Parthiv Patel also debuted at 16 BTW. That went well.
Except Sachin and then Sobers none of them went that well.
Last edited by Cevno; 05-04-2011 at 09:55 AM.
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.
"He's [Michael Clarke] on Twitter saying sorry for not walking? Mate if he did that in our side there'd be hell to play. AB would chuck his Twitter box off the balcony or whatever it is. Sorry for not walking? Jesus Christ man."RIP CraigosKnowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put it into a fruit salad
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Spark; 05-04-2011 at 10:01 AM.
+ time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)