Taylor and Waugh were captains of successful teams at the time...and I actually think both players made more consistant contributions to there teams than Sachin has in the last 2 YEARS.
How exactly have they made more consistent contributions to their teams during their lean patch than Sachin ? As statistics show, Sachin leads them in EVERY batting stat thats relevant- more runs, higher average, more 100+ scores, more 50+ scores and more consistent 50+ scores.
They were captains ? whopee ding.
So what you are implying is that being a cappo should make you 'less suspect' to being dropped than not being a cappo...... which is horseshyte...as a player should be kept/dropped based on their PLAYING PERFORMANCES.
Oh and you are forgetting one teensy weensy thing:
Unlike Taylor or Waugh during his down-phase, Tendy contributed with the ball ( okay- Waugh bowled like very very little in his latter years so he doesnt qualify). He aint an allrounder, but he is a decent part time bowler. So infact, taking batting, bowling AND fielding, Tendy's contributions are even greater than Taylor and Waugh's ( taylor was a great slipper but tendy's bowling + fielding outweigh's taylor's fielding).
In his last 25 innings Sachin has scored just over 800 runs..500 came in 3 innings...what about the other 22 innings????
FALSE.
In his last 25 innings, Tendy has scored 1008 runs at an average of 45.81
His sequence is:
176,8,51,9,32,8, 7,55,1,0,1,37,0,44,241*,60*,194*, 2,8,1,8,2,5,55 and 3
use your calculator and compute the # of innings and total runs scored.
And yea, tendy scored the bulk of his runs in his 3 innings...just like how waugh and Taylor scored the bulk of their runs in 3-4 innings as well.
If you are gonna take out the top 3 innings score per rough patch, any batsman apart from the Don would struggle to average 30+.
And yes I think if an Aussie player these days had scored 16 single figure scores in the last 25 innings as a number 4 batsman, he would be out on his ****.
Your claim is proven false by Australia's track record with their star batsmen.
As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding.
They didnt do it before- when batting strength was comparable, so i dont see any substance to the claim that they'd do it now. Besides, you are forgetting that AUS persisted with Mark Waugh, Ian Chappell, etc. as well when they were going through a rough patch.
The only reason why a 5-6 innings of low scores from the likes of Lehmann, Katich,Clarke, etc. would result them in being axed is because they are either nowhere near the level of Tendulkar-Waugh-Taylor and/or have not played enough to establish themselves, ie, worth persisting with. If you perform over 60-70 matches and then go through a 15-20 match rough patch, you stand a LOT more chance of being persisted with than if you've played only 10-20 before your rough patch, as you have not established yourself over the years like the ones in the former category.
this team are meant to have the greatest batsmen of the last decade in the team and other so called greats like Laxman,Sehwag etc...with talent like that (if the hype is beleived) India should be consistantly scoring 450 plus ..but they dont...a great batting team wouldnt have been such a walkover for Australia..
Sehwag is just about as 'hyped' as Matty Hayden and Laxman is just about as much 'hyped' as Damien Martyn. One big reason why IND doesnt score 450+ like OZ does is because of the Gilly-n-Langer factor. IND doesnt have a decent opener for Sehwag yet and IND wicketkeepers cannot bat like Gilly.....but 5 outta 7 are evenly/superiorly matched.
great batting team wouldnt have been such a walkover for Australia..a great batting team wouldnt struggle to even reach 150 vs NZ (dont talk about crap wickets, great talent will overcome adversity vs an average bowling line up)..what India are good at is scoring big runs on great wickets..its normally why those games are drawn...
IND draws games more than winning them is because IND doesnt have the bowling strength. To win a match, you need to take 20 wickets for less runs than the opposition conceded. As such, matchwinning is more in bowler's hands than batsmen's.
And yea, a great batting team shouldnt struggle but it has known to happen before when batsmen just collectively lose form.
Aussies should look towards the Bodyline series to get a picture of what i am saying- great batting lineup went kaput there.
WI also went through this phase in the late 80s when their greats were nearing the end of their careers.
its up to players like Tendulkar (who has been around for 15 years in tests) to step up and take India to the next level as opposed to the mediocrity that has cursed them for years now, when really they should be flying high
Incorrect. IND lacks the bowling and its up to the bowlers to do that. If IND cannot take 20 wickets for less runs than the opposition conceded, they wont win matches, even if the batting scores 1000 runs per innings.
