Sachin Tendulkar - Quality of Centuries or Quantity of Centuries?

Discussion in 'Cricket Talk' started by tanveers, Mar 16, 2011.

Users Who Have Read This Thread (Total: 0)

  1. tanveers

    tanveers Youngsta Beauty

    Sep 9, 2010
    Sachin Tendulkar is, undoubtedly, most compact batsman Cricket has ever seen, there is no doubt on his class and on him being legend. The writer of this article has previously rated Sachin Tendulkar as “King Arthur of Cricket”. This article and stats are not meant to degrade Sachin Tendulkar in any way, these are just stats showing one bitter- reality of Tendulkar’s career.

    Centuries are scored to win the matches, you seldom see a batsman scoring century yet on losing side. Once a batsman scores century, he has high hopes of being on winning end and also Man of the Match. Number of players across the world has most-majority of their centuries in winning cause however some batsmen can’t taste the triumph even after scoring a Ton.

    Quality of Centuries or Quantity of Centuries?

    Yesterday against South Africa, Sachin Tendulkar scored his 48th ODI century but it was also his 13th ODI century in a losing cause. The jinx of Tendulkar’s ton has been a myth, there is no point to say he is selfish but myth is yet to be solved that why he has such high percentage of centuries in losing cause. Out of his 48 centuries, 33 times India won, 13 times India lost, 1 time it was tied, and once the match was no-result. This means that Tendulkar’s percentage of centuries in win is 68.75 but then equation comes in mind that, out of his 33 match-winning centuries, 9 centuries are against minnows; Kenya, Namibia and Zimbabwe.

    Sachin Tendulkar in eye of Indian contemporaries.

    Lot of people say that due to India’s weak bowling attack in Tendulkar’s era, his centuries never helped India winning. Lets analyze whether this excuse is vindicated or not, we will have a look at some of Tendulkar’s contemporaries who played with same co-called weak bowling line. Remember Tendulkar’s winning percentage of centuries is 68.75.

    - Saurav Ganuguly: 22 ODI centuries, 18 times India won. Winning
    percentage of centuries is 81.81
    - Virender Sehwag: 14 ODI Centuries, 13 times India won. Since 2003,
    his all 13 centuries have been match winning. Winning percentage of
    centuries is 92.85.
    - Yuvraj Singh: 12 ODI Centuries, 9 times India won. Winning
    percentage of centuries is 75.00
    - MS Dhoni: 7 ODI Centuries, 6 times he was on winning-end. Winning
    percentage of centuries is 85.71

    As MS Dhoni plays in late order so if we consider his those innings where he scored 80+, only 3 times he was on losing end and 10 times on winning end.

    Sachin Tendulkar’s contemporaries prove that weak-bowling is not an excuse of his low percentage of match winning centuries. Had weak bowling been a reason then Sourav Ganguly would have never scored 18 match winning centuries in same era. There is some unknown mystery behind Sachin Tendulkar’s century jinx.

    Sachin Tendulkar’s contemporaries from World.

    1. Brian Lara: 19 ODI Centuries, 16 times West Indies won. Winning
    percentage of centuries is 84.21
    2. Sanath Jayasuriya: 28 ODI centuries, 24 times Srilanka won. Winning
    percentage of centuries is 85.71
    3. Saeed Anwar: 20 ODI centuries, 16 times Pakistan won. Winning
    percentage of centuries is 80.00
    4. Mohammad Yousuf: 15 ODI centuries, 14 times Pakistan. Winning
    percentage of centuries is 93.33. Only his first century was in losing
    cause in 1998 against Australia and since then his all 14 centuries
    were match-winning.
    5. Mahela Jaywardene: 13 ODI Centuries, 13 times he was on winning
    end; all match winning centuries. Winning percentage of centuries is
    6. Nathan Astle: 16 ODI Centuries, 14 times New Zealand won. Winning
    percentage of centuries is 87.5

    Now all the above players belong to average ODI Teams in last 20 odd years, there is no one from South Africa or Australia, yet all the batsmen maintain higher winning percentage of centuries than Sachin Tendulkar’s 68.75. This clearly suggests that “Quality is always better than Quantity”. Even Younis Khan’s all 6 ODI centuries have been match winning.

    Super Trivia: Out of Sachin Tendulkar’s 33 match winning centuries, 9 are against minnows; Zimbabwe, Namibia and Kenya. If we exclude his 10 centuries(against minnows) then his winning percentage of centuries is only 63.15

    Sachin Tendulkar’s ODI Centuries against Pakistan

    Last time he scored century to beat Pakistan was way back in 1996 and since then there is nothing. 5 ODI Centuries against Pakistan but 4 times India lost. Only his 2nd century against Pakistan could see India winning it, except that his 4 ODI centuries went in vain as Pakistan clinched the victory in all 4 matches.

    Sachin Tendulkar’s Test centuries.

    The sad story isn’t restricted to just ODI Cricket, it gets even worse when it comes to Test Cricket where India is the number one team right now. Out of his 51 Test centuries; only 20 times India won, 11 times India lost and 20 times it was drawn.

    Sachin Tendulkar’s winning percentage of centuries in Test Cricket is only 39.21. And if we exclude his 8 centuries against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh then, out of his 43 Test centuries, only 14 times India
    won. If we compare his this stat with one of his contemporaries from Pakistan, i.e Inzamam-ul-Haq, then some readers might get a shock to see Inzamam-ul-Haq scored 25 Test centuries; 17 times Pakistan won, 6 times drawn and only 2 times Pakistan lost. Inzamam’s winning percentage of centuries is 68

    Sachin Tendulkar's century jinx: Why does India lose when Tendulkar hits a Ton?

