Black Caps v India
-
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@newsjunkie said in Black Caps v India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps v India:
Also, we can now say to any arrogant Indian fans "you're nothing without Kohli", which is sure to rile them up a bit.
and Tendulkar was fucking over rated
Some Indians genuinely believe he was better than Bradman.
The fluffybunny wasn't even the best batsman of his generation.
Comparing across eras, especially that far apart is silly.
Tendulkar prior to his elbow injury in the early 2000s, was head and shoulders better than anybody else since Bradman. Those who watched him when he was in his prime with objectivity and understanding of the game know this. The rest, doesn't really matter.
Unfortunately when he was in his prime for the 2nd half of the 90s, India - like NZ today, hardly played enough test cricket. You lot will understand this better when 5 years down the road, other fans come along and shrug off Kane as just another ordinary batsman.
Brian Lara says bullshit
Lara was second best ever in my opinion
not just your opinion mate. A true genius. My 2nd favourite cricketer ever behind Sir Curtly.
I read an article on him, his average 52.88 is obviously brilliant, however many others have beaten it. It mentioned he only had 6 not outs ( most top order batsmen get about 30-40 ) so that stopped it getting much higher. Also mentioned how he carried his team singlehandedly for so long.
No one, and I mean NO ONE dealt to Warne like Lara did.
i remember a one-dayer in Perth where he treated him like a club player.
The Lara cover drive is the sexiest shot i ever saw.
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@newsjunkie said in Black Caps v India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps v India:
Also, we can now say to any arrogant Indian fans "you're nothing without Kohli", which is sure to rile them up a bit.
and Tendulkar was fucking over rated
Some Indians genuinely believe he was better than Bradman.
The fluffybunny wasn't even the best batsman of his generation.
Comparing across eras, especially that far apart is silly.
Tendulkar prior to his elbow injury in the early 2000s, was head and shoulders better than anybody else since Bradman. Those who watched him when he was in his prime with objectivity and understanding of the game know this. The rest, doesn't really matter.
Unfortunately when he was in his prime for the 2nd half of the 90s, India - like NZ today, hardly played enough test cricket. You lot will understand this better when 5 years down the road, other fans come along and shrug off Kane as just another ordinary batsman.
Brian Lara says bullshit
Lara was second best ever in my opinion
not just your opinion mate. A true genius. My 2nd favourite cricketer ever behind Sir Curtly.
I read an article on him, his average 52.88 is obviously brilliant, however many others have beaten it. It mentioned he only had 6 not outs ( most top order batsmen get about 30-40 ) so that stopped it getting much higher. Also mentioned how he carried his team singlehandedly for so long.
No one, and I mean NO ONE dealt to Warne like Lara did.
i remember a one-dayer in Perth where he treated him like a club player.
The Lara cover drive is the sexiest shot i ever saw.
He made it look so easy. Better to watch than Tendulkar in my opinion.
He also averaged scoring the second most runs per test ever ( after you know who ) but due to the inability to get not outs the average suffered a bit ( if you can call a shade under 53 suffering )
I'd argue, again, second best ever...but some point out he's only third or even fourth best from the West Indies ( depending on how you view Sobers, Richards and Headley)
-
Pace and bounce at the WACA Sir Viv - maybe you should think about a helmet?
"Fuck off man - my purple cap is fine!"
@Chris-B said in Black Caps v India:
Pace and bounce at the WACA Sir Viv - maybe you should think about a helmet?
"Fuck off man - my purple cap is fine!"
I don't remember Richards too much but he's another who was even better than his stats.
It wouldn't be fair if he played with today's bats.
-
@Chris-B said in Black Caps v India:
Pace and bounce at the WACA Sir Viv - maybe you should think about a helmet?
"Fuck off man - my purple cap is fine!"
I don't remember Richards too much but he's another who was even better than his stats.
It wouldn't be fair if he played with today's bats.
-
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@newsjunkie said in Black Caps v India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps v India:
Also, we can now say to any arrogant Indian fans "you're nothing without Kohli", which is sure to rile them up a bit.
and Tendulkar was fucking over rated
Some Indians genuinely believe he was better than Bradman.
The fluffybunny wasn't even the best batsman of his generation.
