Can anybody finds this astonishing.....

[Swervy]

there are two intresting things that u have to look here

of his last 10 matches 6 where aganist the best bowling attack in the world so can we give him some consideration there

and he had a long injury break in between

i will give him some consideration..but the guy is a major international batsman..its his duty to perform vs the best players in the world,the greats step up when needed.


Does tendulkar only perform these days when everything is in his favour..if thats the case,then it reinforces my arguement..maybe he should not have come back into the team after injury when he did

 

[Swervy]

oh now i see thts y england have been removing thier non performing players too fast like the one named vaughan(in ODI) .

Why does everything come down to the one day game??? test are a completely differnet kettle of fish.

and anyway again, vaughan is captain of a successful team, he deserves more leeway..but to be honest if his ODI form continues he wont be playing that form of the game for too much longer

 

[C_C]

And yes, if a captain of a winning side is having a tough time on an individual batting front, well yes he is bound to be given a bit more leeway.

That contradicts your claim and philosophy that a player should be dropped if they continue to have a slump.
A captain should be able to make the team first on merit, THEN be captain.
As such, a form slump as a captain or a form slump as a regular member is irrelevant. Because if you claim that a player should be dropped if they have a form slump, their status as captain/vice captain/regular joe shouldnt play any bearing.

Re: Waugh's slump:his scores were more consistant than tendulkars have been.

consistent double digit scores ?
LOL

I would take a 5,5,5,80 over 20,20,10,5.
Since a double didgit score isnt that big a deal...a fifty+ is atleast a decent performance.
Tendulkar has made more consistent 50+ scores(ie, decent contributions) than Waugh or Taylor in his slump mode.

to be honest, much of what you have said on that post I really cant be bothered responding to, apart from that alot of it is rubbish...the Aussies have frequently said that they feel they have to perform because they know their places are always in jeopdy with a half sustained period of underperformance...

In short, like i said before, the proof is in the pudding. I dont give two hoots what the entire fricking team says in their regular media PR talk if it contradicts FACTS.
And the FACT is that AUS have persevered with players of much less class than Tendulkar/Hayden for longer period of time. Thus your claim that if Hayden went through a 25 innings slump like Tendy, he would be dropped is a contradiction with evidence pointing towards the contrary.

and what is the use in dragging stuff up about Ian chappell..how long ago..30/40 years ago..jeez..the game is different now

Irrelevant.
The point is AUS have persevered with MOST of their class batsmen THROUGHOUT history. Many batsmen who arnt half the batsmen Tendulkar is.
The history bears proof against your claims and the history proves that retaining Waugh/Taylor in their slump phase was not an anomaly but the norm.

oh and to use Tendulkars bowling as some sort of justification for keeping him there is laughable

not as laughable as suggesting you should be given a longer run if you are a captain rather than a regular member.

 

[PAKMAN]

id say hel b good till the next world cup
dont think wel c him dropped from the side

 

[biased indian]

id say hel b good till the next world cup
dont think wel c him dropped from the side

hope u r correct???

 

[Swervy]

That contradicts your claim and philosophy that a player should be dropped if they continue to have a slump.
A captain should be able to make the team first on merit, THEN be captain.
As such, a form slump as a captain or a form slump as a regular member is irrelevant. Because if you claim that a player should be dropped if they have a form slump, their status as captain/vice captain/regular joe shouldnt play any bearing.



consistent double digit scores ?
LOL

I would take a 5,5,5,80 over 20,20,10,5.
Since a double didgit score isnt that big a deal...a fifty+ is atleast a decent performance.
Tendulkar has made more consistent 50+ scores(ie, decent contributions) than Waugh or Taylor in his slump mode.



In short, like i said before, the proof is in the pudding. I dont give two hoots what the entire fricking team says in their regular media PR talk if it contradicts FACTS.
And the FACT is that AUS have persevered with players of much less class than Tendulkar/Hayden for longer period of time. Thus your claim that if Hayden went through a 25 innings slump like Tendy, he would be dropped is a contradiction with evidence pointing towards the contrary.