    CORNERED TIGER Emerging Player

    Nov 2, 2010
    nice thinking but sachin has made 48 wich is miles ahead of every one else. if u make that many 100s ofcoz u gna end up losing now n then. not every wasim/imran/waqar 5 wickets in an innings won pakistan match.
    the longer u play the more ups n down u ave... dnt forget 440 plus matches... if u xpect every time sachin makes a 100 n india wins... wel lol funny coz there r 10 other players in team... n in this wc...he made 2 awesome 100s.... n lost 1 n tie another... not his fault....if the team cant defend 338 or 297...
  3. zeenix

    zeenix Administrator

    Dec 17, 2009
    Well Indians have this thing for records. And a man who plays so long, would definitely get into some kind of record books. Though you have to give it to the man. He has been playing so well consistently, frankly he could go for another decade and still be able to make his place in the team. It isn't his fault that for most of his career Indian team were so pathetic. And when the Indian team has become a force to reckon with, he is on the verge of retirement.

    I still think there have been many better batsmen in Cricketing World, with whom the word "legend" can be easily prefixed. Tendulkar doesn't belong to that category, simply because he hasn't been able to win as many matches for his team, as he should have. Perhaps if he were coming down the order he could guide the Indians to more victories. But perhaps due to his penchant of breaking records he didn't.

    Indians allowed Kapil to play until he had broken Hadlee's record, though in the end he was nothing more then a trundler. So this isn't a new thing for India, they have been always chasing records.

    CORNERED TIGER Emerging Player

    Nov 2, 2010
    funny i wish i could laugh here:(
  5. Mercenary

    Mercenary The Lone Wolf

    Dec 17, 2009
    Another way to look at that is those tracks were so flat that even 350 would be hard to defend! Centuries on flat decks from a player of Sachin's calibre should be match winning. Once you get in on a flat deck you shouldn't let the opposition get back up.

    CORNERED TIGER Emerging Player

    Nov 2, 2010
    lol hahahahhhahahha
    please explain 2 me how some one becomes a match winner?
  7. Mercenary

    Mercenary The Lone Wolf

    Dec 17, 2009
    A match winner is someone who inspires and lifts his team through his own performance. A good performance by a match winner mostly leads his team to a win, not always but mostly.

    CORNERED TIGER Emerging Player

    Nov 2, 2010
    then of sachin 33 wining 100s in odi of 48 im sure there are many when he won matches on his own... like his 134 in sharjah v australia or another 100 v australia in dhaka both in 1998.. i remember them only coz i saw them. there r many others wich i have not.. seen
    sachin is legend.
    a genius
    once in life time batsman.

    and for your info me also a pakistani... you can check my youtube channel.
    sachin lara n ponting 3 best batsman of past 20 years!

  9. Mercenary

    Mercenary The Lone Wolf

    Dec 17, 2009
    Sachin is a true legend of the game and many times his centuries have helped India win the game. That however isnt the same as being a match winner.

    You're right that 33 of Sachin's 48 centuries have come in matches won, that's 69% of his centuries coming in matches won.

    But did you know 4 of those match winning centuries came against Kenya? 5 against Zimbabwe and 1 against Namibia. That's 30% of his match winning centuries against minnows/associates.

    No-one will dispute Sachin's status as a legendary batsman but many expert commentators have repeatedly questioned Sachin's status as a match winner an rightly so.

    CORNERED TIGER Emerging Player

    Nov 2, 2010

    you can check any players stats from w g grace to current players ... at every point there has been poor teams... its not sachin fault that he has made runs v minnows...
    if this the cretria then inzamam never had 2 face wasim waqar bowling.
    ponting never had 2 face his own bowlers. and most of ponting good runs came when great bowlers had retired. i.e wasim waqar ambrose walsh donald mushtaq and if many were playing they were almost at the end of there careers.
    lara missed a test series v pakistan in 2000 @home coz he was scared of wasim waqar shoaibn saqlain mushtaq... and he wasnt injured!

    once again i will repeat my self...

    sachin is once in life time player!
  11. Mercenary

    Mercenary The Lone Wolf

    Dec 17, 2009

    Who is disagreeing with that?

    If you only look at the centuries against the top 7 teams and compare Sachin to other Indian batsmen from his era, it makes interesting reading. Below is a list of what percentage of each players centuries came in matches won.

    92% - Sehwag
    80% - Dhoni
    71% - Ganguly
    71% - Gambhir
    70% - Yuvraj
    63% - Sachin
    60% - Dravid
    60% - Laxman

    ..Sehwag and Ganguly played a lot of games with Sachin and they faced similar bowlers. Yet when they scored a century it made a big difference to India's win ratio.

    Dhoni and Yuvraj bat too low to make many centuries and Gambhir hasn't been around that long. But when they do score a century it makes a difference. Dravid and Laxman are more Test players than ODI players but they still have a similar win percentage to Sachin.

    Sachin is a great accumulator and will always score runs whether India wins or loses.
  12. shirazi_r

    shirazi_r Youngsta Beauty

    May 27, 2010
    Having looked at some of the stats discussed in this thread, I figured I'd put together a graphical analysis of the topic at hand.

