your logic?
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
Shamsi..so at least good you ADMIT that you were WRONG about your very BASIC math and concepts of "icc averages" and starting from zero etc.
AGAIN- there are several metrics- as mentioned (ad nauseum) as of 2002 using an ICC model itself - Tendulkar was rated 2nd best batsman of all time with lara, dravid and co. way off. On what basis do you continually chose to ignore this- because it doesnt gell with your prior hypothesis?
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Btw 1993-2003 Lara had 72 inns compared to Chanderpaul's 48 inns meaning he missed matches. In common matches: Lara avgs 56.41 and Chanderpaul 54.69 in the west indies between 1993-2003
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
ACTUALLY,
seeing cpauls ,ponting,kallis etc stats...here's my reviewed best batsman of the last 20yrs:
1)Tendulkar
2)Ponting
3)Kallis/Dravid
4)Lara/Cpaul
alllman2000 1 year ago
@shamsmi
PLEASE stop INSULTING our collective intelligence
Sehwag DEBUTED in 2001!!!
till 03 he avg 55 at home....tendukar from sehwag debut to 03 avg 79!
alllman2000 1 year ago
@shamsmi You know....i think you actually REALISE that your are merely desperately trying out all manner of statistical tricks......with every permution and combination possible...to arrive at your predetermined conclusions
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
No tricks! You're trying to use time periods to your advantage, but still it turns out Tendulkar wasn't the best in the team inside/outside the subcontinent. I think you will need to scope it down to a single year to achieve that since Dravid, Ganguly , Laxman debuted.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi with the possible exception of Bradman…there has NEVER been a sportsman who is better than all his peers in EVERY single respect…what matters is that he is better than his PEERS in MORE respects than they are to him- UNDerstand??
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
As I have been stating he is NOT better than Lara/Dravid - two of his peers.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
He is actually CLEARLY better..;. actually with the notable exception of murali EVERY bowler, batsman etc would all pick tendulkar as the best batsman as of 2003...from 03 on things have admittedly changed drastically..
and we know why
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
01 Jan 93- 31 Dec 2002 India in West Indies
Dravid: 15 Inns @ 63.66 (avg 103 in wins/draw)
Laxman: 14Inns @ 53.83 (avg 69.85 in wins/draw)
Tendulkar: 14 Inns @ 47.69 (avg 55.57 in wins/draw)
Where id you get your 70.8 stats? Are you reverting to lies? As mentioned earlier, Tendulkar was not even the best batsman in the team! Raw averages comparison is fair here as these players were facing the same bowling on similar pitch conditions in similar match situations.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
HA,ha ....another one of your pathetic tricks....when it suits u you include the minnows, otherwise you keep going on about the bowling attacks...make up your mind dude:
VS MAJOR test playing nations: Eng, Aus,NZ, SA (OUTSIDE the subcontinent)
93-03 (OUTSIDE the subcontinent and for MAJOR test nations: aus, nz, sa, saf:
SRT 37inn 1995@57.00, 7 100s
BCL 58inn 2599@45.59, 8 100s Embarrasing! if you ask me!!
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Between 1993-2003 which minnow did Lara play outside the subcontinent? If he did what were his scores there?
Note the significantly fewer inns for Tendulkar compared to Lara? This includes stats where he faced Caddick-Gough less English attacks, McGrath-Warne less Aus attacks to name a few too ;)
shamsmi 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Also 1993-2003 are Tendulkar's best years according to you and include Lara's worst years for a major portion. Comparing Tendulkar's performance to Dravid is more revealing isn't it - Tendulkar was even the best batsman in the team.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi Basically lara was a HOMETOWN bully...if you take away his home stats and dead rubber stats you may well get an avg. of around or less than 40
Make no mistake, lara was a great batsman- but he is EXTREMELY lucky tenduklar broke down in 2003...till then it was a no contest...from 03-06- lara ,ponting,dravid,kallis and NUMEROUS others filled their boots silly........and so a superficial looks at stats make them seem similar....they are NOT. tendulkar has and will always be a cut above
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
"tendulkar has and will always be a cut above"
He was not even better than Dravid in the outside sub-continent matches thus not being the best batsman in the team. Regarding your dead rubber please corroborate it with stats.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
LOL, if you take out ONLY 2 dead rubber stats( 375 and 400*)......lara's avg goes to 49.68......and TRUST me if you take out the other dead rubbers (since u are such a stats freak you should be able to check for yourself- what doesnt suit your prior hypothesis?)
basically, lara is a HOMETOWN bully and a dead rubber king....sure he's played some absolute inn...but except for the 03-06 patche when ALL batsmen piled on runs...he is a distant 2nd to the King tenduklar
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
One stat I'm very interested in is the averages when Lara/Dravid/Tendulkar had to come in to bat early. Since cricinfo doesn't provide suport for querying this I haven't been able to come up with those stats or the dead rubber one you wish.
Please do come out with real numbers as this is sthg you belive in and have made a statement about. That should help us analyze the performance of BOTH Tendulkar and Lara in dead rubbers.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
You know...there was an analysis in criciinfo a while back....you know the BEST position for high scores? No.3..thats right...it is probably because to score big you need to come in EARLY on a good pitch...so then you have all the time in the world.
SO, although the stats may not be there, a GOOD argument can be made that on good pitches (especially the likes of which we have seen after the 90s) the BEST thing would be to come in early to bat
alllman2000 1 year ago
shamsmi 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Yes they were all at their peaks, but how often did Tendulkar face these bowlers compred to Lara? As some of the stats show he hardly faced the better attack more often than Lara did - in addition, Lara was usually playing in a weaker batting team!