Irrelevant.
The point is AUS have persevered with MOST of their class batsmen THROUGHOUT history. Many batsmen who arnt half the batsmen Tendulkar is.
The history bears proof against your claims and the history proves that retaining Waugh/Taylor in their slump phase was not an anomaly but the norm.



not as laughable as suggesting you should be given a longer run if you are a captain rather than a regular member.

well i will still maintain that for the sake of the team, the captain of that team that is beating everyone should stay in that team as long as possible.

So ok then, give me some example of players in the last 5 years that arent captains in the Aussie team that have had such a barren run of form as Tendulkars and havent been dropped

 

[biased indian]

To be True Tendulkar is more important to india than their captain so the same logics that u use for captain can be easly applicable to tendulkar

 

[Swervy]

well lets look at Waughs 'slump'
...(this is after an amazing 150 vs England)....3,0,8,67(an innings that helped save a game for Australia...and he was run out),8, 13,90(another run out vs SA),30,32,0,14,7,42,31,0,0,103*(in a match where pakistan only scored just over 400 in the whole match for 20 wickets),7,12,34,53,77,14,102...

coincidentally thats 24 innings and i think its pretty clear that even though Waugh wasnt in top form in that time, his performances were a hell of a lot more consistant than Sachins have been..there are 2 100's,4 fifties,1 40, and 4 30's...so thats 11 of 24 innings in which he at least put something together...and yo are say thats not as useful to a team as Tendulkars record of 9 scores over 10 in 24 innings..OK

Add to that Waughs worth as a great test cricket captain...Thats why he wasnt dropped

 

[Swervy]

To be True Tendulkar is more important to india than their captain so the same logics that u use for captain can be easly applicable to tendulkar

unbeleiveable..that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard on this forum

 

[biased indian]

unbeleiveable..that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard on this forum

i am happy to be part of that great event, and it will be unbeleiveable
for me too

 

[C_C]

well i will still maintain that for the sake of the team, the captain of that team that is beating everyone should stay in that team as long as possible.

Mike Brearley apart, no captain has been picked just because of his captaincy skill. He makes the team FIRST as a player and THEN becomes captain. As such, his PLAYING record overrides his captaincy skills. A successful captain is not to be guaged by his win-loss record but by the accumen he displays on field. For the win-loss record is dependent on the quality of the playing XI more than captaincy skills.A very tactically alert captain like Steven Fleming can have a mediocre record whereas a mediocre/poor captain like Steve Waugh/Viv Richards have a superb record because even a monkey on autopilot would win with the WI and AUS lineups of theirs.

So ok then, give me some example of players in the last 5 years that arent captains in the Aussie team that have had such a barren run of form as Tendulkars and havent been dropped

Mark Waugh during the mid 90s springs to mind. So does Ricky Ponting in 98-early 99 also springs to mind though his barren run was a bit better than Tendy's and lasted 21 innings. Michael Slater had a pretty poor run between 96-98 as well. i can look up more.

well lets look at Waughs 'slump'
...(this is after an amazing 150 vs England)....3,0,8,67(an innings that helped save a game for Australia...and he was run out),8, 13,90(another run out vs SA),30,32,0,14,7,42,31,0,0,103*(in a match where pakistan only scored just over 400 in the whole match for 20 wickets),7,12,34,53,77,14,102...

coincidentally thats 24 innings and i think its pretty clear that even though Waugh wasnt in top form in that time, his performances were a hell of a lot more consistant than Sachins have been..there are 2 100's,4 fifties,1 40, and 4 30's...so thats 11 of 24 innings in which he at least put something together...and yo are say thats not as useful to a team as Tendulkars record of 9 scores over 10 in 24 innings..OK

Scores below 40 are failures. Waugh has 2 tons, 4 fifties and 1 40, Tendy has 3 tons, 4 fifties and 1 40. Still tendulkar is ahead.
I dont see the significance of double digits score, as scoring a 20 and scoring a 9 is still a pretty pathetic achievement and your contributions towards the team for that innings has been minimal.
However, scoring a 40s/ 50+ means you've contributed a decent/good score towards the team cause for that innings.
As such, a player with 5, 5, 5, 85 has done more for the team than a player who scores 25,25,25,25, since the first player has made a good contribution in atleast ONE team effort while the latter has not.

