Is Tendulkar's career now "complete"?

[honestbharani]

As far as I can see in this thread Don Bradman has only been mentioned by the people trying to remind us again that Bradman is better.

Well yes he is. No one in here is saying he isn't. But what we're seeing from Sachin is incredibly rare. Very very rare. That should be appreciated.

Among a number of pretty silly posts/arguments in this thread, this is a bit of a gem from Joni. And I completely agree..


I still think Lara was the better test batsman (by a whisker) and even though I have never seen him bat live, I think Richards has a case to be the best in the world in ODIs (in as much as you can compare between those eras).. But what Sachin has achieved and continues to achieve is simply beyond belief.


It is all very well to think that a Lara or a Ponting would have achieved what he has done if given the same number of games but the fact is only one of those 3 has the records to show for it and it is not Lara or Ponting.. He is a God of the game just based on the records and what he has meant for a team and a nation and that is how it stays. Just listen to his interviews since the WC to just comprehend how great he is. A whole nation is bowing to his feet and the guy still maintains his composure.. But honestly, he turned down very lucrative liquor ads when he was in his teens so that the youngsters would not be misled, so this is to be expected. WAG...

 

[Ikki]

Well if he gets within 10, that will be more than enough for most to consider him a much more worthy equal (statistically at least).

If Ponting gets within 10 of that it will mean he will be statistically ahead in pretty much every other facet (100s per innning and average) that actually counts, bar that aggregate total. Which shows just how crap it is as an indicator.

LOL @ HB. He's great because the nation thinks he's great and he's really humble. What a guy!

 

[abmk]

Yes, but it would mean Tendulkar would have less 100s for me. Are you missing the original point?

well yeah. But if we keep sachin's as it is and have ponting debuting at 16, there is no guarentee that ponting would have more centuries than he has now, in fact there is a decent chance he has lesser...

But the reason Sachin was making noises was because of his age. Not because he was superlative amongst his peers. Again, from debut till 20 Sachin averaged in the 20s and 30s against every team bar England and Australia - in the 40s overall. The reason he was making noises was because of his age. Not that he was the best batsman of the world. By the time Ponting had debuted Lara and Tendulkar had already established themselves as a force. Warne was huge and the Australian team was #1 or getting there. When Tendulkar debuted it was the end of an era for many greats and only Waugh and Lara were making themselves undeniable. He was the stand-out in a weak side and...he was very young.

again, not only the age, but the quality of innings played in alien conditions. Oh and Sachin was there roughly in the top 10 batsmen in that period as well.

 

[Sanz]

Yes he had. In that same article it talks about Ponting, whilst still in the academy, wanting to stay behind and look at Sachin because the Indian team were training at the academy. In that article, Rod Marsh says Ponting is so good he should be averaging more than 60 and is disappointed.

So you do not believe Rod Marsh now when he says that "He was 16 and I knew nothing about him"

 

[abmk]

Anyways screw the stats for a second. From what I've seen quality wise, ability to sustain that quality etc etc ......Sachin is better than the other batsmen of his generation and by some distance and quite frankly better than anyone bar Bradman. The stat 99 intl centuries is just a part of that story if one wishes to bring stats in that is !

 

[Ikki]

well yeah. But if we keep sachin's as it is and have ponting debuting at 16, there is no guarentee that ponting would have more centuries than he has now, in fact there is a decent chance he has lesser. So, its not just a matter of chance

No, I'd say he is more than likely to have more 100s than he has now since he'd have played more games. Regardless if his average would have suffered. But, let's move on.

again, not only the age, but the quality of innings played in alien conditions. Oh and Sachin was there roughly in the top 10 batsmen in that period as well.

If you're talking about the 2-3 years after he debuted..then no he wasn't. It wasn't until his England series in 93 that he really pushed on. Before that he showed glimpses but was averaging in the 30s for the first 3 years of his career. Which was fine considering his age, but not near amongst the best batsmen in the world at that time.

 

[honestbharani]

If Ponting gets within 10 of that it will mean he will be statistically ahead in pretty much every other facet (100s per innning and average) that actually counts, bar that aggregate total. Which shows just how crap it is as an indicator.

LOL @ HB. He's great because the nation thinks he's great and he's really humble. What a guy!

I actually think he is great because he is actually great, but whatever..