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
Actually , Lara was probably in a BETTER batting team especially AWAY...away outside the subcontinent esp. the Indians were pathetic...dravid helped to a certain extent in the late 90s...but as i said check out the stats till 03...it was Tenduklar , then daylight ,then the rest.
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Dravid, Ganguly, Laxman all debuted around 96. Before them there was Azharuddin. I'd agree that till 95 WIndies had a better batting attack away, but after 95 WIndies batting in general has been woeful away from home. Chanderpaul has picked up the baton since Lara retired.
Even then (till 2003) Dravid was outperforming Tendulkar away from the sub-continent!
shamsmi 1 year ago
@alllman2000
2002 - Lara injured. What happened after 2002. You'll draw that lame stick of him being injured despite him playing 37 Test matches in the 2003-2007 period!
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
if u think it is "lame" then obviously again u really dont know what happened in cricket/tendukars career at all...except for your blinded devotion to lara...
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Plz read my comment earlier about over bowled as a part-timer for India. It seems unlikely an 'injured' player will be asked to bowl the most overs for his team as a part-timer?
shamsmi 1 year ago
If you take into account the quality of bowling faced, which the ICC ratings does using some sophisticated model, you end up with a weighted average/rating where Lara ends up higher.
Btw, if you notice from the stats above while both Tendulkar and Dravid played in similar conditions, Dravid averages higher than Tendulkar (and Lara too)!!!
"you're now clutching at non-existent straws by referring to away records!"
Doesn't look non-existent to me, does it to you now after this explanation?
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi The WORST, absolutely WORST.....part is that you will go on and on and on ad nauseum even after having been shown how you only filter particular stats or arguments to suit your preconceived notions....
THere was this other idiot who posted stats of ODIs vs strike bowlers !! (luckily he didnt try to pull the superstock trick)....KNOWIng full well that tendulkar opens and will face all those strike bowlers with the new ball whereas lara comes lower down............
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Can you find loop holes in those? If I'm filtering out stats against weaker bowlers/bowling attacks is that mischievous on my part? Don't we necessarily do the same thing when we claim player X avergaes higher in Aus and ignore his stats in Zim - filtering out the weaker team?
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
Like i said : try that pre tendulkar injury: FROM 93-03...ALL the baddest bowlers u mention were at their peaks. lara and tendulkar were not seriously injured for long periods during this spell..
and try away vs main test nations also..
then only will u wake up
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
93-03, Lara was injured the entire series against India 2002. But he played all 5 matches, Tendulkar has never played with such an injury. The closest I remember was him having back troubles against pakistan which would surface only when he played longish inns.
As mentioned earlier, plz state the number of inns for each batsman against the bowlers mentioned earlier.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi ............SO, this other guy may have been INTENTIONALLY devious...since he MAY not have known how way off these stats are from "Head to heads" since we have NO idea of whether and how many balls the batsman actually faced off the srike bowlers.
BUT at LEAST someone with even a teeny weeny bit of cricketing knowledge should know about opening batsmen in ODIS facing strike bowlers with the new ball ....and lower batsmen having an easier time in this regard???
This is what i mean-sad
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000 Why are you bringing ODIs into the picture, are you beginning to see that your case is weakening in Tests. I've already previously mentioned no one compared with Tendulkar in ODIs other than Viv. We are discussing performance in Tests, aren't we?
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
OH no! thats a new trick....it is YOU who are attempting to filter and distill away in the hope that at least some stats will be in favour of lara. and when u find them u swing away "eureka"
It is like a guy who is hellbent on getting federer down......what does he do? he will show his record vs nadal, prowess on clay courts, record in five setters etc....
BUT he will conveniently forget (coz it suits him) that the whole basis for CLAIM to greatness is obviously the overall game
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
What's the new trick? Anything I say that doesn't suit you it becomes a trick, notice anything funny about that?
We are discussing Test performances.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi ...and as per your beloved icc "average" rankings...doesnt it strike u as odd that numerous batsmen such as richardson etc all come out on top?
BTW check out tendulkars stats from 01 Jan 1993 to 01 Jan 2003 (got this from a writer on another blog)
After Bradman, ONLY tendulkar has been that far above the pack for a 10 yr period.
CIaoo..........
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
Start date: 01/01/1993, End date: 01/01/2004 ICC Rating averages:
S.R. Tendulkar = Mchs: 90, Avg: 800.39
B.C. Lara = Mchs: 96, Avg: 784.61
S.R. Waugh = Mchs: 121, Avg: 755.93
G.A. Gooch = Mchs: 19, Avg: 754.26
A.C. Gilchrist = Mchs: 50, Avg: 740.56
R. Dravid = Mchs: 74, Avg: 721.42
This also includes 1996-2000 Lara lean period!!!
The raw numbers may look impressive: remember pre Murali SL, Zim, BD. But ICC ratings doesn't show he is far ahead than the next best.
shamsmi 1 year ago
@shamsmi
??? didnt i ~CLEARLY mention "Till tenduklar broke down physically"?
Try 93-03.
FOR 10 years- Tendulkar was WAY above the pack.
Lara was NEVER that much above his contemporaries for even HALF the time
alllman2000 1 year ago
@alllman2000
800 and 784, I wouldn't call that far away from the pack. Also note this includes Tendulkar's best years according to you while almost half that is in Lara's worst years! Overall career, you already we already know Lara is ahead as shown previously ;)
shamsmi 1 year ago