    What I've done is compared Win percentage in century innings to the most logical corresponding statistic, strike rate in century innings.


    What are the results?

    In essence, a higher strike rate when scoring centuries is equivalent to a higher win%. The anomaly in this case is the green square of Sourav Ganguly; after some digging, it turns out that despite his relatively low strike rate, 8 of his 22 ODI centuries have come against minnow side which in all likelihood would have been wins irrespective of Ganguly's individual scores (thus he is something of an out-lier).

    Players with higher strike rates are match winners, whereas players with lower strike rates are not match winners to the same degree.

    If you were however to change to data used and replace Win percentage with number of centuries, the players with lower strike rates (Sachin, Laxman, Dravid, Ganguly) would have a greater number of centuries, thus rendering them more consistent.

    What does this mean?

    Sehwag, Dhoni, and Yuvraj may win matches on their own more often than Sachin, but overall Sachin (along with Laxman, Ganguly, and Dravid) has contributed an equal amount, if not more to the team cause.

    Does India lose when Sachin scores a century?

    No. India wins more often than not when Sachin scores a ton; the simple fact that Sachin has scored so many tons works to average out the win percentage.

    Interesting fact:

    Of all players with more than 20 ODI centuries, Ricky Ponting leads the pack with 25 of his 29 centuries in winning causes, that's a staggering 86%!
  13. Mercenary

    Mercenary The Lone Wolf

    Dec 17, 2009

    That's some really interesting stats there and Ponting does have a great centuries/win ratio but the real freak is Gilchrist, Australia never lost an ODI when he scored a century that's 16 centuries and 16 wins, 14 of those excluding minnows.

    As for Ganguly, if you take away all his games v minnows he has 14 centuries and India won on 10 of those occasions, that's still a 71.4% winning centuries percentage despite have a strike rate lower by 10 points than Sachin.
  14. thair9999

    thair9999 Youngsta Beauty

    Oct 17, 2010
    I know most of us here somehow linked to Pakistan. But give Tendulkar the credit that he deserve. He is best batsman in the world, it is non-sense to compare the centuries with match wining. Each time you add even a single run towards a win it is contributing. Just because he is from India does not mean the he is not the one of the best if not THE best.
  15. Mercenary

    Mercenary The Lone Wolf

    Dec 17, 2009
    It's not a Pakistan v India thing or we wouldn't be saying Sehwag, Ganguly, Dhoni and the others are matchwinners. We'd be trying to put them all down.

    No-one is disagreeing with Sachin's pedigree, he is a batting machine. But we also have to accept that batsmen fall into different categories, no single batsman can be all things to all people.

    Some batsmen like Laxman, Lara, Saleem Malik, Azharuddin, Gower, Mark Waugh, etc are a delight to watch. They turn batting into an art.

    Other batsmen like Richards, Miandad, Gilchrist, Ponting, Inzamam, Sehwag, Sangakarra, etc are genuine match winners. If they get going then your team is on a winner.

    Tendulkar falls into the category of batting machines. Batsmen who do a great job of accumulation and score tons of runs. They, perhaps by their very consistency, dont tend to make a big diffeence to their team. Even when they score big it doesn't inspire their team mates into a winning mindset. This isn't the fault of the batsman as he is doing his job, it's just that he is so good at batting that it doesn't seem a big deal that he has scored another century.

    Mohammad Yousuf from Pakistan is no Tendulkar but he is another great accumulator. He has a healthy average and lots of centuries to his name but his winning percentage is abysmal. I think Chanderpaul is of a similar ilk.

    Batsmen are like fingerprints. No two are exactly the same but that doesn't mean that Tendulkar isn't a great batsman. He just has a different skill to the others.
  16. Aditya Khanna

    Aditya Khanna Youngsta Beauty

    Mar 4, 2010
    Let me accept your specious argument for fun's sake.

    Even after conceding you that luxury, you have added another unwarranted qualifier, i.e., you discussed only the centuries. Are you discussing 'match winners' or match winning century makers? We all know that many a times an aggressive 70 or thereabouts does the job. Why exclude them if you want to figure out the so-called 'match winner'.

    A rough guide to the 'match winning' quality is MoM awards. Here's what a simple statsguru query told me. Sachin has a staggering 61 such awards and he picks one such award every 7.36 match. Trailing him FAR behind is Lara who got 30 and he picks them every 9.96 matches. Ponting has 30 as well but at an inferior rate of 11.9 matches.

    For fun's sake, I also ran a query for Inzamam, whom Pakistan fans never tire of hyping up as some kind of talisman with the bat. Expectedly, he's been mediocre, picking up only 24 MoMs at a woeful rate of 15.75.

    Now, I try not to be as one eyed as you and misrepresent stats or draw unwarranted conclusions from them. A lesser MoM rate for Inzamam or Ponting might (but not necessarily) mean they had a stiffer competition for such awards within their respective teams. So the chances of Ponting scoring a century and yet not getting the MoM award is high because McGrath, Gillespie, Warne or someone else picked up a michelle. But it does boost Ponting's win rate for centuries he scores, unlike a certain Tendulkar who doesn't have McGrath bowling for him.

    So, remind me again, how's Punter more of a match winner than Sachin?
  17. Mercenary

    Mercenary The Lone Wolf

    Dec 17, 2009
    @aditya khanna

    You're right that on their own centuries are not a perfect indication of match winning performances. They give you a vague idea and many times players can win matches with much lower scores.