 

[Swervy]

Mike Brearley apart, no captain has been picked just because of his captaincy skill. He makes the team FIRST as a player and THEN becomes captain. As such, his PLAYING record overrides his captaincy skills. A successful captain is not to be guaged by his win-loss record but by the accumen he displays on field. For the win-loss record is dependent on the quality of the playing XI more than captaincy skills.A very tactically alert captain like Steven Fleming can have a mediocre record whereas a mediocre/poor captain like Steve Waugh/Viv Richards have a superb record because even a monkey on autopilot would win with the WI and AUS lineups of theirs.




Mark Waugh during the mid 90s springs to mind.



Scores below 40 are failures. Waugh has 2 tons, 4 fifties and 1 40, Tendy has 3 tons, 4 fifties and 1 40. Still tendulkar is ahead.
I dont see the significance of double digits score, as scoring a 20 and scoring a 9 is still a pretty pathetic achievement and your contributions towards the team for that innings has been minimal.
However, scoring a 40s/ 50+ means you've contributed a decent/good score towards the team cause for that innings.
As such, a player with 5, 5, 5, 85 has done more for the team than a player who scores 25,25,25,25, since the first player has made a good contribution in atleast ONE team effort while the latter has not.

first off..mid 90's isnt 5 years ago....a secondly, I cant see a time in that period when Mark waugh's form was anywhere near as bad as tendulkars has been in the last two years

I guess our views on performance differs..Steve waugh was getting more starts and so the fact that tendulkar is struggling to even reach double figures suggests major problems either physically or mentally. The fact of the matter is that Steve Waugh during his slump was far more constant than Tendulkar has been,if you dont beleive why not try using some sort of spread measurement of the scores..I think you will find that statisically I would be proved correct

 

[C_C]

first off..mid 90's isnt 5 years ago....a secondly, I cant see a time in that period when Mark waugh's form was anywhere near as bad as tendulkars has been in the last two years

apologies about that. i didnt read the '5 years' clause.
But that is irrelevant. Steve Waugh apart, no established batsman had a poor stretch in the last 5 years for OZ to qualify. If you havnt had a bad patch, you cannot hypothesise IF you'd be dropped or not based on the non-existant bad patch.
As per your second point, you might wanna look up mark waugh's form in the mid 90s...95-96 or 96-97 i believe...somewhere around there.

I guess our views on performance differs..Steve waugh was getting more starts and so the fact that tendulkar is struggling to even reach double figures suggests major problems either physically or mentally. The fact of the matter is that Steve Waugh during his slump was far more constant than Tendulkar has been,if you dont beleive why not try using some sort of spread measurement of the scores..I think you will find that statisically I would be proved correct

cricket defines consistency slightly different than statistical consistency.
Cricketing definition of consistency is the frequency of 50+ scores.
Statistical consistency is all about deviation.
Ie, going by statistics, a batsman who scores 10,12,12,13,14,15,10,12,13 and 14 is FAR more consistent than one who scores 220, 3,4,11, 85, 10,0,0,110 and 5.
I doubt however, if any cricket fan would pick the former as a batsman over the latter.

Steve Waugh during his slump was NOT more consistent than Tendulkar- he had one less 40s+ score in same number of innings.
You are avoiding the point that in cricketing terms, scoring a 9 and scoring a 20 are still failures. Getting a start is irrelevant.What matters is the final outcome. And final outcome-wise, Steve Waugh has contributed LESS significantly than Tendulkar during their Slump phases.

 

[biased indian]

I guess our views on performance differs..Steve waugh was getting more starts and so the fact that tendulkar is struggling to even reach double figures suggests major problems either physically or mentally. The fact of the matter is that Steve Waugh during his slump was far more constant than Tendulkar has been,if you dont beleive why not try using some sort of spread measurement of the scores..I think you will find that statisically I would be proved correct

so the problem with tendulkar is that he is not able to score 10 runs, if he can score atleast ten runs in every inngs that he dont score more than 40 he will be ok

 

[Jono]

is it not blatently obvious that we are talking about test cricket here..what happened in the World Cup two years ago means Bo when it comes to tests now

I was just going on this:

I'm not surprised, sachin has been very dissapointing lately in both format of the game.

