ESPN's Legends of Cricket?

[stereotype]

I dont think its Ponting fault that India were poor without Sachin. Infact it makes it even harder for the former to stand out since his team has so many quality players. Its a simple logic.

Ponting has been on the top far greater than anyone else I can remember. And more importantly I think usually when he delivers Australia win (or prevent defeats).

i agree, by what is said, we assume that if Sachin played in a better side his record would be better...which doesnt make sense because his side can challenge and beat anyone on its day now...and Sachin's record over the last 5 years is nowhere near that of Ponting's...what does that tell you? that with a better side Sachin performs worse? that with less pressure on his shoulders and less pressure to perform he simply doesnt perform as well? either way it isnt an excuse for his average over the last 50 matches to be more than 20 less than Ponting's and still claim to be a better cricketer

 

[aussie_ben91]

That's right because like Ponting, Tendulkar has been batting with players who have averages of over 50 the later half of his career in Sehwag & Dravid who both bat in the top 4 with Tendulkar whilst the only other batsman in our to average 50 through most of his career is Hayden whilst Waugh & Gilchrist batted in the lower-middle order during there time with Punter in the team and Martyn only had a small period with an average over 50.
It should also be noted that Laxman is the hero against us when India plays us. Not Tendulkar.

 

[stereotype]

everyone in Australia's top 6 would be in other top 6's in the world

the likes of Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman and now the likes of Dhoni etc means that less pressue

 

[Amit89]

Tendulkar's pressure is overrated methinks; it's just hype. It's only a game. Real pressure is when you aren't performing and you're about to be dropped which never seems to happen for Tendulkar.

The only reason Tendulkars average stays as 44 is because his gotten out over 300 times! It's almost impossible for him to get it down any lower unless he makes about 10 ducks in a row.

You dont make sense mate.

Tendulkar's pressure is not overrated and its not hype.

Just go back to the 2003 world cup, India started very bad to their world cup campaign, the fans back home threw brikcs at Kaif's, Rahul Dravid and Tendulkar's house, but their was extra pressure on the worlds bets batsmen back then to perform, he made statement to the whole of Indai, promisign a strong comeback from the team and he would perform well in the games nad he did consistantly, he took India to the final almost single handedly with the bat, he was the leading run scorer in the world cup, scoring thsoe cruaicla runs in those crucial games, and he made Caddick and Akhtar and eat thier own words, he was playing the whole world cup with a injury.

During is knock of 134 against Pakistan in Chennai 99, Tendulkar was carrying a back injury, agaisnt Wasim, Waqur, Saqlain and co, reeling from 82-5, Tendulkar almost got them to a memrable win.

Even in the 90s, Tendulkar almost was a one man team, even when he scored runs, India most of the team would always lose, he was playing the lone hand, standing up when the team was down, he was the man for India for evreytime. The fans wanted him to score runs evreytime, because they knew he was one of the few who could win the game for India, he had enormous pressure yet score runs consistantly in both forms of the game, the oppsition player were scared of him.

 

[Adarsh]

Originally Posted by wfdu_ben91
Tendulkar's pressure is overrated methinks; it's just hype. It's only a game. Real pressure is when you aren't performing and you're about to be dropped which never seems to happen for Tendulkar.

The only reason Tendulkars average stays as 44 is because his gotten out over 300 times! It's almost impossible for him to get it down any lower unless he makes about 10 ducks in a row.

The last paragraph makes no sense. Given that he gets out so many times, it just proves that his average isn't increased obscenely due to not outs. It makes no sense at all ! Why should his average be high if he plays more times. It's just the opposite. The fact that he's maintained his average over so many games shows that he is, actually, quite good.

everyone in Australia's top 6 would be in other top 6's in the world

the likes of Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman and now the likes of Dhoni etc means that less pressue

Wrong. That's just plain big headed. Apart from Hayden, Ponting and Hussey, the rest of the top six wouldn't make it, to say India's batting.

 

[m_vaughan]

I'm pretty sure any team would welcome the likes of Clarke, Symonds, Hodge and Langer as well.

 

[puddleduck]

I think the point he's making Adarsh, is that he's had so many innings Tendulkars average is now pretty much set in stone.

Also I have to say are you saying that Clarke wouldn't get a shot ahead of Kaarthick, or the out of form Sehwag, Raina and Kaif? Or that Symonds wouldn't get into any Odi side in world cricket? Or that Gilchrist wouldn't play ahead of anyone bar Sangakarra?