    But I have to disagree with you about MOM awards. They are almost always given for a batting performance, unless a bowler does something really special like takes 5 wickets or no batsman makes a century.

    Also match awards aren't for the player who won the match, they never have been.

    MOM awards are for the man of the match. The player who scored a big hundred or took 5 wickets. Regardless of whether his team won or lost.

    Take Sachin as an example. His 175 v Aus in 2009 got him the man of the match but India lost the game. His 141 v Pak in 2004 got him the man of the match but India lost the game. His 141* v West Indies in 2006 got him man of the match but India lost the game.

    In that 141 against Pakistan. It was Afridi's 80 off 58 balls or the 6 wickets shared by Sami and AKhtar which should have won man of the match if it was an award for match winning performance.

    See what I mean? And it's not just Sachin.

    Inzamam, Gayle, Dravid, Miandad, Ganguly, Andy Flower, Sangakarra and many other players have won MOM awards for performances on the losing side.

    MOM awards aren't indicators of match winning ability, they are officially known as the 'Player of the match' not the 'Player who won the match'
  18. Aditya Khanna

    Aditya Khanna Youngsta Beauty

    Mar 4, 2010
    MoM are given to the player on the winning side more than 90% of the time. MoM is a perfectly valid reference tool.

    Bowlers not getting enough MoMs is a fair point but not relevant to this debate. The point was that Ponting played for a team with a stiffer competition for MoMs, be it from batsmen or bowlers.
  19. Mercenary

    Mercenary The Lone Wolf

    Dec 17, 2009
    You've got your figures wrong. 20% of MOM matches go to the losing team.

    The losing team gets the MOM award in 1 out of every 5 games, that's a huge percentage. Even when the winning team gets the MOM award a good performance from a 'legendary' player like Lara or Sachin means they get favoured for the award over the player who won the match.

    Again using Sachin as an example, during a match against Sri Lanka in the Final of the Compaq Cup in 2009. Sachin scored 138 in a game where India had made 300 runs with only 4 wickets down.

    Sri Lanka made 273 all out in reply, that's nearly 600 runs. So we're talking about a batting friendly pitch.

    India won that game thanks to Bhajji taking 5 wickets. On a batting pitch the bowlers contribution is more match winning but the MOM award went to Sachin.

    So let me repeat MOM is an award for the 'Player OF the Match' not the 'Player who WON the Match'
  20. Aditya Khanna

    Aditya Khanna Youngsta Beauty

    Mar 4, 2010
    And you continue to dig yourself in a hole...

    20% of the MoM awards goes to losing teams? Please provide me the stats. I am pretty sure you're making that up to disingenuously support your otherwise laughable arguments against Sachin's batsmanship.

    Unlike you, I am a lot more diligent with my stats. Here's one you might not want to know. Sachin has been awarded MoM only 6 times when India lost. Out of the 61 times he's won. Less than 10%.

    Your example of Harbhajan is equally absurd and contradicts what you yourself posited a few posts above. Per you, a match winner has to "inspire" the team through his performances. Well, in your example Sachin did "inspire" Bhajji to pick up a 5-fer. When you gleefully noted Ponting's higher percentage of match winning centuries - did you bother to check if his teammates put in a similar performance as Bhajji? Ofcourse you didn't, doesn't suit the agenda. ;-)

    Since you're the one questioning Sachin's match winning ability, the onus is on you to prove that he doesn't win matches. Sadly, you could only, and predictably, introduce vague notions of "inspiring a team" and used absurd criteria like match winning centuries alone to justify your biases.

    I got to thank you for getting me to spend some time on statsguru though. I always knew Miandad and Inzi were half the batsmen Sachin is but to see that proven statistically was extremely satisfying!
  21. Aditya Khanna

    Aditya Khanna Youngsta Beauty

    Mar 4, 2010
    In a team bristling with adept ODI batsmen (Ganguly, Yuvi, Viru, Azhar, Dhoni, Gauti, Dravid...) it's unbelievable that Sachin wins MoM every 7 matches. Imran Khan got ahead of himself and annointed Inzi as his batting rival.

    Shockingly, even in a team lacking batting firepower, Inzi wins a MoM every 16 match. That's more than twice as worse as Sachin. So much for being a match winner.

    I think it's got a lot to do with Inzamam's inability to handle quality pace and spin bowling. Inzamam was a bit like Yuvi, lords over average attacks but when the bar was raised, he found himself out of his depth.
  22. cool_engr

    cool_engr Youngsta Beauty

    Apr 21, 2011
    Sirs, you all have been all coming up with very good points until now........................But the last two comments by Tendulkar Basher are out of shear hatred for a particular player. ........Sachin Critic put 2 points

    1). Those pitches are batting friendly on which teams score big.
    2). Man of the Match (MOM) also goes frequently to losing side