Comparing across eras, especially that far apart is silly.
Tendulkar prior to his elbow injury in the early 2000s, was head and shoulders better than anybody else since Bradman. Those who watched him when he was in his prime with objectivity and understanding of the game know this. The rest, doesn't really matter.
Unfortunately when he was in his prime for the 2nd half of the 90s, India - like NZ today, hardly played enough test cricket. You lot will understand this better when 5 years down the road, other fans come along and shrug off Kane as just another ordinary batsman.
Brian Lara says bullshit
Lara was second best ever in my opinion
not just your opinion mate. A true genius. My 2nd favourite cricketer ever behind Sir Curtly.
I read an article on him, his average 52.88 is obviously brilliant, however many others have beaten it. It mentioned he only had 6 not outs ( most top order batsmen get about 30-40 ) so that stopped it getting much higher. Also mentioned how he carried his team singlehandedly for so long.
No one, and I mean NO ONE dealt to Warne like Lara did.
i remember a one-dayer in Perth where he treated him like a club player.
The Lara cover drive is the sexiest shot i ever saw.
He made it look so easy. Better to watch than Tendulkar in my opinion.
He also averaged scoring the second most runs per test ever ( after you know who ) but due to the inability to get not outs the average suffered a bit ( if you can call a shade under 53 suffering )
I'd argue, again, second best ever...but some point out he's only third or even fourth best from the West Indies ( depending on how you view Sobers, Richards and Headley)
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@newsjunkie said in Black Caps v India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps v India:
Also, we can now say to any arrogant Indian fans "you're nothing without Kohli", which is sure to rile them up a bit.
and Tendulkar was fucking over rated
Some Indians genuinely believe he was better than Bradman.
The fluffybunny wasn't even the best batsman of his generation.
Comparing across eras, especially that far apart is silly.
Tendulkar prior to his elbow injury in the early 2000s, was head and shoulders better than anybody else since Bradman. Those who watched him when he was in his prime with objectivity and understanding of the game know this. The rest, doesn't really matter.
Unfortunately when he was in his prime for the 2nd half of the 90s, India - like NZ today, hardly played enough test cricket. You lot will understand this better when 5 years down the road, other fans come along and shrug off Kane as just another ordinary batsman.
Brian Lara says bullshit
Lara was second best ever in my opinion
not just your opinion mate. A true genius. My 2nd favourite cricketer ever behind Sir Curtly.
I read an article on him, his average 52.88 is obviously brilliant, however many others have beaten it. It mentioned he only had 6 not outs ( most top order batsmen get about 30-40 ) so that stopped it getting much higher. Also mentioned how he carried his team singlehandedly for so long.
No one, and I mean NO ONE dealt to Warne like Lara did.
i remember a one-dayer in Perth where he treated him like a club player.
The Lara cover drive is the sexiest shot i ever saw.
He made it look so easy. Better to watch than Tendulkar in my opinion.
He also averaged scoring the second most runs per test ever ( after you know who ) but due to the inability to get not outs the average suffered a bit ( if you can call a shade under 53 suffering )
I'd argue, again, second best ever...but some point out he's only third or even fourth best from the West Indies ( depending on how you view Sobers, Richards and Headley)
As someone who has been in the same quiz team as George Headley's grand-daughter (Ron's daughter and hence Dean's sister), George does sound like the outstanding player in the Windies of the 30s (interrupted by the war of course when he would have been at his peak) when they were short of test class players.
-
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@newsjunkie said in Black Caps v India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps v India:
Also, we can now say to any arrogant Indian fans "you're nothing without Kohli", which is sure to rile them up a bit.
and Tendulkar was fucking over rated
Some Indians genuinely believe he was better than Bradman.
The fluffybunny wasn't even the best batsman of his generation.
Comparing across eras, especially that far apart is silly.
Tendulkar prior to his elbow injury in the early 2000s, was head and shoulders better than anybody else since Bradman. Those who watched him when he was in his prime with objectivity and understanding of the game know this. The rest, doesn't really matter.
Unfortunately when he was in his prime for the 2nd half of the 90s, India - like NZ today, hardly played enough test cricket. You lot will understand this better when 5 years down the road, other fans come along and shrug off Kane as just another ordinary batsman.
