Overtook Lara as the top scorer
Still, he never really was close to 99.94.
Well done indeed. Thats 18 years worth of runs. Almost my entire cricket-watching life.
Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 4s 6s Ct St
Tests 151 246 25 11939 248* 54.02 39 49 47 98 0
Add today's runs to that. What a record that is!
Mat Inns NO Runs HS Ave BF SR 100 50 4s 6s Ct St
Tests 151 246 25 11939 248* 54.02 39 49 47 98 0
Add today's runs to that. What a record that is!
sehwag is better.
https://hometown.aol.com/tuffgrandma/images/go_feck_yourself.gif
12000 runs
He's got nothing on Bradman.
Oh yes he has. Bradman played Cricket when there were less than 100 people playing it world wide.
And I don't think any sportsman has ever had to deal with the amount of pressure, adulation and attention Tendulkar gets.
No one will ever be as good as Bradman or come close to his average.
Also I kinda agree with PSmith. You can not compare modern day crickets to those from that era.
I dispute this. I think Richards is the best batsmen, ever. Bradman only toured a couple of countries and never faced the same quality of bowling. Bodyline was his toughest test, and I think he averaged he around 52. That said, it's almost futile to compare eras, but I haven;t seen a better batsman than Richards, put it that way. As for batsmen thesedays, I think they've got it easy. Most pitches around the world are flat and the quality of fast bowlers has dropped. But congrats to Sachin. Great player.
although many would argue that Sobers was the best.
I actually agree with you about Richards being the best.
But then again he played in probably the best team of all time and was never under any kind of pressure Sachin has been since the beginning of his career.
But then again he played in probably the best team of all time and was never under any kind of pressure Sachin has been since the beginning of his career.
I just hope he stays for two more years to make sure Ponting gets nowhere near the records. As good a player Pontings been, he doesn't deserve to be considered one of the all time greats.
Well, I recall seeing Windies 5 down for virtually nothing a few times, and he and Gomes would bat them to a high total. As for Sachin, to be fair, it's probably the same for most players that have played for the sub continental sides. Different kettle of fish. Didn't Wasim Akram need bodyguards after the 99 WC. Mental really. But yeah, Richards was something else, loved his swagger.
Tendulkar hardly ever used power he used sheer technique to notch up century after century. Great Great player and deserves it.
Great player. Richards is the best ever for me though. Sachin's just something else though. He's been someone I've hated and loved with equal intensity for the last 16 years of my cricket watching time.
Ok that was a bit gay.
Ok that was a bit gay.
Vivan Richards, the greatest ever..
Greatest batsmen ever in this order
Richards
Bradman
Sobers
Lara
Gavaskar
Crowe
Tendulkar finds a place in the six spot or may be 5th for his sheer apetitie for runs.
Greatest batsmen ever in this order
Richards
Bradman
Sobers
Lara
Gavaskar
Crowe
Tendulkar finds a place in the six spot or may be 5th for his sheer apetitie for runs.
Gratz for Tendulkar, great record, great player.
All time for me its Richards. Lara(shot selection). Tendulkar.
McCullum is awsome tho.
All time for me its Richards. Lara(shot selection). Tendulkar.
McCullum is awsome tho.
I see you've managed to place Martin Crowe before Headley, Hutton, Compton, Ponting, Dravid, Boycott, Chappel and Miandad to name a few.
Good one vijay, you're spot on there.
Sometimes he can be so cruel.
Just to say, as someone who has never followed Cricket at all, I have never heard of the Sachin bloke, so in the minds of most non cricket fans, there will never be any better than Lara.
I'm not old enough to have seen Richards play, but by all accounts he was something special. Personally, Lara's my all-time favourite cricketer. His swagger always made him entertaining to watch, even when he was in full defensive mode. I was actually a bit depressed for a couple of days after he'd retired, which is ridiculous in itself. He was cricket's Cantona, if you will...