    Pakistan went to England and in every match average scores were around 200. All the tests were decided. Pakistan played in SL in this WC and in all Pakistan's matches, average scores were around 200...................... Now coming to India India went to England twice and Sachin scored at average strike rate 85 and at an average over 50. Sachin scored that 138 in SL and India scored 300. .........Why in Pakistani matches pitches become bowler friendly and overall average score becomes 400 ...............whereas in Indian matches wherever India plays pitch becomes batting friendly and average match score reaches 600......WHY THE PITCH MAKER ALWAYS MOVES AHEAD OF TENDULKAR LIKE HIS SHADOW AND TRANSFORMS EVEY PITCH INTO A BETTING FRIENDLY PITCH ALL OVER THE WORLD ????? IT IS IMPOSSIBLLE.....isnt it????? ....THINK.....THE fact is that India has exceptional batting that makes every pitch look easy and has a very poor bowling (of the quality of minnows) and Indians employ very poor field placements that easy runs and . SA and Pakistan proved that Indian pitches too have life........... Against SA WC game Gambhir and all other Indian batsmen struggled against Stein.It was only the quality of Tendulkar's and Sehwag's breath taking chanceless batting against Stein and co that made pitch look easy.........just as Tendulkar got out pitch became bowler's friendly and IND got 29 for 9.............................Coming to your point Bhaji the most overrated cricketer should have got MOM for letting SL score 270+ on pitches which Pak go AUS out for mere 175........well?? THANK GOD YOU ARE NOT THE ONE WHO DECIDES MOM ??.......................

    Coming to second point.

    The oppositions on average don’t lose by big margins so their performance also is about 75 % of winning team so the probability of losing side having a MOM should be of the order of .4 but the actual probability (accepting your statement of 20 % is .2) so obviously MOM award is 2 times biased (.4/.2=2) towards the winning side and that is what we saw that Tendulkar scored 120 at strike rate 110. the highest individual score from SA against Indian poor bowling line up was only 60 but Stein got MOM whom Tendulkar completely dominated. In PAK IND game Tendulkar scored only ugly 85 but got MOM whereas WAHAB RIAZ (I would say 2 times better performer that day) didn't get it because he was on losing side. Only in case of single handed exceptional bowling or batting MOM goes to losing side (their performances is gives twice setback). If Sachin gets MOM in losing cause it means he outclass winning side’s best performer by about 2 times. But notice 1 thing MOM is never given to utter selfish guy or who is performing for losing cause. Look at Dravid he gets MOM every 24th match………(his runs definitely didn’t have quality and now you see he is no longer in the Indian team. (Since every game has 22 players so an average palyer will get a chance to become MOM every 22 matches : TENDULKAR GETS MOM EVERY 7 INNINGS WHICH MEANS HE IS 3 TMES MORE IMPACTFUL THAN AN AVERAGE PLAYER). No wonder in every opposition’s team meeting Tendulkar is focussed most and opposition is most overjoyed at his dismissal. Taking your argument that MOM is favoured towards batsman why didn’t Dravid being the no 3 position batsman – notice best position of batting as you have virtually full quta of overs and you don’t have to face new ball too and you don’t have to score quickly either). Tendulkar is about 3 times as big match winner than Dravid
    Now I bring to the real point……Razzaq has got 100% success rate with his 100s. Is he a bigger batsman than Richards who lost a few times when he scored 100.… Whether you score 90 or a 100 the real thing is the rate at which you produce match winning innings and that is greatly represented by rate of getting MOM awards. And the other important thing is your performance in big matches Tournament finals WC and there Tendulkar stands right up there.( stunning stats for you: . Tendulkar has won most tournament finals too the most critical matches
    Since 1996 India has won only 10 tournament finals and Tendulkar has been MOM in 6 of those. The rest of Indian batsmen have been mere opportunist who could never score in big matches. LARA too has a poor record in tournament finals.) His craft just adds to his exceptional ability to be right up there in all the performance rate based stats which is astounding. Only other cricketer who is right up there in terms of impact on game, whichever way you look at is Viv Richards (He is the only one with better rate of getting MOM than Tendulkar and his rate is MOM every 6 inning) .. If you look at Tendulkar’s rate of getting 100 in winning causes per no of matches played it is still better than any other modern batsman. Best analogy is that “Tendulkar is like your pet course who is gonna deliver for you more often than other and in more impactful way than other, but that doesn’t guarantee success in exam; you have to score above average in other courses too to be successful. Unfortunately we take such a subject to be granted and if we score say 80 in that course we are sad and say we did poor. and if we get 70 in another course we are overjoyed”.

    Unfortunately in our Asian countries there is a lot of politics too so the Indian captains do not want Sachin to become a real hero so they also don’t fight for win when he performs PAK did away with Legendary Saeed Anwar ............Then Shoaib Malik became victim of politics Shoaib Akhtar lost all his potential because of lack of mentorship.......Waqar Wasim and Mushtaq Ahmad used to drop catches of each other's bowling intentionally...........................But one thing is for sure TENDULKAR himself is the worst captain in the history of game because he is only a 10th grader he seriously lacks leadership capabilities, has poor IQ (of the rder of a mere diploma holder who cannot lead a team), has inability to make logical judgements beyond his art, doesn’t have mental toughness to rise to the occasion. HE IS JUST AN EXCEPTIONAL ARTIST/CRAFTSMAN WHO EXCELS AT HIS CRAFT.
  23. khana

    khana Youngsta Beauty

    Jul 27, 2010
    to me scoring runs in the match winning by the team is not the sole criteria. sometimes when a side dominated a match, more than one player score century. but when a player score century in a losing match thats where the real greatness and fighting spirit shows. it shows a player who is fighting against a bowling side on top with no or minimum support from his team mates. for example inzimam's century in ODI at karachi against india or asif iqbal & intikhab alam's 9th wicket world record partnership against england.
  24. Harsh Thakor

    Harsh Thakor Youngsta Beauty

    May 5, 2011
    Why is only Sachin Tendulkar compared to Sir Don Bradman ?

