• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Go for 50 Tendulkar

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Camel56 said:
To be honest i dont think he will play for long enough to get to 50 test centuries. I do think that getting to 40 is a mere formality though.
Thats a fair assesment. He gets about 3 centuries per year in tests. He needs 5-6 years to score the 16 more to get to 50. Its not inmpossibe but considering the spate of injuries that have hounded him and the need for a highly 'involved' cricketer like him, the need to maintain that level of motivation and enjoyment from the game, its a tough ask.

If he does play for 6 more years, he will probably set the most amazing cricket records but I would not wish him that. I wish he plays cricket for as long as he realy enjoys doing it and if that is for 6 years or more, great for all the 'watchers' like us.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
SJS said:
If he does play for 6 more years, he will probably set the most amazing cricket records but I would not wish him that. I wish he plays cricket for as long as he realy enjoys doing it and if that is for 6 years or more, great for all the 'watchers' like us.
I doubt Tendulkar will play cricket if he doesnt enjoy it as he mentioned in that interview. I also doubt his passion will burn out before 6 years.

He has a lot to prove which people forget. His best is still to come.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
C_C said:
If he plays till 2010, he will get 50 test tons and 50 ODI tons.
Sure. IF he plays that long.

Gavaskar changed his total game towards the latter part of his career. He started playing more strokes and Sachin seems too be changing to but in the opposite direction.

Its possible that while Gavaskar's change helped him sustain interest in the game, Sachin's change may achieve the opposite result.

I hope not, but I fear :mellow:
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
SJS said:
Its possible that while Gavaskar's change helped him sustain interest in the game, Sachin's change may achieve the opposite result.

I hope not, but I fear :mellow:
You have nothing to fear. Sachin's quote which I always like is 'if you are satisfied you will stagnate'. He works with this policy, always innovating his game. From the dasher of 1989-94 where he would get out in his 50s after playing the best strokes in cricket to the man who made the big centuries 1996- whenever to the 200 man he has evolved his game.

The consistency has disappeared this year cos of his injuries. But his game has improved. And the only fear I have is of the injuries. Not of the motivation of Tendulkar. I doubt he will play till 40 but till 37 he should play.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
I was just having a look at Sachins statistics, yearwise and I realised that his 'annus horribilis', 2003 when he averaged 17 was bad no doubt whatsoever, but it was also remarkable for this was the year which was the best in the careers of all the three other top batsmen in India. Dravid 100.4, Ganguly 65.5 and Laxman 85 had by FAR their career's best years and Sehwag with 52.2 had his best year till then (topping it this year).

I think this made Tendulkars bad year look terrible because against the same attacks and the other Indian batsmen seemed to be flourishing. Suddenly, it was not just that he was having a bad patch, he stood out as the only weak link in the Indian batting.

If the Indian team had gone on a collective downhill slide (as they almost did this year) he may not have been castigated as much as he was. Just a thought :sleep:

Year.....SRT........RD.........SCG.......VS.........VVSL
1996..... 41.5..... 39.6..... 50.4.................. 19.3
1997..... 62.5..... 61.5..... 56.5.................. 30.3
1998..... 80.9..... 45.9..... 33.4.................. 38.7
1999..... 68.0..... 48.1..... 50.8.................. 18.4
2000..... 63.9..... 78.0..... 31.0.................. 52.0
2001..... 62.7..... 46.8..... 22.2..... 47.0..... 54.3
2002..... 55.7..... 59.0..... 41.1..... 39.8..... 51.8
2003..... 17.0.... 100.4... 65.5..... 52.2..... 85.0
2004..... 97.7..... 56.1..... 40.0..... 66.5..... 33.6
 

Deja moo

International Captain
SJS said:
I think this made Tendulkars bad year look terrible because against the same attacks and the other Indian batsmen seemed to be flourishing. Suddenly, it was not just that he was having a bad patch, he stood out as the only weak link in the Indian batting.

If the Indian team had gone on a collective downhill slide (as they almost did this year) he may not have been castigated as much as he was. Just a thought :sleep:
What are you talking about ? 17.5 is bad no matter what the other batsmen average !
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
C_C said:
Many players have played for 20+ years and Tendulkar can be one of them.
Yes, but back then, they didn't have anywhere near as much International Cricket with the constant travel-play-travel-plpay itinerary
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
marc71178 said:
I definitely don't believe that.
I have reason to believe his best is still to come and its in an article I wrote which I should display to the public very shortly.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
Deja moo said:
What are you talking about ? 17.5 is bad no matter what the other batsmen average !
I said it was horrible , not just bad. But I am talking of Sachins fall from the pedestal in India. He seemed to be the only one who was failing, in fact others were outperforming themselves as if ready to dethrone him and occupy his pedestal.

For example, this year when all the batsmen failed in the limited over game, no one player has stood out to be lambasted and when people talked of whole sale changes in the side, others said, that was not practical.