Brian Lara says bullshit
Lara was second best ever in my opinion
not just your opinion mate. A true genius. My 2nd favourite cricketer ever behind Sir Curtly.
I read an article on him, his average 52.88 is obviously brilliant, however many others have beaten it. It mentioned he only had 6 not outs ( most top order batsmen get about 30-40 ) so that stopped it getting much higher. Also mentioned how he carried his team singlehandedly for so long.
No one, and I mean NO ONE dealt to Warne like Lara did.
i remember a one-dayer in Perth where he treated him like a club player.
The Lara cover drive is the sexiest shot i ever saw.
He made it look so easy. Better to watch than Tendulkar in my opinion.
He also averaged scoring the second most runs per test ever ( after you know who ) but due to the inability to get not outs the average suffered a bit ( if you can call a shade under 53 suffering )
I'd argue, again, second best ever...but some point out he's only third or even fourth best from the West Indies ( depending on how you view Sobers, Richards and Headley)
As someone who has been in the same quiz team as George Headley's grand-daughter (Ron's daughter and hence Dean's sister), George does sound like the outstanding player in the Windies of the 30s (interrupted by the war of course when he would have been at his peak) when they were short of test class players.
@KiwiPie said in Black Caps v India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@newsjunkie said in Black Caps v India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps v India:
Also, we can now say to any arrogant Indian fans "you're nothing without Kohli", which is sure to rile them up a bit.
and Tendulkar was fucking over rated
Some Indians genuinely believe he was better than Bradman.
The fluffybunny wasn't even the best batsman of his generation.
Comparing across eras, especially that far apart is silly.
Tendulkar prior to his elbow injury in the early 2000s, was head and shoulders better than anybody else since Bradman. Those who watched him when he was in his prime with objectivity and understanding of the game know this. The rest, doesn't really matter.
Unfortunately when he was in his prime for the 2nd half of the 90s, India - like NZ today, hardly played enough test cricket. You lot will understand this better when 5 years down the road, other fans come along and shrug off Kane as just another ordinary batsman.
Brian Lara says bullshit
Lara was second best ever in my opinion
not just your opinion mate. A true genius. My 2nd favourite cricketer ever behind Sir Curtly.
I read an article on him, his average 52.88 is obviously brilliant, however many others have beaten it. It mentioned he only had 6 not outs ( most top order batsmen get about 30-40 ) so that stopped it getting much higher. Also mentioned how he carried his team singlehandedly for so long.
No one, and I mean NO ONE dealt to Warne like Lara did.
i remember a one-dayer in Perth where he treated him like a club player.
The Lara cover drive is the sexiest shot i ever saw.
He made it look so easy. Better to watch than Tendulkar in my opinion.
He also averaged scoring the second most runs per test ever ( after you know who ) but due to the inability to get not outs the average suffered a bit ( if you can call a shade under 53 suffering )
I'd argue, again, second best ever...but some point out he's only third or even fourth best from the West Indies ( depending on how you view Sobers, Richards and Headley)
As someone who has been in the same quiz team as George Headley's grand-daughter (Ron's daughter and hence Dean's sister), George does sound like the outstanding player in the Windies of the 30s (interrupted by the war of course when he would have been at his peak) when they were short of test class players.
One of the most randomly amazing posts ever but I agree with these claims.
Get a load of his first class average !
-
I was a huge Lara fan. At his peak, he was touched by genius in my view - in contrast, Tendulkar was just very, very good.
-
@newsjunkie said in Black Caps v India:
@MN5 said in Black Caps v India:
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
@No-Quarter said in Black Caps v India:
Also, we can now say to any arrogant Indian fans "you're nothing without Kohli", which is sure to rile them up a bit.
and Tendulkar was fucking over rated
Some Indians genuinely believe he was better than Bradman.
The fluffybunny wasn't even the best batsman of his generation.
Comparing across eras, especially that far apart is silly.
Tendulkar prior to his elbow injury in the early 2000s, was head and shoulders better than anybody else since Bradman. Those who watched him when he was in his prime with objectivity and understanding of the game know this. The rest, doesn't really matter.