    In this brief piece I am just reminding readers of the list of batsman who almost run Bradman as close as Sachin Tendulkar.True Tendulkar is on the verge of landmark of making 100 centuries- a feat which will never be equaled in the history of the game.In stats he is the greatest batsman ever in International Cricket combined. However do stats convey the entire story.

    Tendulkar is arguably the most complete batsman ever possessing every ingredient of the perfect batsman.He has possessed near perfect technique,innovative ability ,able to cope on any type of wicket against any type of bowling and win and save matches.

    Howevever let me ask readers.Did Sachin play in the era ofSunil Gavaskar where there were no helmets and the most lethal pace attacks. 4 greatest West Indian quickies and the likes of Lillee and Thomosn played.Did Sachin play on uncovered pitches ?Was Sachin at his best a greater match-winner than the likes of Viv Richards or Brian Lara?Did Sachin posesse the creative genius of Rohan Kanhai or Brian Lara?Did he devour pcae bolwing as much as Viv Richards?Did Sachin posess the solidity and temperament of Rahul Dravid?In acrisis was he a better batsman than Rahul Dravid?Finally was he technically on par with Barry Richards or Rahul Dravid?

    In my personal analysis all my answers would be ‘no.’However readers what sets Tendulkar apart was that he possessed all these qualities.No batsman ever possessed all these qualities.In terms of stats he is head and shoulders of any great batsman in the modern era with the likes of Lara,Ponting,,Dravid etc.No great batsman ever faced as much pressure.What we have to ask is how stalwarts of previous eras would have performed in this era.Would Don Bradman,Gary Sobers,Viv Richards,Everton Weekes,Jack Hobbs ,Sunil Gavaskar etc have been able to overhaul Sachin’s test century tally,let alone O.D.I.centuries.In tests I would have backed Bradman, and Sunil Gavaskar,while in combined cricket I feel Viv and Gary may still not have equaled Tendulkar.Remember adding Viv’s Packers stats he has scored 28 test centuries and 9331 runs.Sobers has 28 adding Rest of the World games.Had Sobers played in the modern era I would have backed him to average around 60 runs in tests while Viv Would have averaged around 56 runs.Imagine Sunil Gavaskar scored 34 test centuries against the greatest pace bowling attacks without a helmet or restriction on bouncers!The other way around had Sachin played for the champion team sof yesteryears like Viv and Don he may well have had a better batting average and produced double as many match-winnning performances.In his peak years Tendulkar would have been the architect of many more famous wins had he got the support batsman like Rahul Dravid or Virendra Sehwag got later .Personally I feel Tendulkar at his best has lacked the match-winning killer instinct of Viv Richards or even Inzamam Ul Haq and was basically much more of an architect rather than an executioner of big wins.

    However although in my personal view Bradman has no equal it is worth pointing out that on wet pitches Victor TRumper,George Headley and Jack Hobbs overshadowed him.Against bodlyline pace Stan Mcabe overshadowed the Don.It is quite likely had Bradman played in the 1970’s he may not have averaged over 75 runs.

    What is significant that in stats analysis of match performances by Anantha Narayana in test matches, Brian Lara, Viv Richards and Jack Hobbs are rated ahead of Tendulkar whose match performance rating is 20.44.Lara’s rating is 22.63,Viv Richard’s is 21.81 and Jack Hobbs’s is 23.93.This takes into account opposition,pitches, state of the game ,innings type and stage of match or series etc. This does not even consider Viv’s Packer stats,which were outstanding.Infact Lara is rated the best batsman after Bradman in the 2009 analysis by Ananth Narayana-at 50.26 agaisnt Tendulkar’s 49.24.

    What sadden s me is why is it always Tendulkar compared against Bradman and not other greats like George Headley ,Jack Hobbs Viv Richards or even Brian Lara.We have to make a demarcation between pure test Cricket and combined International Cricket.

    The batsman one is always overlooking is the West Indian maestro,Rohan Kanhai.He posessed more prowess and creative genius for batting than any batsman in Cricket History as revealed by the writings of C.L.R.James,Rajan Bala and Ian Donald.Had he done justice to his ability he may well have been the best batsman of all as at his best his batting entered regions even surpassing Bradman.He played fast bowling better than Tendular or Lara.In 1961 his 252 against Victoria was perhaps the ultimate exhibition of batting art.He was a master in a crisis,on bad wickets .In 1972 against Australia he gave one of the greatest exhibtions of counter-attack against pace bowling when facing Lillee, on a fast Perth track.He came in at one down where he averaged over 53 runs.He is the most consummate of all batsman which his average of 47.53 does not reveal.

    The most complete of all batsman was Gary Sobers.He had great technique,consistency,could master the greatest of bowling ,could perform outstandingly in a crisis and on bad wickets ,and could consistently win matches .

    On wet pitches Jack Hobbs and George Headley were the best.Hobb scored 12 centuries against Australia and scored amajority of his record 197 first-class hundreds on wet pitches.Above all almost all his centuries won matches.Headley outscored Bradman on wet pitches and was abetter batsman on bad wickets.

    No great batsman faced pace bowling as well as Gavaskar,who broke all the batting records in his daythat too without wearing a helmet.In the modern era he may well have averaged 58+Frankly in the modern era I would have backed him to break all the batting records.

