Has Tendulkar batted better before?

Despite all his run mountains this year I still think '98 was his best ever year. He was unstoppable that year.

I'd agree, SG . . for all the runs this year, I can't remember if he even stepped foot outside the subcontinent . . .

Of course, thats his fault.

Did I say it was his fault? I'm saying it makes the '98 runs more impressive to me . . .but be a defensive little arsewipe . . . it suits you

He didn't tour much in '98 as well.

But then facts and you, forget it.

tac/zat I'm not sure who is who, but I don't think anyone was being defensive here.

Although as a "say-it-how-I-see-it" merchant, I'd expect nothing less.

Carry on.

SG wrote:He didn't tour much in '98 as well.
But then facts and you, forget it.

Funny that . . .

i have not seen him with a tighter defence and a better play of the percentages. he had more destructive innings in the 90s but this current period is closest to batting perfection. you feel its going to take an absolute pearler or a moment of indiscretion on his part to get him out

tac wrote:I'd agree, SG . . for all the runs this year, I can't remember if he even stepped foot outside the subcontinent . . .

Yeah, that home boy has only managed a measly 7,819 runs at 56.25 in Test outside of India. He's achieved more in half his career, away from home in foreign conditions, than some bog-standard talentless batsman like Greg Chappell (7110 at 53.86) managed in his own career.

He's had a particular hard time playing in the back yard of the undisputed number 1 team of the era:

in Australia - 1,522 runs at 58.53

Or confronting the alien challenge of swing bowling on the green tops of England....

in England, 1,302 runs at 62.00

Now is a good time to be a batsman in test cricket - flat pitches and nondescript bowling (with a very few exceptions)

Having said that, you have to admire Tendulkar's hunger for the game bearing in mind that he has played it at the highest level for 21 years and, at one point point looked like being on his way out of the game due to fitness issues.

There are some flat pitches in certain countries these days, however, it's not like batsmen are suddenly averaging 70. Tendulkar and Sanga both have the highest averages of contemporary batsmen (56) and barring Bradman, that's been about the top average throughout history during any given era.

Henry wrote:There are some flat pitches in certain countries these days, however, it's not like batsmen are suddenly averaging 70. Tendulkar and Sanga both have the highest averages of contemporary batsmen (56) and barring Bradman, that's been about the top average throughout history during any given era.

Aye, Tendulkar has benefitted from the run fest in the 2000s. The only era were runs were more freely available was the 30s. A dearth of good fast bowlers and timeless tests often played on puddings. Bradman averaged over 60 (almost 100) but so did Hutton, Hammond, Headley, Sutcliffe. The war had an effect, physically on Hutton. Hammond and Headley were forced to play as the next generation were lost. Their averages dropped. It had the opposite effect on Bradman, as he played against war weakened teams.

But Tendulkar also spent half his career in the 90s, an era of seamer friendly pitches and great bowlers. How many great bowlers did Bradman face? Tendulkar's 14,000+ runs came against:

Imran
Waqar
Wasim
Mushtaq
Warne
McGrath
Vettori
McDermott
Gillespie
Ntini
Donald
Pollock
Steyn
Gough
Flintoff
Fraser
Hoggard
Jones
Ambrose
Walsh
Bishop
Murali
Vaas

In 171 matches the only bowler to register more than 6 dismissals had an illegal action, and even then it took him 19 tests for 8 dismissals. (so not quite Atherton vs McGrath, 19 dismissals in 17 innings...)

(so not quite Atherton vs McGrath, 19 dismissals in 17 innings...)

I knew Pidg was grouse but that is freaky

(unless Billy was umpiring)

Farkin PMSL

The One wrote:i have not seen him with a tighter defence and a better play of the percentages. he had more destructive innings in the 90s but this current period is closest to batting perfection. you feel its going to take an absolute pearler or a moment of indiscretion on his part to get him out

fully agree

Tendulkar is a God. I'd say that I rate him above Lara now.

For me, Lara vs Sachin comes down to dazzling peaks versus consistent genius.

Lara - untouchable on his day. Tendulkar - making a solid case for best batsman of all time.

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:Tendulkar is a God. I'd say that I rate him above Lara now.

For me, Lara vs Sachin comes down to dazzling peaks versus consistent genius.

Lara - untouchable on his day. Tendulkar - making a solid case for best batsman of all time.

It's one thing to compare Tendulkar to God. It's quite another to compare him to Donald Bradman!

Bradman was a freak. He should be brainwashed out of our memories and all records of his existence erased, especially that lame-ass average.

When Tendulkar averages over 30 more than his peers then he can start making a case for himself as the best batsman of all time.

doremi wrote:Bradman was a freak. He should be brainwashed out of our memories and all records of his existence erased, especially that lame-ass average.

Cricket is actually the only sport I can think of where a certain player will always be indisputably the best in his chosen area of the sport. No one is ever going to get close to his average and neither will anyone come close to being as far ahead of his peers as Bradman was.

I see what you mean in that it's annoying in a way because having arguments over who is the second best batsmen of all time isn't as fun as deciding who is the best, but that first place will always belong to the Don.

I said he's making a case, not that he is. Longevity at the top level is a massive factor and is why a lot of people rate, for example, Warne above O' Reilly. Not that it is the players with shorter careers fault.

Plus with Sachin there are the unquantifiable factors such as the crushing pressure for 20 years and simply the sheer glory of watching him play.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/oct/30/sachin-tendulkar

two quotes stand out

"I'm really focusing now on how I can get to the next level as a batsman. How can I get even more competitive? How can I get even more consistent? How can I get better?"

and

"This is what I tell my son. Whether you're an 11-year-old boy or Don Bradman we should never forget it's just a game we can all enjoy."

thats why i think he has at least 3 years left in the game. more than that? inshallah

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:I said he's making a case, not that he is. Longevity at the top level is a massive factor and is why a lot of people rate, for example, Warne above O' Reilly. Not that it is the players with shorter careers fault.

Plus with Sachin there are the unquantifiable factors such as the crushing pressure for 20 years and simply the sheer glory of watching him play.

He's making a good case as being the second best batsman of all time, nothing more.

Bradman played test cricket for over twenty years. It is no as if hr didn't have longevity