Is Tendulkar's career now "complete"?

[GotSpin]

Was brought into international cricket too early .

Though it might have helped ,it is not conclusive.

Thought Afridi has demonstrated his mental capacity numerous times throughout his career to nullify him as a suitable example

 

[GotSpin]

So there is exception. think of Sachin as such.

Completely different circumstances though

 

[Cevno]

Thought Afridi has demonstrated his mental capacity numerous times throughout his career to nullify him as a suitable example

Don't really want to debate Afridi in this thread.

Start another one if you want to have this debate.

So i'll concede that for now to not derail this thread.

 

[Ikki]

That had nothing to do with no. of years or his experience/maturity as batsman, Indian Captains were managing his talent poorly, the day they moved him into opener slot he became a totally different batsman.

This is the match that transformed Tendulkar's career as ODI batsman

2nd ODI: New Zealand v India at Auckland, Mar 27, 1994 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

If we were talking about 20-30 matches in positions that didn't suit him, I could buy it. We are talking about 78 ODIs - his first 5 years. That doesn't come close to explaining it. He played 3-4 as well for a sizeable part of that period.

You go on and on about Tendulkar being an exception yet you make a pass for him for 78 ODIs because he wasn't "handled" well?

Don't really want to turn this into a debate on Harbhajan ,and the rest of the post is irrelevant.

But this part kind of proves that no other player who debuted as a near 18 year old or less has been as succesful as Tendulkar in history of the game.

In the history of cricket there are 8 players similar to Tendulkar's age when debuting. You have no reliable sample. You aren't proving anything.

 

[Sanz]

It is all about stats in this discussion. We are talking about the number of 100s he scored. Not how good he looked for the future when making 30s.

Tendulkar is not Norm. He was an exception. It doesn't matter how you try to discuss.

Who is arguing that Tendulkar is a "Norm" ? He is an exception everyone will tell you that so to argue that he would have failed had he made his debut 3 years later (and hence scored less than Ponting or whatever) is without any solid reasoning.

Even some exceptions take time. Warne - who is a far rarer creature than Tendulkar - took a year before he even looked like he should be at Test level. It took Sobers 4 years to score his first Test century.

Not that it is relevant here, Sobers wasn't even playing as a batsmen in first few years. And Gavaskar, Azhar, Miandad all subcontinent prodigies all made great debuts, no reason to believe someone like Tendulkar would not have.

As for Warne, are you saying that he was blooded into International scene too early ?

I am not sure what you are trying to argue here. Yes Tendulkar made his debut early, still he matured a lot quicker than most.

It took him 4 years to get his average above 50.

It took Ponting 8 years (66 Test Matches) to get his average above 50 despite making his debut at a much more mature age compared to Tendulkar's who did it in only 29th test match.

 

[vcs]

That had nothing to do with no. of years or his experience/maturity as batsman, Indian Captains were managing his talent poorly, the day they moved him into opener slot he became a totally different batsman.

This is the match that transformed Tendulkar's career as ODI batsman

2nd ODI: New Zealand v India at Auckland, Mar 27, 1994 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Still remember that knock, was amazing to watch. Getting the first ODI hundred was becoming a bit of a psychological barrier for him by that stage, and it was a relief when it came against Australia, after which point the floodgates opened.

 

[vcs]

Guys, honestly go away and post about this in the Tendulkar vs. Bradman thread ("Why do they say this?") or Tendulkar vs. Ponting thread.

I'm genuinely interested in what some people think about Tendulkar's decision to stay on in ODIs (which seems likely what he's chosen to do).

I would like him to play regularly in most of the bilateral series, now that there's no WC to save himself for. And I hope no new coach or anyone tries to push him down the order and open with Sehwag/Gambhir, because the Tendulkar/Sehwag partnership is a proven success and India suffer whenever they try to deviate from that (see 2007 WC).

 

[Ikki]

Who is arguing that Tendulkar is a "Norm" ? He is an exception everyone will tell you that so to argue that he would have failed had he made his debut 3 years later (and hence scored less than Ponting or whatever) is without any solid reasoning.

You don't seem to understand the context of the discussion. No one said Tendulkar would fail. It was the issue of whether he'd still need a period to settle in even if he debuted later. You're saying he wouldn't? Well, I say he would. Both are guesswork.

Not that it is relevant here, Sobers wasn't even playing as a batsmen in first few years. And Gavaskar, Azhar, Miandad all subcontinent prodigies all made great debuts, no reason to believe someone like Tendulkar would not have.

It's irrelevant that some players debuted early and did well. Some greater players debuted early and didn't do well but ended up having greater careers anyway - take Waugh or Imran. The fact that it is so hit and miss assures you that no matter how great of a player you think one could be it is not a sure thing.

As for Warne, are you saying that he was blooded into International scene too early ?

I am not sure what you are trying to argue here. Yes Tendulkar made his debut early, still he matured a lot quicker than most.

No, Warne came in fine IMO - I think him debuting early helped him in the long run. The point is even he who is even more exceptional than Tendulkar in the scheme of things - the kind of bowler who comes once every 50-60 years - didn't start Test cricket as a champion. You don't guarantee great starts to careers just because you are a great player.

It took Ponting 8 years (66 Test Matches) to get his average above 50 despite making his debut at a much more mature age compared to Tendulkar's who did it in only 29th test match.

No one is arguing that Ponting would have averaged better than Tendulkar at a younger age. He would have made more 100s than he has now though, and that's hard to argue against. More opportunities = more 100s - especially for players like this.

 

[Sanz]

If we were talking about 20-30 matches in positions that didn't suit him, I could buy it. We are talking about 78 ODIs - his first 5 years. That doesn't come close to explaining it. He played 3-4 as well for a sizeable part of that period.

