Warne Vs Tendulkar

[Carbine Chaos]

I thought, if by sheer number of wickets it might be Anil Kumble?

Kumble only took that many wickets because of the huge number of games he played. Couldn't hold a candle to O'Reilly, I'd imagine.

 

[Rack Watts]

Kumble only took that many wickets because of the huge number of games he played. Couldn't hold a candle to O'Reilly, I'd imagine.

You're probably right

 

[Carbine Chaos]

You're probably right

You'd think I'd get tired of hearing that. But I never do.

 

[Parquet Court]

yeah warne by quite some margin, also was astute student of the game and was unlucky to not get a captaincy role

in terms of batsmen, tendulkar for mine is behind bradman, sir vivian and lara

 

[Hodgepodge]

ESPN's Legends of Cricket documentary put Warne as the No.4 player of all time, with Tendulkar at No.8 I think.

 

[Cooldude]

Was watching Warnie's 40 wickets for 05 Ashes again, that man was not human.

Apart from all the insane wizardry aside, never seen a man who almost always stands up when his team needs him most. Always produces in the biggest moments.

Would take Warnie as the 3rd greatest cricketer of all time behind Bradman and Sobers

 

[aflcliche]

Looks like Warne for ability and value but Tendulkar has better sportsmanship.

 

[davesnothere]

I would choose Warne before Tendulkar.
You need to take 20 wickets to win a game...the worlds best bowler over the worlds best batsman.

 

[djrossie16]

Head to head Tendulkar. But on a team of course Warne. In addition to his overall greatness the ability to skittle a tail is undervalued. You see the damage a tail like England or South Africa has done to us in recent defeats.

 

[Partridge]

Didn't VVS average more against Aus than Sachin?

I actually find all the sachin talk a little confusing because I actually don't rate him in my top 3 batsmen of over the last 20 years. I also like to take into consideration not just the opposition but who you have standing down the other end of the pitch, if you consistently have top batsmen with you it is easier than if you don't. Brian Lara only ever had Chanderpaul to bat with for most of his career, the rest of the team were very unreliable.

I wouldn't put Tendulkar in my top 10 to be honest. Great consistency, great determination and longevity, but if you're desperate for an Indian Gavaskar scored as many runs against much better bowlers.

Either way, I'd have Viv Richards, Brian Lara, Greg Chappell, and a few others before Tendulkar.

 

[Slax]

I wouldn't put Tendulkar in my top 10 to be honest. Great consistency, great determination and longevity, but if you're desperate for an Indian Gavaskar scored as many runs against much better bowlers.

Either way, I'd have Viv Richards, Brian Lara, Greg Chappell, and a few others before Tendulkar.

Personally think Greg Chappell is the best batsman I've ever seen, followed by Viv Richards, they did it against better bowling than exists now, just look at the career averages of blokes who played in the same era compared to now very few averaged over 50, now it is the norm to be cosnidered a top line batsman.

 

[Partridge]

Personally think Greg Chappell is the best batsman I've ever seen, followed by Viv Richards, they did it against better bowling than exists now, just look at the career averages of blokes who played in the same era compared to now very few averaged over 50, now it is the norm to be cosnidered a top line batsman.

Better bowling, bigger grounds, no helmets for a portion of that (in Viv's case never), few if any weak sides, every side had at least one world class bowler, and not as many flat pitches. Plus captains didn't idiotically put every fieldsman on the fence when a recognised batsmen got to 20 like they do now.

 

[legend166]

For what it's worth McGrath is not the greatest quick ever, and really not even close. We look through rose coloured glasses at those we've seen in recent times as well as records without considering that top players will play over 50 more tests than those who retired more than 25 years ago. Look at records of the likes of Lillee, Haddlee, Trueman and then compare to McGrath and you might see a different picture.

McGrath has a better average and strike rate than Lillee and a better average than Hadlee, All four have pretty comparable records. Of course it's easy to say that the quality of batsmen wasn't as high during McGrath's era, but considering the advantages batsmen have today compared to 30-40 years ago it probably evens out.

 

[BarneyBent]

For what it's worth McGrath is not the greatest quick ever, and really not even close. We look through rose coloured glasses at those we've seen in recent times as well as records without considering that top players will play over 50 more tests than those who retired more than 25 years ago. Look at records of the likes of Lillee, Haddlee, Trueman and then compare to McGrath and you might see a different picture.

Lillee: 355 wickets at 23.92
Hadlee: 431 wickets at 22.29
Trueman: 307 wickets at 21.57
McGrath: 563 wickets at 21.64

Most wickets, and only 0.07 off the best average. Yeah, I'd say he's up there.

 

[Bond.ShaneBond]

Give me a Lara or a Sangakkara ahead of Tendulkar any day. Can't think of anyone I'd pick before Warne.