Ah well M_Vaughan said it ahead of me

 

[Gunner786]

now 1 very interesting episode would be on inzi
heck they might even need to make it 1 hour long to fit in everything

and shoaib akhtars episode too

 

[Amit89]

everyone in Australia's top 6 would be in other top 6's in the world

the likes of Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman and now the likes of Dhoni etc means that less pressue

Wrong!

Any team in the world would like to have Ponting, Gilchrist, Symonds, Hayden and Clarke in their team.

Dravid might, but out of form Sehwag, Laxman and Dhoni no chance. India are prone to collapsing, and many Indian batsmen are inconsistant and unreliable. As you seen many me in the 90s, when Tendulkar got out early the Indian could not manage, take the 96 semi final for example agaisnt India vs Sri Lanka.

i agree, by what is said, we assume that if Sachin played in a better side his record would be better...which doesnt make sense because his side can challenge and beat anyone on its day now...and Sachin's record over the last 5 years is nowhere near that of Ponting's...what does that tell you? that with a better side Sachin performs worse? that with less pressure on his shoulders and less pressure to perform he simply doesnt perform as well? either way it isnt an excuse for his average over the last 50 matches to be more than 20 less than Ponting's and still claim to be a better cricketer

Why not take Sachin's first 10 years of cricket and Ponting's first 10 years of cricket?, Ponting is no way near, Sachin started off good and just went better with great bowlers around and with a very weak team, rememeber Tendulkar played well for 10-11 years, Ponting just about 4.

That's right because like Ponting, Tendulkar has been batting with players who have averages of over 50 the later half of his career in Sehwag & Dravid who both bat in the top 4 with Tendulkar whilst the only other batsman in our to average 50 through most of his career is Hayden whilst Waugh & Gilchrist batted in the lower-middle order during there time with Punter in the team and Martyn only had a small period with an average over 50.
It should also be noted that Laxman is the hero against us when India plays us. Not Tendulkar.

Later half?

Tendulkar's played cricket for nearly 18 years. I assume you mean by later half that since 1998. Sehwag, Dravid, Laxman, was all their and averaging over 50.

Sehwag did'nt start off well, he made is test debut in 2002 I think, and look at him now, most people call him a flat track bully, also note that he is inconsistant. Dravid was dangerous after 2003, that's when he average really crept up, he was nearly dropped once. Laxman is inconsistant, but he is their when the chips are down, but he dont average 50, India's had crap keeper/batsmen who are totally unreliable, Ganguly was'nt that good at tests.

Laxman the hero agaisnt you?, I would say after 2003, but before that it was Tendulkar your main tormentor. Your team had to face the wrath of Tendulkar all the way through in 97-98, he totally battered your side, and the best spinner ever Shane Warne. I wonder what he averaged in the year 98 in both tests and odis alone and agaisnt Australia during that year?, that was consistancy at it's best.

 

[Dare]

now 1 very interesting episode would be on inzi
heck they might even need to make it 1 hour long to fit in everything

and shoaib akhtars episode too

On Inzamam I agree but on Shoaib I dont. With Inzamam you have a career that lasted almost 2 decades, almost 20,000 runs and countless heroics for Pakistan, while with Shoaib you have a decade long career filled with controversy and arguments and Shoaib is far from a legend and your previous sugestion of Afridi being a legend is far from the thruth. You need to learn the definton of the word legend. Afridi and Shoaib have done nothing in their careers that stands out and says to anyone that they are legends while the likes of Inzi, Murali, Warne, Tendulkar, Lara, Miandad, Ambrose, Walsh, M.Marshall, the W'us and so on have all acomplished great things and their careers have lasted for a long time while Afridi and Akhtar together have less Test matches under their belt than Marshall who only played 80 somthing tests.

Best Defintion of Legend: One that inspires legends or achieves legendary fame.

 

[stereotype]

Wrong!

Any team in the world would like to have Ponting, Gilchrist, Symonds, Hayden and Clarke in their team.

Dravid might, but out of form Sehwag, Laxman and Dhoni no chance. India are prone to collapsing, and many Indian batsmen are inconsistant and unreliable. As you seen many me in the 90s, when Tendulkar got out early the Indian could not manage, take the 96 semi final for example agaisnt India vs Sri Lanka.



Why not take Sachin's first 10 years of cricket and Ponting's first 10 years of cricket?, Ponting is no way near, Sachin started off good and just went better with great bowlers around and with a very weak team, rememeber Tendulkar played well for 10-11 years, Ponting just about 4.



Later half?

Tendulkar's played cricket for nearly 18 years. I assume you mean by later half that since 1998. Sehwag, Dravid, Laxman, was all their and averaging over 50.