 

[Sanz]

...even though I have never seen him bat live, I think Richards has a case to be the best in the world in ODIs (in as much as you can compare between those eras).. But what Sachin has achieved and continues to achieve is simply beyond belief.

That is such a valid point HB. That's why the "He-has-more-100s-because-he-has-played-more" argument is so invalid.

I am one of the greatest admirers of Sir IVAR and I think he is way better than SRT or any other ODI batsman but I have no doubt in my mind that he wouldn't have ended up with a record like SRT if he played as many ODIs. Infact had he played any longer than he did, his record would have shown him to be a mere mortal as an ODI batsman.

 

[Ikki]

So you do not believe Rod Marsh now when he says that "He was 16 and I knew nothing about him"

Wait a sec, you're talking about Ponting, I thought you meant Tendulkar. I said Marsh thinks Ponting was a better teenage batsman than Tendulkar. By the time Ponting arrived, he'd already had seen Tendulkar. Tendulkar, btw, debuted at almost 17 years of age. And anyway, who cares, let's say Ponting would debut 1 year later than Tendulkar. Does it matter? By 17 he was debuting for Tasmania in Sheffield Shield cricket. He averaged almost 50 in his first year and, as aforesaid, the standard in cricket in Australia at that time was very high. He was already in the top handful of batsmen in the country. He didn't debut until 3 years later though after he had shellacked the bowlers in that league.

I actually think he is great because he is actually great, but whatever..

Ahh, even better reasoning. You should see abmk who also wants to throw out all stats.

 

[centurymaker]

Had tendulkar debuted at 20, he prob would not have got injured so many times in the mid 00's, which were supposed to be his peak years (age 29 to 34). Therefore, he prob would have played more games (missed tests due to injury) in that period and averaged alot higher too.

Ponting had the chance to play 10-15 tests a year during his peak, Tendulkar didn't. India played very few tests a year.

The end. Silly discussion going on at the moment.

 

[centurymaker]

If tendulkar loses 4 years by starting at 20, he gains by not having a lean patch around the mid 00's.

 

[fredfertang]

In two years time Tendulkar will be older than Bradman was when he retired - of course the game was easier on the physique anyway in Bradman's time - but if Tendulkar, who I've always liked but never gone overboard about, is still increasing, or even just maintaining his average by the age of 40, then I will be seriously impressed and if we do reach that point I'll concede he's on his own in second place

 

[smash84]

The end. Silly discussion going on at the moment.

Not really. This is one of the best discussions going on CW for quite some time now. The quality of posts has been generally good. I still think abmk does a fine job (although would like to see him post more) of arguing his points.

Ikki of course a one man army .

Good job guys

In two years time Tendulkar will be older than Bradman was when he retired - of course the game was easier on the physique anyway in Bradman's time - but if Tendulkar, who I've always liked but never gone overboard about, is still increasing, or even just maintaining his average by the age of 40, then I will be seriously impressed and if we do reach that point I'll concede he's on his own in second place

It would be impressive indeed given the workload that Tendulkar has had to bear over the years. However there must be batsmen over the years whose average was increasing over the last few years of their careers won't there???

 

[Ikki]

I missed this post.

Jeez, firstly the question was simple, why separate spinners and pacers ? Oh and maybe Laker deserves a place there !?

We all know spinners are rarer and middle-order batsmen are MUCH MORE in number ... Its how cricket is ...

We are talking about quality here .. first and foremost.

No, spinners aren't rarer than middle-order batsmen. That's not the point. All-time great spinners like Warne are much more rare than all-time middle-order batsmen.

Well, you might as well call bowlers batsmen because technically they are that too. Spinners are a completely different breed of bowler. Even if you want to compare them with fast bowlers you have to take into account the fact that they bowl more, often at more settled batsmen and are probably more reliant on the pitch conditions than fast bowlers. Even though bowlers like Murali or Warne will be a bit more expensive or slower to strike, they are invaluable in the sense that they can bowl for a long time and pick up big hauls of wickets. Just look at Warne's, and to an even greater extent Murali's, 4w/5w/10w hauls compared to great fast bowlers. The fact that their stats are so close to all-time great fast bowlers is what sets them apart from other spinners. Especially since they were so good even away from home (In Warne's case he was even better away than at home) They are quite incredible. There are very few spinners you could genuinely use as strike-bowlers to rival fast bowlers.

oh and care to look at a period immediately after that , similar no of matches ?