Unfortunately when he was in his prime for the 2nd half of the 90s, India - like NZ today, hardly played enough test cricket. You lot will understand this better when 5 years down the road, other fans come along and shrug off Kane as just another ordinary batsman.
Brian Lara says bullshit
which Brian Lara? The sulky one who shat the bed a big chunk of the times? Or the one who batted brilliantly some of the time?
Until 2002 Tendulkar NEVER had a slump, pretty much dropped a century every damn series, everywhere in the world. The definition of Consistent excellence. Brian was one of my favorite batsman, and absolutely brilliant when the mood took him. His peaks were awesome, but far too many valleys separated them.
But feel free to stick to your confirmation biases - I can't be bothered about arguing such history. It doesn't matter really.
-
which Brian Lara? The sulky one who shat the bed a big chunk of the times? Or the one who batted brilliantly some of the time?
Until 2002 Tendulkar NEVER had a slump, pretty much dropped a century every damn series, everywhere in the world. The definition of Consistent excellence. Brian was one of my favorite batsman, and absolutely brilliant when the mood took him. His peaks were awesome, but far too many valleys separated them.
But feel free to stick to your confirmation biases - I can't be bothered about arguing such history. It doesn't matter really.
@newsjunkie The problem with Sachin was that he almost always failed during a tight chase. Hence why I rate Lara and Kohli ahead of him. They perform when the pressure is on.
-
@newsjunkie The problem with Sachin was that he almost always failed during a tight chase. Hence why I rate Lara and Kohli ahead of him. They perform when the pressure is on.
@akan004 said in Black Caps v India:
@newsjunkie The problem with Sachin was that he almost always failed during a tight chase. Hence why I rate Lara and Kohli ahead of him. They perform when the pressure is on.
This is a myth. Neither Lara nor Kohli open the innings in ODIs, and both have "failed" in plenty of chases. Lara's 153 against Aus in a test chase gets him a lot of deserved credit, but few remember that he was dropped towards the end. By Contrast Tendulkar's magnificent 136 in the 4th innings against Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain in their absolute pomp, with back spasms - fell short by 17 runs. Tendulkar scored 98 in a must-win WC game in 2003 against Pakistan - he was lucky enough that Dravid and Kaif finished the game behind him.
There are literally dozens of instances where Tendulkar won the match single-handedly for India - in tests and ODIs. But confirmation bias is a powerful thing.
All that being said, Tendulkar did have his mental frailties, especially in the 2nd half of his career. He simply wasn't as good a player after his elbow injury in the early 2000s. The problem is that even at 70% of his prime, he was still good enough to be effective to play for another decade. Most other players, once they pass their prime - Ponting, etc, fade away within a year or so. And many today remember the Tendulkar from the 2nd half of his career, forgetting the absolute dominance of the 1992-2002 timeframe.
Edit: Here's a link to an article about the Chennai test - it was around 20 years ago and Cricinfo's done a decent write-up on it. Bit of a long read, but good one if you like to read - http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1172609
-
@akan004 said in Black Caps v India:
@newsjunkie The problem with Sachin was that he almost always failed during a tight chase. Hence why I rate Lara and Kohli ahead of him. They perform when the pressure is on.
This is a myth. Neither Lara nor Kohli open the innings in ODIs, and both have "failed" in plenty of chases. Lara's 153 against Aus in a test chase gets him a lot of deserved credit, but few remember that he was dropped towards the end. By Contrast Tendulkar's magnificent 136 in the 4th innings against Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain in their absolute pomp, with back spasms - fell short by 17 runs. Tendulkar scored 98 in a must-win WC game in 2003 against Pakistan - he was lucky enough that Dravid and Kaif finished the game behind him.
There are literally dozens of instances where Tendulkar won the match single-handedly for India - in tests and ODIs. But confirmation bias is a powerful thing.
All that being said, Tendulkar did have his mental frailties, especially in the 2nd half of his career. He simply wasn't as good a player after his elbow injury in the early 2000s. The problem is that even at 70% of his prime, he was still good enough to be effective to play for another decade. Most other players, once they pass their prime - Ponting, etc, fade away within a year or so. And many today remember the Tendulkar from the 2nd half of his career, forgetting the absolute dominance of the 1992-2002 timeframe.