    Had Barry Richards had a full International career he would have been the greatset ever opening batsman and perhaps even surpassed the likes of Viv Richards,Lara or Tendulkar.No batsman combined such pefect techniqe with such phenomenal destructive ability.


    When the chips were down we had greats like Ian Chappell,Javed Miandad ,Rahul Dravid,Streve Waugh and Allan Border who could bat for their lives.In his era Ian Chappell was the best batsman in a crisis even overshadowing both the Richards,and brother Greg in the 1970’s.Arguably Rahul Dravid is the best ever in a crisis and his batting in Enfgland last summer testifies that.In his peak he even overshadowed Tendulkar as amatch-winner but one must not forget thathe recieved much greater support.

    Bradman statistically stands out with his phenomenal average of 99.94 which could be scaled to 75 in the modern day. Bradman deserves the title of the king more than any batsman with his phenomenal performance.No batsman from any era would have equaled the Don's record of scoring 29 centuries in 95 innings,that too at such a blistering scoring rate.No cricketer has ever been so haed and shoulder over his contemporaries.Infact for long Lara and Ponting and later to a certain extent Dravid ran Tendulkar neck to neck.

    Brian Lara is the greatest test match batsman of the modern era posessing more creative genius than any modern great with the extraordinary ability to innovate.His batting posessed the grace of lara’s theme.

    Lara has been the best modern day test batsman in a crisis bearing the brunt of one of the weakest batting sides and scoring the highest average percentage score of a team’s total by any batsman since Sir George Headley.No batsman ever has compiled such a series of mammoth scores including a quadruple and a triple hundred amongst 9 200+scores.He has 3 double hundreds against Australia and one against South Africa.Lara has the best strike rate of any modern great of 60+ and in full flow was more dangerous than a Sachin Tendulkar.Lara’s epic match-winning 153 not out in 1999 against Australia at Barbados was amongst the top 3 best test innings of all time and the best ever in a run chase.Infact in that series he turned the fate of 2 tset matches and the series like no great batsman has done,Lara has a superior 4th innings average to Tendulkar.At his best his individual innings and test series performances were better than Ponting or Tendulkar,and he could turn the complexion of agame more than any modern great.
    Had Brian played for a champion West Indian team he would have been the best of all West Indian batsman,overshadowing Sovers and Viv Richards.Inconsistency in Lara’s career is what overall placed Sachin ahead,but in pure test cricket Lara was a better batsman in a crisis.Remember until August 2009 in 2 ratings analysis on cricinfo Lara was the best test batsman after Bradman.

    When I re-analyse great batsman overall Sir Vivian Richards is at the top of the tree,with the exception of Bradman and Hobbs.No batsman has ever been as destructive against great pace bowling in both test and one day Cricket or made a greater impact.In full flow Viv Richards treated the best fast bowlers like cattle walking to a slaughterhouse and when walking to the crease literally resembled an emperor setting out to conquer every territory possibl

    Sadly his Packer stats have not been counted,where he scored 1281 runs at a 55 run average per innings.From 1976-81 Richards dominated pace bowling more than Bradman ,and since the Don no batsman was as merciless .In his first season in 1977-78 in World Series Cricket he scored 862 runs at 86.2 including averaging 100 runs agaisnt the World 11.In England in 1976 his batting reached Bradmanesque proportions scoring 829 runs at 118.42 average.He may not have posessed the grace of Worrel or the technique of Sobers but no batsman equalled him for sheer ferocity.Lara or Tendulkar have never equalled Viv’s performances in the 1976 English season and his first year in Packer Cricket in Australia.

    In 1979-80 in Austrlia he butchered the likes of Lillee in a one-day game at Melbourne scoring 153 not out treating the bowling like an executioner beheading a convict.In 1979-80 Viv Dominate both the tseta nd one day arena like no batsman ever averaging 96.5 in the tests and 85 in the one-day games.

    Viv played for a champion team but remember he combated the likes of Imran,Lillee,and Hadlee like a champion ,with greater authority than Lara or Tendulakr played the likes of Glen Mcgrath or Wasim Akram,in recent times.Viv Topped the averages in 2 World Cups and was very close to the top in 1983.Viv may not have posessed the creative genius and mammoth run scoring of Brian Lara ,or the technical excellence and consistency of Sachin Tendulkar ,but in full flow would have outplayed both of them.Imagine Viv batting on the placid pitches of today ,where the bolwing atacks are weaker.Since 2000 many more batsmen have avergaed over 50 runs,than in previous periods as the pitches have become slower.True Tendulkar and Lara faced graeter pressure,but remember they wore helmets and played in an era where there was a restriction of 2 bouncers per over.In the modern era Richards would have played many more games and had opportunities agaisnt Zimbabwe and Bangladesh.From 1976-1988 Viv average 55 runs ,which wasabove the likes of great players like Greg Chappell,Sunil Gavaskar and Javed Miandad.In his era the number of batsman who averaged above 50 were three times less than today,or in the last decade.

    Richards’ best years were between 1976 and 1988. In 92 Tests during this period he scored 22 hundreds and was the only batsman to average more than 55 (among those who scored more than 4000). That was an era when several all-time greats were around – Greg Chappell, Allan Border, Sunil Gavaskar and Javed Miandad are all listed in the table below – but Richards’ average was marginally higher than theirs (though he obviously didn’t have to face his own bowlers, who were easily the most fearsome attack during that period). He averaged more than 50 in 13 out of the 23 series he played during this period.

