Is Tendulkar's career now "complete"?

[Cevno]

He can't break those records too.

[vcs]

Parthiv Patel also debuted at 16 BTW. That went well.

[Sanz]

Let's cut the crap. Tendulkar still scores 100s at a better rate than Ponting (even taking into consideration minnows, the position he batted in ODIs, what have you) but, if they played the same amount the difference would be nowhere near 30 100s. And that is the entire point. One can fathom him having the most 100s because he is better than the others, but the DIFFERENCE between him and the 2nd, 3rd, etc, is too much to suggest it is on ability. The guy played much more than others. Get over it. I know you'd love to believe he is that much better than the others but he ain't. Sorry!

Difference between him and others is monumental (in terms of No. of 100s).

Tendulkar has 99 International 100s, His closest competitor has 69.

He has played more because he could.

[Bun]

Must have been tough for Tendulkar to face the might of Brad Williams.

So Ponting made his runs against McGrathesque bowlers?

So who was the Man of series in the 99 series again?

[Cevno]

Parthiv Patel also debuted at 16 BTW. That went well.

List of youngest debutants -

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/con...ds/209994.html

Except Sachin and then Sobers none of them went that well.

[Ikki]

Well that's what makes Tendulkar special, because he did what was not expected. One could see in the first series against Pakistan against Imran, Wasim, Waqar and Qadir.

And what did he average against them? In the 30s, right?

It happens here and there, players have impressive starts but it is simply far from the norm to be one of the best players on debut, especially at the age of 20. It took Tendulkar a while to truly become what he became, in both formats, and "a glimpse of ability" is not what we are discussing here.

[Bun]

It doesn't take a toll on any of his records being discussed here. They are aggregates. Do you know what you are talking about?

If Tendulkar debuted later, let's say 20, then he has 4 less years to acclimatise to Tests. Yes, his average may have been higher but it would also mean he'd have 4 less of his peak years at a peak age and he'd have less 100s.

Let's cut the crap. Tendulkar still scores 100s at a better rate than Ponting (even taking into consideration minnows, the position he batted in ODIs, what have you) but, if they played the same amount the difference would be nowhere near 30 100s. And that is the entire point. One can fathom him having the most 100s because he is better than the others, but the DIFFERENCE between him and the 2nd, 3rd, etc, is too much to suggest it is on ability. The guy played much more than others. Get over it. I know you'd love to believe he is that much better than the others but he ain't. Sorry!

to last more than the others is also part of his ability.

Otherwise a Gantaneume would have to be considered better test player than bradman

[GotSpin]

...in all of 2 Tests, where he didn't play well anyway.

So Ponting made his runs against McGrathesque bowlers?

So who was the Man of series in the 99 series again?

I wasn't being entirely serious about the Brad Williams comment, but it's ridiculous to suggest or imply that Australia was the only team with a worthy bowling line up and it's batsmen just plundered poor nations

[Bun]

And what did he average against them? In the 30s, right?

It happens here and there, players have impressive starts but it is simply far from the norm to be one of the best players on debut, especially at the age of 20. It took Tendulkar a while to truly become what he became, in both formats, and "a glimpse of ability" is not what we are discussing here.

Nice trolling Ikki..

Chck up atleast his stats before resorting to such stuff. He averaged 45 after his first 25 tests, even before turning 20!

No, he didn't have to play bangaldesh or zimbabwe to do that either. and in the 80s and early 90s, 45 was an average which was not considered just great, but brilliant.

[vcs]

I wasn't being entirely serious about the Brad Williams comment, but it's ridiculous to suggest or imply that Australia was the only team with a worthy bowling line up and it's batsmen just plundered poor nations

Yeah, I agree with you.

[Cevno]

List of youngest debutants -

Records | Test matches | Individual records (captains, players, umpires) | Youngest players | ESPN Cricinfo

Except Sachin and then Sobers none of them went that well.

Actually the chance of suffering a loss of confidence and losing your game and all skills not getting developed as they should under pressure are more likely to happen because of debuting earlier than acclimatising due to starting early.

Irfan Pathan , Parthiv Patel,laxman sivaramakrishnan and Piyush Chawla are classic examples in India alone.

At the same time due to money,attention and fame you could go astray too . Not too mention how it affects the motivation and desire when you are 38 to keep at the top and the toll it takes on the body and mind.

[Spark]

Here is another example of why citing a large gap in international hundreds as proof of significant superiority is flawed

Batting records | Combined Test, ODI and T20I records | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

This is the end of the Aus 07-08 season. Ponting has 60 international hundreds, Tendulkar has 81. At the time, who would I have called the greater batsman? Ponting. Have I changed my view since? Yes. Would a lot of people have agreed with me at the time? Yes. Yet Tendulkar has 21 more hundreds. So it's not even inarguable that Tendulkar is the best, let alone that he is significantly better - at the time. So what does that tell you about the "he has many more hundreds" argument? It tells me that it isn't that significant, after all, a lot of quite good players have less than 21 international hundreds.

EDIT: Cevno, that's precisely why Tendulkar would not have debuted at 16 here.

[Bun]

Actually the chance of suffering a loss of confidence and losing your game and all skills not getting developed as they should under pressure are more likely to happen because of debuting earlier than acclimatising due to starting early.

Irfan Pathan , Parthiv Patel,laxman sivaramakrishnan and Piyush Chawla are classic examples in India alone.

At the same time due to money,attention and fame you could go astray too . Not too mention how it affects the motivation and desire when you are 38 to keep at the top and the toll it takes on the body and mind.

Exactly!

Even Ponting who debuted early, took some time to find his feet, and was early in his career known to be something of an enfant terrible...

Not many 16yr olds have gone to make 100 international hundreds..

[Ikki]

Difference between him and others is monumental (in terms of No. of 100s).

Tendulkar has 99 International 100s, His closest competitor has 69.

He has played more because he could.

What in the hell does that mean? Ponting has been pretty much an ever-present since his debut. The reason he isn't closer is because Tendulkar has played more - yes, because he debuted at 16 whereas Ponting debuted at 20.

List of youngest debutants -

Records | Test matches | Individual records (captains, players, umpires) | Youngest players | ESPN Cricinfo

Except Sachin and then Sobers none of them went that well.

Hanif?
Harbhajan?
Mushtaq Mohammad?
Waqar?
Wasim?
Imran Khan?
Chandra?
Saqlain?

If anything that list demonstrates the point brought up earlier. Lots of the names there are from the subcontinent. There are only 2 Australians: Garrett who debuted in 1877 and Craig in 1953.

[Spark]

Exactly!

Even Ponting who debuted early, took some time to find his feet, and was early in his career known to be something of an enfant terrible...

Not many 16yr olds have gone to make 100 international hundreds..

Hooray. So why do you insist on equating a 20 year old Ponting to a 20 year old Tendulkar?