You go on and on about Tendulkar being an exception yet you make a pass for him for 78 ODIs because he wasn't "handled" well?

First of all he played only one game @ No. 3. 66 Innings where Tendy played before he was promoted to Opener. Scored 13 50s @ 4-5.

 

[Jono]

I would like him to play regularly in most of the bilateral series, now that there's no WC to save himself for. And I hope no new coach or anyone tries to push him down the order and open with Sehwag/Gambhir, because the Tendulkar/Sehwag partnership is a proven success and India suffer whenever they try to deviate from that (see 2007 WC).

Hmm, yeah I guess him missing all those ODIs last year was in preparation for the WC, so now he can just play.

Hopefully he still misses dead rubbers though.

 

[Sanz]

Still remember that knock, was amazing to watch. Getting the first ODI hundred was becoming a bit of a psychological barrier for him by that stage, and it was a relief when it came against Australia, after which point the floodgates opened.

It's kind of funny how much a batting position can change a batsman's career. It also shows that Tendulkar knows his batting like no one else does. I remember he was requesting his captains/coaches to send him as an opener for ever before they finally gave in and rest as they say is History.

 

[Jono]

Sucks that he batted 4 in 2002 and 2007.

 

[vcs]

Sucks that he batted 4 in 2002 and 2007.

Yeah, it never works. They restored him to open in the WC 2003 (with amazing results), and then again after WC 2007, he and Ganguly did pretty well when they opened in England.

 

[Ikki]

First of all he played only one game @ No. 3. 66 Innings where Tendy played before he was promoted to Opener. Scored 13 50s @ 4-5.

And how many did he play at #4? 26 innings? In fact, he had 9 innings as an opener in that period too. He played 2-4 for half his total innings before he had scored a 100. Those positions don't require a huge amount of tweaking in order to score a 100. Neither does 5 TBH. Your reasoning just doesn't cut it for mine - especially in the face of all your lathering of his "exceptionalness".

 

[Jono]

Ikki, really. Come on now.

 

[vcs]

All this talk of Tendulkar in the early '90s is making me feel old. I remember there was a time in ODIs where if someone in your team scored a hundred, it pretty much ensured you won the match. And Haynes's record of 17 ODI hundreds seemed all but unattainable. That was before Saeed Anwar and Sachin, and later on Ganguly, really had a tilt at it.

 

[Jono]

As long as Sachin is playing cricket I'll still feel young. Same with Ponting.

When they both go though I'll really feel old.

 

[abmk]

No, Warne came in fine IMO - I think him debuting early helped him in the long run. The point is even he who is even more exceptional than Tendulkar in the scheme of things - the kind of bowler who comes once every 50-60 years - didn't start Test cricket as a champion. You don't guarantee great starts to careers just because you are a great player.

not sure what you mean here. You mean the kind of bowler warne is or the quality of his bowling ? Because there have been plenty who've been around his quality of bowling , say in the past 35-40 years or so itself - murali, marshall, imran, hadlee, lillee,mcgrath, donald, ambrose,wasim,waqar,walsh,holding,garner,roberts .........

If it is strictly quality that is being talked about here, sachin's record is more complete than warne's in tests and better by some distance in ODIs .

No one is arguing that Ponting would have averaged better than Tendulkar at a younger age. He would have made more 100s than he has now though, and that's hard to argue against. More opportunities = more 100s - especially for players like this.

that is no guarantee. He could've failed had he debuted an early age and maybe played much lesser matches than he has now ...

 

[abmk]

All this talk of Tendulkar in the early '90s is making me feel old. I remember there was a time in ODIs where if someone in your team scored a hundred, it pretty much ensured you won the match. And Haynes's record of 17 ODI hundreds seemed all but unattainable. That was before Saeed Anwar and Sachin, and later on Ganguly, really had a tilt at it.

yeah, centuries were quite rare back then in ODIs , but someone who just sees the statsguru on individual players here and there wouldn't know that, would he ?

 

[Ikki]

Ikki, really. Come on now.

Pardon? Almost all his ODIs were played between 2-5 and he had no 100s in 78 ODIs. His position cannot be excused. Especially if the justification of everything else he has done is that he is not the norm, very special and would succeed in a myriad of circumstances. There are lesser players who, even if they were shifted around, would have had a 100 in 78 matches. Think of it this way: Tendulkar has a career record of about 1 100 in every 9.2 innings...yet somehow him playing outside of strictly #1 means he would go 0 for 78? It's a preposterous claim. Just concede the guy started off slowly...it's okay, he wouldn't be the first or last all-time great to do it.

not sure what you mean here. You mean the kind of bowler warne is or the quality of his bowling ? Because there have been plenty who've been around his quality of bowling , say in the past 35-40 years or so itself - murali, marshall, imran, hadlee, lillee,mcgrath, donald, ambrose,wasim,waqar,walsh,holding,garner,roberts .........

If it is strictly quality that is being talked about here, sachin's record is more complete than warne's in tests and better by some distance in ODIs .

I meant in terms of bowlers like him. The last spinner near Warne played 50+ years ago. I bring that up with regards to how exceptional a player can be - like how few 16 year olds are successes at Test cricket.

that is no guarantee. He could've failed had he debuted an early age and maybe played much lesser matches than he has now ...

There's about as much chance of that happening as Tendulkar's debut being delayed and him failing in FC cricket and not getting a chance in the Australian system. The above is a prime example of the hype behind Tendulkar. Dude, the guy is only slightly better than Ponting - if that - what makes you think one would succeed where the other wouldn't?