    · The table below summarises Richards\’ career series averages. Of the 29 series he played, 14 times he averaged more than 50, and less than 30 on just seven occasions, most of them coming either during the early years or at the end.

    Performance of top batsmen in Tests between 1976 and 1988 (Qual: 4000 runs) Batsman Matches Innings Runs Average 100 50
    Viv Richards 92 135 7091 55.39 22 34
    Greg Chappell 50 87 4233 54.97 13 18
    Javed Miandad 95 146 7033 54.94 19 35
    Allan Border 100 175 7670 52.17 23 35
    Sunil Gavaskar 108 180 8655 51.51 29 36
    Gordon Greenidge 83 139 6025 48.58 14 30


    In one day Cricket Viv posessed a phenomenal strike rate and great batting average,and in full flow he literally set thunder on the cricket field.His vaege of 47 runs paeks for itself as well as the impact of his 50\’s and centuries.

    In the cricinfo anlaysis Viv is rated 7th and adding Packers stats he edged out Jacques Kallis,taking into account Kallis\’s stats upto June 2009.However I still don\’t rate Tendulkar,Lara or Ponting better.It becomes a difficult equation. True it would have been easier for Lara to play for Clive Lloyd\’s team or Tendulkar playing for a top team of the 1970\’s ,but would they have combated the best pace bowling without a helmet,like Sir Viv Richards.I doubt it.Yes,agaisnt great spinbolwing they would have outscored Viv .Vice-versa had Viv Played for the recent West Indian team he wouldhave faced much more pressure but it may have made him deploy his talents further.Playing for a champion team is sometimes a disdavantage.No stats analysis can do justice for Viv Richards.In a stats analyis analysing all factors Sachin would definitely win scoring 51 test Centuries and almost 100 International Centuries.Morally,inspite of Tendulkar\’s recent herculean efforts I rate Viv Richards ahead,who resembled a gladiator walking to a stadium.

    Below I wish to reproduce some stats of Alticain,a blogger from cricweb

    \” I can\’t recall a single full Test series of Sachin where his performance was similar to Richard\’s performance against Imran Khan & co. in Pakistan in 1980-81 (Windies batting total never crossed 300 in the entire series and Richards scored 350 runs at an average of 70 , more than twice the average (and runs) of the next best batsman, no other top-order West Indian batsman averaged above 30 in that series! The team\’s batting hung almost entirely on Richard\’s shoulders). And yet Sachin is hyped to have had no batting support whatsoever for a major part of his career, while Richards succeeded only because of the support of Haynes and Greenidge. What an irony.

    Contrastingly, Richards averages a healthy 47.61 in Tests against Dennis Lillee and Imran Khan (so much for Lillee-Imran effect on him). If you include Hadlee too, Richards averages a very decent 46.8. Interestingly Richards has scored more runs, at a better average against these bowlers (Imran,Lillee,Hadlee) than Gavaskar. Here is the link to the stats:
    Batsmen stats against Lillee, Imran and Hadlee

    Richards, at least, had a couple of towering \”away\” series against both Imran (at his peak in 1980-81) and Lillee (in 1978-79). Even his performances against peak Lillee Thommo in 75-76 after he was asked to open the batting in Test match cricket (elevated from batting position 5 or 6) facing the fast bowlers when they were at their freshest and fastest, and the ball was it\’s most new, were very good. He has had at least one high scoring series (300 runs) with a 50 average against each of Imran, Lillee and Hadlee.

    To me it is wrong to just consider Sachin’v.Bradman and forget Hobbs,Viv Richards,Brian Lara,Gary Sobers and Sunil Gavaskar.I wish Sachin all the luck in achieving this historic milestone and even if rated arguably the best we should not forget these other champions.Remember statistics never tells the true story and it was Bradman who ws once called the white George Headley!I strongly refute this economists research in his top 10 list where he has excluded graets like Viv Richards and Jack Hobbs and rated Jacques Kallis ahead of Lara and Sobers.Kallis is a great batsmen in batting for your life but not comparable as a match-winner to Lara or Sobers.

    My top 10 in order of merit would be Don Bradman,Jack Hobbs,Sachin Tendulkar,Viv Richards,Brian Lara,Gary Sobers,Sunil Gavaskar,Len Hutton,Walter Hammond and George Headley.
  25. Sir John

    Sir John Tracer Bullet

    May 25, 2010
    quantity of centuries.
  26. Bruce Wayne

    Bruce Wayne Smooth Operator

    May 22, 2012
    Tendulkar's average in won test matches: 62.36 after 70 matches with 5862 runs including 20 hundreds.
    Tendulkar's average in won ODI matches: 56.63 after 234 matches with 11,157 runs and 33 tons.

    Tendulkar's strike rate in won ODI matches is also 90.31!
  27. WaQaReD!

    WaQaReD! Talented

    Sep 13, 2011
    these kind of stats have more weight when not applied to all time great players imo
    you can use it to differentiate between good to great players, but its more like trying to find holes or clutching at straws when putting them on all time greats.
    The all time greats like Tendu, Lara, Viv Richards, Imran, Warne to name just a few have displayed enough on every kind of pitch/situation to confirm their status as one of history's best, a few stats to show lesser players were better in certain scenarios doesnt make them any less of a player. it is impossible to be the best at everything.

Share This Page