I can see this discussion is based around tests, but I at first thought this was an overall discussion on Sachin Tendulkar's change in his mindset of batting, not just test batting. I apologise for that though.

 

[Jono]

unbeleiveable..that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard on this forum

Not really. Sachin is a silent captain. His experience (along with Dravid's) always comes into play when the time comes for crucial decision making. I dare say India may never have beaten Australia in the 4th test in Mumbai had Tendulkar not tactically told Ganguly to place Sachin in position for the slog sweep.

Ganguly obviously does the bulk of the captaining (obviously since he is captain) but Sachin puts in a lot. Its just he doesn't have to deal with the pressure of captaining a country representing a billion crazy cricket fans. A pressure he doesn't need to effect his batting. (Yes I realise the irony of that considering Sachin is currently out of form in tests).

 

[viktor]

I haven't read the previous posts on this thread, but if the discussion is about whether T'kar should be dropped, /i would say that the people with the highest upside deserve the maximum leeway. As for whether or not T'kar qualifies, refer Jono's sig.

 

[Swervy]

apologies about that. i didnt read the '5 years' clause.
But that is irrelevant. Steve Waugh apart, no established batsman had a poor stretch in the last 5 years for OZ to qualify. If you havnt had a bad patch, you cannot hypothesise IF you'd be dropped or not based on the non-existant bad patch.
As per your second point, you might wanna look up mark waugh's form in the mid 90s...95-96 or 96-97 i believe...somewhere around there.



cricket defines consistency slightly different than statistical consistency.
Cricketing definition of consistency is the frequency of 50+ scores.
Statistical consistency is all about deviation.
Ie, going by statistics, a batsman who scores 10,12,12,13,14,15,10,12,13 and 14 is FAR more consistent than one who scores 220, 3,4,11, 85, 10,0,0,110 and 5.
I doubt however, if any cricket fan would pick the former as a batsman over the latter.

Steve Waugh during his slump was NOT more consistent than Tendulkar- he had one less 40s+ score in same number of innings.
You are avoiding the point that in cricketing terms, scoring a 9 and scoring a 20 are still failures. Getting a start is irrelevant.What matters is the final outcome. And final outcome-wise, Steve Waugh has contributed LESS significantly than Tendulkar during their Slump phases.

i see your point..however in that 24 innings period..fogetting not outs here,tendulkar has scored about 34 runs per innings...Waugh averaged about 32 per innings i think...those figures are the contribution to the team scores on average..ok

as those figures are so close, then i think it is reasonable to use a statistical measurement to figure about who is more consistant. In the hypothetical examples you used (ie the made up numbers) well yeah obviously a team would prefer the player who scored the double ton as opposed to the guy who had a run of double figure scores..and I think in that case the second players average would be a hell of a lot higher.and so obviously the better player.

the matter of contribution to the team runs deeper though..Waugh a lot of the time was depended on to score runs, he was coming in with a good total on the board more often than not, and so could afford to play more loosely and maybe give his wicket away..Tendulkar has needed to get runs because Indias top order has struggled...the hallmark of a great player is that he gets runs when needed and against tough opposition, thats a true contribution.Tendulkar hasnt really stepped to do that, whereas a while ago he would have done,,,thats the big difference beween the two.

And to be honest we cant really be looking purely at runs scored..you say a score of under 40 is a failure..well in a low scoring game it isnt, so you need to take it in the right context as opposed to blindly stating that.

regarding Mark waugh..the only thinkg I can see is a 19 innings spell where he didnt score a century, he did score a couple of consecutive 80's, a sixty and a 50, all pretty much spread around that 19 innings period..so maybe you are right on that one, Australia didnt drop him, but then again he came back and scored big after that..its up to Tendulkar to do the same from now on.

As i have said, if he doesnt produce soon(next 10 or 15 innings maybe) , the selectors will have to start looking at a replacement..i have never said drop him now

 

[C_C]

i would like to hear your reasoning as why not outs should not be counted towards this 'calculation'.

Tendulkar hasnt really stepped to do that, whereas a while ago he would have done,,,thats the big difference beween the two.

inaccurate. During their low phases, Waugh didnt step up any more than tendulkar has.

 

[Sehwag309]

Need sachin of this LINK