Edit: Here's a link to an article about the Chennai test - it was around 20 years ago and Cricinfo's done a decent write-up on it. Bit of a long read, but good one if you like to read - http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1172609
@newsjunkie said in Black Caps v India:
But confirmation bias is a powerful thing.
That's twice now you've confirmed that
-
@newsjunkie said in Black Caps v India:
But confirmation bias is a powerful thing.
That's twice now you've confirmed that
-
"No I'm right, YOU"re wrong". OK sure. Snark is great and all, but I've yet to see you present an argument to support your opinion.
@newsjunkie my opinion is that in a discussion involving an impossibly subjective verdict, allocating and inferring a mental shortcoming says more about you than your opinion.
We call it playing the ball and not the man.
Both Lara and Sachin were magnificent, and displayed their mastery differently. Admiring the pair of them needn't be a zero sum game.
Yep the fence is the best vantage place to compare 2 titans
-
@akan004 said in Black Caps v India:
@newsjunkie The problem with Sachin was that he almost always failed during a tight chase. Hence why I rate Lara and Kohli ahead of him. They perform when the pressure is on.
This is a myth. Neither Lara nor Kohli open the innings in ODIs, and both have "failed" in plenty of chases. Lara's 153 against Aus in a test chase gets him a lot of deserved credit, but few remember that he was dropped towards the end. By Contrast Tendulkar's magnificent 136 in the 4th innings against Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain in their absolute pomp, with back spasms - fell short by 17 runs. Tendulkar scored 98 in a must-win WC game in 2003 against Pakistan - he was lucky enough that Dravid and Kaif finished the game behind him.
There are literally dozens of instances where Tendulkar won the match single-handedly for India - in tests and ODIs. But confirmation bias is a powerful thing.
All that being said, Tendulkar did have his mental frailties, especially in the 2nd half of his career. He simply wasn't as good a player after his elbow injury in the early 2000s. The problem is that even at 70% of his prime, he was still good enough to be effective to play for another decade. Most other players, once they pass their prime - Ponting, etc, fade away within a year or so. And many today remember the Tendulkar from the 2nd half of his career, forgetting the absolute dominance of the 1992-2002 timeframe.
Edit: Here's a link to an article about the Chennai test - it was around 20 years ago and Cricinfo's done a decent write-up on it. Bit of a long read, but good one if you like to read - http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1172609
@newsjunkie said in Black Caps v India:
@akan004 said in Black Caps v India:
@newsjunkie The problem with Sachin was that he almost always failed during a tight chase. Hence why I rate Lara and Kohli ahead of him. They perform when the pressure is on.
This is a myth. Neither Lara nor Kohli open the innings in ODIs, and both have "failed" in plenty of chases. Lara's 153 against Aus in a test chase gets him a lot of deserved credit, but few remember that he was dropped towards the end. By Contrast Tendulkar's magnificent 136 in the 4th innings against Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain in their absolute pomp, with back spasms - fell short by 17 runs. Tendulkar scored 98 in a must-win WC game in 2003 against Pakistan - he was lucky enough that Dravid and Kaif finished the game behind him.
There are literally dozens of instances where Tendulkar won the match single-handedly for India - in tests and ODIs. But confirmation bias is a powerful thing.
All that being said, Tendulkar did have his mental frailties, especially in the 2nd half of his career. He simply wasn't as good a player after his elbow injury in the early 2000s. The problem is that even at 70% of his prime, he was still good enough to be effective to play for another decade. Most other players, once they pass their prime - Ponting, etc, fade away within a year or so. And many today remember the Tendulkar from the 2nd half of his career, forgetting the absolute dominance of the 1992-2002 timeframe.
Edit: Here's a link to an article about the Chennai test - it was around 20 years ago and Cricinfo's done a decent write-up on it. Bit of a long read, but good one if you like to read - http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1172609
Those examples of Tendulkar winning a match single handed are him getting out and leaving someone else to finish?
Tendulkar has lots of points in his favour for best since Bradman. So does Lara. So does Ponting. So does Waugh. So does Kallis. So does Richards. So does Sobers. So does Dravid. There just isn't the clear separation between those players that you claim.
-
This Tendulkar v Lara argument is putting me to sleep.
Someone give me a nudge when we’re back talking about Black Caps v India.