Batting records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

57 centuries compared to the 36 centuries in the period before that

Why is the period after relevant? We're talking about the period he didn't score a century in ODIs. No matter how you want to paint it, 0 in 78 tries shows he started very slowly in ODIs. It's not to denigrate him, as he is one of the top 3 ODI batsman of all-time in my eyes; but the point was that even exceptional talents may take time to adjust.

 

[akilana]

warne's a magician. he's showed up here out of nowhere.

 

[robelinda]

Batsmen suck.

Bowlers are the true gods.

 

[smash84]

batsmen suck.

Bowlers are the true gods.

this

 

[vcs]

I missed this post.



No, spinners aren't rarer than middle-order batsmen. That's not the point. All-time great spinners like Warne are much more rare than all-time middle-order batsmen.

Well, you might as well call bowlers batsmen because technically they are that too. Spinners are a completely different breed of bowler. Even if you want to compare them with fast bowlers you have to take into account the fact that they bowl more, often at more settled batsmen and are probably more reliant on the pitch conditions than fast bowlers. Even though bowlers like Murali or Warne will be a bit more expensive or slower to strike, they are invaluable in the sense that they can bowl for a long time and pick up big hauls of wickets. Just look at Warne's, and to an even greater extent Murali's, 4w/5w/10w hauls compared to great fast bowlers. The fact that their stats are so close to all-time great fast bowlers is what sets them apart from other spinners. Especially since they were so good even away from home (In Warne's case he was even better away than at home) They are quite incredible. There are very few spinners you could genuinely use as strike-bowlers to rival fast bowlers.



Why is the period after relevant? We're talking about the period he didn't score a century in ODIs. No matter how you want to paint it, 0 in 78 tries shows he started very slowly in ODIs. It's not to denigrate him, as he is one of the top 3 ODI batsman of all-time in my eyes; but the point was that even exceptional talents may take time to adjust.

So you mean their stats are all down to getting more opportunities to bowl?

 

[Bun]

Ponting was one of the best batsmen in the country at 17 - and the standard of FC cricket of Australia during that time was far higher than what Tendulkar had played. He is probably Australia's greatest batsman after Bradman and is in the argument for that overall regardless of nationality. What makes you think, even if he failed at 16, that he wouldn't come back and still make his mark? Or what makes you think he'd fail at all? And who said he wasn't setting the world alight at 20? He almost scored 100 on debut and made his name in the first few years for playing some of the best pace bowlers of all-time exceptionally well. Assumptions my friend. What we do know is, like Sachin, Ponting was a prodigy who just debuted later because the Australian system wouldn't have done what the Indians did with Sachin. Point being; there is no reason to doubt Ponting anymore than you would Sachin. They are more or less of the same ability.

Hahaha what rubbish.

1. Australian FC was good no doubt, but if you're saying it was better than the International attacks that Sachin faced in his teens, you're kidding no one mate.

2. Ponting started out at 21. Ever checked out how many years it took for him to avg 50? If starting out at a more mature age took him that many years, it is not difficult to say he would have taken many more years to do that starting out at 17 or 18.

3. It is a joke to say he was the best batsman in Aus at 17. He played his first season in 92-93, when he was 18, and averaged 46. Nothing terrible, but nothing exceptional either. He averaged 48 in the next season, and came of age in the third, averaging 62 in 94-95 (from just 7 matches), at 20 years. However in the next three seasons were pretty dire and showed it to be a bit premature.

Tendulkar on the other hand, at 16.5 years, was averaging 72.5 after 8 matches in his debut season. It's not just FC cricket that pushed him to the limelight. The guy's been in the news since childhood in Mumbai circles and was breaking record after record, and was being earmarked as a prodigy. His FC debut season was the final proof, not the first proof, that he was destined to play for India

4. To say Ponting and Sachin are of the same ability may make you sleep better at night. Alright, but fact remains while that could've been statistically defendable 4 years back, Tendulkar has skewed the match in his favor so much in the last 4 that it no more is a viable one.

 

[Burgey]

Batsmen suck.

Bowlers are the true gods.

LOL... With Viv as your avatar.