Sehwag did'nt start off well, he made is test debut in 2002 I think, and look at him now, most people call him a flat track bully, also note that he is inconsistant. Dravid was dangerous after 2003, that's when he average really crept up, he was nearly dropped once. Laxman is inconsistant, but he is their when the chips are down, but he dont average 50, India's had crap keeper/batsmen who are totally unreliable, Ganguly was'nt that good at tests.

Laxman the hero agaisnt you?, I would say after 2003, but before that it was Tendulkar your main tormentor. Your team had to face the wrath of Tendulkar all the way through in 97-98, he totally battered your side, and the best spinner ever Shane Warne. I wonder what he averaged in the year 98 in both tests and odis alone and agaisnt Australia during that year?, that was consistancy at it's best.

but dont you agree that Tendulkars record has waned since the pressure has been on?since 2003 Tendulkar has managed 9 centuries to Pontings 20

if we look at their careers as a whole at the end you will see Ponting with a gap in the averages and with more test runs by a fair margin to Tendulkar

to say he played with a poor side in the 90's doesnt make Tendulkar any better.....

to say he faced better attacks isnt right either because Ponting and Tendulkar are from the same era and both played against great bowlers like Pollock, Akram, Donald, Murali, Saqlain, Younis etc..

The attacks of today with the likes of Ntini, Pollock, Bradshaw, Ahktar, Saqlain, Vaas, Kaneria, Murali, Vettori, Bond, Harmison and Flintoff....both Ponting and Tendulkar face these guys and Ponting is overwhemingly without a shadow of doubt far superior to any batsman currently at playing these guys as a whole ....which includes Tendulkar

The last paragraph makes no sense. Given that he gets out so many times, it just proves that his average isn't increased obscenely due to not outs. It makes no sense at all ! Why should his average be high if he plays more times. It's just the opposite. The fact that he's maintained his average over so many games shows that he is, actually, quite good.


Wrong. That's just plain big headed. Apart from Hayden, Ponting and Hussey, the rest of the top six wouldn't make it, to say India's batting.

also there are plenty of examples in test cricket of pressure benefitting players such as Tendulkar

Vettori is one example, he has often had to contribute with the bat due to his top order failing....and thanks to that I believe, you can almost call him an allrounder, whereas without that pressure its doubtful to say he could have had a batting record like he does........Another is Heath Streak...he ususally had the pressure of coming in at 6 for 117 or around that and he would also contribute with the bat although his actual skill with the bat would rival any other tailender


Tendulkar ever since those times of being the only one having to stand up, has waned, he is still a very dangerous batsman...but not the best imo, its unfair to give someone that title when others around him are performing better, and have done so for a few years now....Tendulkar is 33 now, far from being past it...so that isnt an excuse

 

[Gunner786]

On Inzamam I agree but on Shoaib I dont. With Inzamam you have a career that lasted almost 2 decades, almost 20,000 runs and countless heroics for Pakistan, while with Shoaib you have a decade long career filled with controversy and arguments and Shoaib is far from a legend and your previous sugestion of Afridi being a legend is far from the thruth. You need to learn the definton of the word legend. Afridi and Shoaib have done nothing in their careers that stands out and says to anyone that they are legends while the likes of Inzi, Murali, Warne, Tendulkar, Lara, Miandad, Ambrose, Walsh, M.Marshall, the W'us and so on have all acomplished great things and their careers have lasted for a long time while Afridi and Akhtar together have less Test matches under their belt than Marshall who only played 80 somthing tests.

Best Defintion of Legend: One that inspires legends or achieves legendary fame.

thanks for the lesson in legends

looks like you need to chill out abit

 

[aussie_ben91]

Laxman the hero agaisnt you?, I would say after 2003, but before that it was Tendulkar your main tormentor. Your team had to face the wrath of Tendulkar all the way through in 97-98, he totally battered your side, and the best spinner ever Shane Warne. I wonder what he averaged in the year 98 in both tests and odis alone and agaisnt Australia during that year?, that was consistancy at it's best.

Sachin may be able to take it to Shane Warne but his a complete bunny when he faces McGrath and Sachin's only made 2 centuries against Australia in the last 5 five years when we've been at our peak.

 

[puddleduck]

thanks for the lesson in legends

looks like you need to chill out abit

Where is he not chilled in his post?

 

[aussie_ben91]

thanks for the lesson in legends

looks like you need to chill out abit

Afridi & Akhtar are just examples of wasted potential that are not prepaired to put in the hard yards. Not legends. Their the sort of guys who primely got through based on talent; nothing else. They could've been great but they aren't.