Ta.@Gunner said in Black Caps v India:
This Tendulkar v Lara argument is putting me to sleep.
Someone give me a nudge when we’re back talking about Black Caps v India.
Ta.Bit hard when it doesn't start til tomorrow but I'd say the team with the most runs will win.
-
I'll take the word of two different international players who told me Lara was the best they played against
@mariner4life said in Black Caps v India:
I'll take the word of two different international players who told me Lara was the best they played against
Name and shame
-
@newsjunkie said in Black Caps v India:
@akan004 said in Black Caps v India:
@newsjunkie The problem with Sachin was that he almost always failed during a tight chase. Hence why I rate Lara and Kohli ahead of him. They perform when the pressure is on.
This is a myth. Neither Lara nor Kohli open the innings in ODIs, and both have "failed" in plenty of chases. Lara's 153 against Aus in a test chase gets him a lot of deserved credit, but few remember that he was dropped towards the end. By Contrast Tendulkar's magnificent 136 in the 4th innings against Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain in their absolute pomp, with back spasms - fell short by 17 runs. Tendulkar scored 98 in a must-win WC game in 2003 against Pakistan - he was lucky enough that Dravid and Kaif finished the game behind him.
There are literally dozens of instances where Tendulkar won the match single-handedly for India - in tests and ODIs. But confirmation bias is a powerful thing.
All that being said, Tendulkar did have his mental frailties, especially in the 2nd half of his career. He simply wasn't as good a player after his elbow injury in the early 2000s. The problem is that even at 70% of his prime, he was still good enough to be effective to play for another decade. Most other players, once they pass their prime - Ponting, etc, fade away within a year or so. And many today remember the Tendulkar from the 2nd half of his career, forgetting the absolute dominance of the 1992-2002 timeframe.
Edit: Here's a link to an article about the Chennai test - it was around 20 years ago and Cricinfo's done a decent write-up on it. Bit of a long read, but good one if you like to read - http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1172609
Those examples of Tendulkar winning a match single handed are him getting out and leaving someone else to finish?
Tendulkar has lots of points in his favour for best since Bradman. So does Lara. So does Ponting. So does Waugh. So does Kallis. So does Richards. So does Sobers. So does Dravid. There just isn't the clear separation between those players that you claim.
@Cyclops said in Black Caps v India:
@newsjunkie said in Black Caps v India:
@akan004 said in Black Caps v India:
@newsjunkie The problem with Sachin was that he almost always failed during a tight chase. Hence why I rate Lara and Kohli ahead of him. They perform when the pressure is on.
This is a myth. Neither Lara nor Kohli open the innings in ODIs, and both have "failed" in plenty of chases. Lara's 153 against Aus in a test chase gets him a lot of deserved credit, but few remember that he was dropped towards the end. By Contrast Tendulkar's magnificent 136 in the 4th innings against Wasim, Waqar, Saqlain in their absolute pomp, with back spasms - fell short by 17 runs. Tendulkar scored 98 in a must-win WC game in 2003 against Pakistan - he was lucky enough that Dravid and Kaif finished the game behind him.
There are literally dozens of instances where Tendulkar won the match single-handedly for India - in tests and ODIs. But confirmation bias is a powerful thing.
All that being said, Tendulkar did have his mental frailties, especially in the 2nd half of his career. He simply wasn't as good a player after his elbow injury in the early 2000s. The problem is that even at 70% of his prime, he was still good enough to be effective to play for another decade. Most other players, once they pass their prime - Ponting, etc, fade away within a year or so. And many today remember the Tendulkar from the 2nd half of his career, forgetting the absolute dominance of the 1992-2002 timeframe.
Edit: Here's a link to an article about the Chennai test - it was around 20 years ago and Cricinfo's done a decent write-up on it. Bit of a long read, but good one if you like to read - http://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1172609
Those examples of Tendulkar winning a match single handed are him getting out and leaving someone else to finish?
Tendulkar has lots of points in his favour for best since Bradman. So does Lara. So does Ponting. So does Waugh. So does Kallis. So does Richards. So does Sobers. So does Dravid. There just isn't the clear separation between those players that you claim.
Hence my initial point about him not even clearly being the best of his era.