Sachin Tendulkar, what can i say, my childhood hero, he is in a league of his own. Brought a tear to my eye watching him break the record, the little guy deserves it + more. It will be a sad day in mine and many other's lives when he does call it a day
Did you see Richards's 180-something not out in a one day international against England at Old Trafford in the 1980's? I don't remember the year. Windies were batting first and struggling with several wickets down cheaply, then Viv took over and murdered the England attack. I've never seen anything like it before or since.
Anyway, congratulations to Tendulkar - one of the great batsmen.
It's proportionate.
Back in those days he used to train by himself, with a stump and a ball, hitting it against a water tank.
Back then 120 might have been the fastest anyone's bowled, but it was still the fastest. Nowdays batsmen are used to 150, and are able to accomodate with all their fancy gear etc.
Bradman is, and will always be, the best player ever.
BTW.
Sachin is an absolute superstar/legend. A pleasure to watch, and his compact style of play - especially his ability to push singles out of simple blocks - has inspired many-a batsmen over the years.
Now if only bloody VVS would make some runs.
Sachin is an absolute superstar/legend. A pleasure to watch, and his compact style of play - especially his ability to push singles out of simple blocks - has inspired many-a batsmen over the years.
Now if only bloody VVS would make some runs.
some people claim that WG Grace is the best batsman, ever. But he's clearly not. You can't really say that he'd(Bradman) be able to step it up against bowlers that bowl 150kmph+(Bodyline was the nearest he got to aggressive fast bowling). It doesn't work like that. As for protection. Richards never wore a helmet or extra padding but he had an amazing eye and brilliant reflexes. That's not something you can teach, he was as natural as they came. Something that players from Australia and England aren't thesedays. Most of the current crop have been heavily coached since childhood. It all looks a bit mechanical.
181? I recall him scoring 181, I think, against England.
As for Sachin, technically he's very similar to Bradman. Not entirely orthodox -he opens the face reminiscent of Sir Don.
The point is he clearly had an absolutely phenominal eye, a wide range of shots, technical, cool head etc etc.
As if it wouldn't be adaptable, especially when you consider the WHOLE range of cricket's improved from the ground (grass-roots) up. He'd have been exposed to the quicker bowlers earlier, and thus been able to adjust.
As if it wouldn't be adaptable, especially when you consider the WHOLE range of cricket's improved from the ground (grass-roots) up. He'd have been exposed to the quicker bowlers earlier, and thus been able to adjust.
Best bowlers of Richard's ear were in his team and he never faced them in an international match. That IMO does count against him. Sachin and Lara on the other hand faced the likes of McGrath, Warne, Murali, Waqar and Akram.
Lillee? Thompson?
Lillee, Imran, Hadlee, Thompson, Willis, Botham. . .some fantastic bowlers around at that time.
Well, you just don't know. He might have adapted but he wouldn't have been anywhere near as dominant, as Bodyline suggested.
I'm sure Larwood could bowl a bit mate. I'm also not convinced that the other bowlers of that era were any less quick or aggressive than the ones in the 80s.
You're also being very selective in suggesting that his bodyline performances were an indication that he'd have been less dominant in different circumstances. To begin with there's never been any other comparable scenario in which batsmen had to contend with 8 bouncers during every over as the laws were ammended as a direct result of that series. Furthermore, even if we disregard the fact that he still managed to average a staggering 50 odd, the fact that he averaged 30 odd more than the next best Australian suggests that Bradman, as ever, was miles ahead of the pack.
http://www.334notout.com/bodyline/statistics.htm
Looks like Stan McCabe made a pretty decent fist of it in that series as well but Bradman's efforts are still outstanding.
Looks like Stan McCabe made a pretty decent fist of it in that series as well but Bradman's efforts are still outstanding.
If playing cricket was really that easy in Bradman's era, why is he the only player to average that much?
Fair point. But to be fair I did say it's futile to compare eras.