That is a joke right?

Warne's poor record in India is an issue, by comparison Tendulkar really doesn't have a hole like that in his career. You could argue he does in Pakistan, but he played half his Test matches there as a 16 year old, which is a decent excuse. But Warne mastered the most difficult art in the game, so he gets the nod. Warne is a great example of averages not being a true reflection of the player. Both players are freaks.

 

[worbod]

Lillee: 355 wickets at 23.92
Hadlee: 431 wickets at 22.29
Trueman: 307 wickets at 21.57
McGrath: 563 wickets at 21.64

Most wickets, and only 0.07 off the best average. Yeah, I'd say he's up there.

Personally, I wouldn't use McGrath having the most wickets as part of any arguement in his favour. Trueman, Lillee and Hadlee did not have the chance to play 124 Tests. In terms of Wickets per Test, McGrath actually ranks the lowest of the four, though 4.54 is a very good average.

Lillee 5.07 wickets per Test
Hadlee 5.01
Trueman 4.58
McGrath 4.54

 

[BarneyBent]

Personally, I wouldn't use McGrath having the most wickets as part of any arguement in his favour. Trueman, Lillee and Hadlee did not have the chance to play 124 Tests. In terms of Wickets per Test, McGrath actually ranks the lowest of the four, though 4.54 is a very good average.

Lillee 5.07 wickets per Test
Hadlee 5.01
Trueman 4.58
McGrath 4.54

Yeah, but McGrath bowled opposite one of the best bowlers of all time, who doubtless stole many of his wickets, plus an array of quality support bowlers.

Also consider that McGrath played in an era of helmets, flat pitches, shorter boundaries and increasingly heavier bats, which is only partly made up for by improvements in fielding.

 

[crownie]

Looks like Warne for ability and value but Tendulkar has better sportsmanship.

away from the camera some past players would tell you differently.

 

[crownie]

That is a joke right?

Warne's poor record in India is an issue, by comparison Tendulkar really doesn't have a hole like that in his career. You could argue he does in Pakistan, but he played half his Test matches there as a 16 year old, which is a decent excuse. But Warne mastered the most difficult art in the game, so he gets the nod. Warne is a great example of averages not being a true reflection of the player. Both players are freaks.

has his excuses as well, one tour he was coming back from a shoulder injury, many of the pitches lacked pace and bounce which effects a leg spinner more then an offie plus the grounds are small and fast.

 

[eth-dog]

Lillee: 355 wickets at 23.92
Hadlee: 431 wickets at 22.29
Trueman: 307 wickets at 21.57
McGrath: 563 wickets at 21.64

Most wickets, and only 0.07 off the best average. Yeah, I'd say he's up there.

strike rates?

 

[Slax]

Yeah, but McGrath bowled opposite one of the best bowlers of all time, who doubtless stole many of his wickets, plus an array of quality support bowlers.

Also consider that McGrath played in an era of helmets, flat pitches, shorter boundaries and increasingly heavier bats, which is only partly made up for by improvements in fielding.

Flatter pitches, where? Australia? England? South Africa? West Indies? NZ? come on you can do better than that can't you?

Averages have been higher not because the pitches are different, but because the quality of the bowling has not been as good. The period of 1970-85 had a massive amount of depth in bowling.
The simple fact is that the quality of the opposition during McGrath's career period was pretty ordinary, for the vast majority of it there were only a couple of sides that were any good, India & South Africa.

Now look at Hadlee, during his career consistently had to bowl to the best batting line ups and bowl for long spells. in that period the strong line ups were - West Indies, Australia, England were all as strong as anything McGrath bowled to, add in India, whilst not at the strength they were during McGrath's era where still stronger than whomever would of ranked 3rd for McGrath.

Trueman had the West Indies, Australia and South Africa to bowl to.

 

[Bond.ShaneBond]

has his excuses as well, one tour he was coming back from a shoulder injury, many of the pitches lacked pace and bounce which effects a leg spinner more then an offie plus the grounds are small and fast.

Good point about the shoulder, not so good about India not suiting wrist spin. Kumble had a pretty good career in India! He also had an excellent '98 series, when Warne was struggling with the shoulder injury.

 

[aflcliche]

away from the camera some past players would tell you differently.

Really? Could you give more information?

 

[boncer34]

Really? Could you give more information?

Yeah Sachin is a little arrogant git that only plays for himself. Least Warnes honest about it.

 

[Barwick17]

Warne. He is unmatched in his art in the modern era, maybe even all time, while Tendulkar has several peers when it comes to great batsmen in this era (Lara, Ponting, Kallis etc)

I agree with this when Warne could bowl the quick, accurate flipper before stuffing his shoulder (think Cullinan time). After he injured the shoulder the flipper was good but not great. So Warne in that time, Tendulkar narrowly after Warne's injury