Its just a thought, nothing more :)
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
marc71178 said:
I definitely don't believe that.
It is difficult to say his best is yet to come but we may see a different Sachin and he may still score big runs. Dont be surprised by that. Before that he has to iron out some chinks in his technique and I dont see anyone on the horizon who is going to tell him that.
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
My reply to all the critics every where


An article I write two days ago on my perspective on S.R.Tendulkar and a year which has been unique to say the least in his cricketing career. Would love to get opinions/thoughts.



It has been a shame people have expressed doubts over the great modern batsman Sachin Tendulkar. There have been news paper articles, television shows, common people on the street and even ardent cricket fans who have asked this question in the last year or so. Tendulkar has had a very strane 2004. It has been a year in which more questions have been asked of his batting than in any year since he made his international debut in 1989.

Why all this commotion? There has been a 241 and a 194 apart from some other big hundreds. But 50 percent of the innings Tendulkar has played have been below 10. This is no mean statistic for the most consistent batsman to have played the game in the last fifteen years. This is the only argument for the ‘critics’ to doubt Tendulkar.

Tendulkar has had a major injury this year too (the tennis elbow) because of which he has not been hundred percent before and after his injury rehabilitation. Being fit is very important in international cricket. When some part of your body is not upto its best, your performance is bound to go down.

Now about the big scores. The 159* Tendulkar has had via which he has emulated Sunil Gavaskar for 34 centuries not only helps him achieve this record but also makes him nmber two on the list of batsmen having a score of 150 plus (15) beating Lara (14). Surprised because Lara is the one who has had the reputation of the biger scores? This is one key aspect of the game Tendulkar has improved upon which every one has easily over looked.

Tendulkar wont remain the quick feeted fast race horse. But he will surely make bigger scores if you think that Tendulkar’s five biggest test scores have come in the last five years. Gavaskar was 37 when he made his last test century. Tendulkar is only 31. He has been pegged on by Gavaskar to not stop at 40 but go for 50 test centuries. He has made two candid revelations in an interview conducted by ESPN after he made the 34th century. He still has the shoulder pain and is not hundred percent fit. He felt a lot the pressure when every one reminded him of achieving this record of 34 centuries.

He hoped this is a new beginning for him. Knowing the fighter that Tendulkar is, he will achieve what he is destined for. People ask if Tendulkar is past his best. But is the best scoring fast centuries or the big centuries and yet remain consistent? That is what should be the question to be pondered over really. As time goes by, the people who question greatness will shut up for good. And Tendulkar will remain as one of the greats to grace the game along with Grace, Hobbs, Bradman, Sobers, the two Richards, Lara and the many other hallowed batsmen two have walked on the twenty two yards we call the cricket pitch.

Pratyush Khaitan
pratyushkhaitan@hotmail.com
 
Last edited:

Jono

Virat Kohli (c)
Pratyush said:
Now about the big scores. The 159* Tendulkar has had via which he has emulated Sunil Gavaskar for 34 centuries not only helps him achieve this record but also makes him nmber two on the list of batsmen having a score of 150 plus (15) beating Lara (14). Surprised because Lara is the one who has had the reputation of the biger scores? This is one key aspect of the game Tendulkar has improved upon which every one has easily over looked.
HA! Excellent point which I was unaware of. Don't get me wrong, I love Lara and he's one of my favourite players going around, but it is interesting that people look over Tendulkar's ability to score big, whilst they praise Lara immensely (and well deserved, twice breaking the record).
 

masterblaster

International Captain
What difference does that make?

More Centuries, better consistency and better average. I remember in 1999/2000 people were saying Lara's past it, we all know that went out the window.
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
I was pointing out why Lara could be considered the bigger innings player (especially considering that a fair number of SRTs knocks have been recent, but Lara had a fair few early in his career)
 

Pratters

Cricket, Lovely Cricket
marc71178 said:
Maybe because Tendulkars big is 150-200, Lara's big is 200+?
First it was he cant score 100s (in the initial phase of his ODI career, then it was the big centuries). Lara has far bigger 100s than Tendulkar. Every one knows that. But Tendulkar is improving. That was the case in point. Not an attempt to compare Lara and Tendulkar and show Tendulkar>Lara
 

Deja moo

International Captain
Anyway, thats beside the point.

Past performances have little relevance to the current situation. Like it or not, we now see a definite change in Tendulkar. He is willing to graft more, is inconsistent, and it seems his average in the future will almost completely be sustained on a few big knocks interspersed among many failures.

It is important to notice that all his big scores in this year (except for the 50 vs Aus, which was gold) have come in good batting conditions. He made 194* , but Sehwag made 309 in the same innings. His 241* came in good batting conditions wherein India made 700+. And the 248* is, well, against Bangladesh. Where were the big knocks when needed? I'd rate Yuvrajs century vs Pakistan higher than any of those centuries by Sachin this year .
 

Top