Tendulkar - 36 and going strong

[Jono]

Ah sorry, apologies. Thought you were being all pro-bowling/anti-batting again and saying his CB Series chases were only down to the bowlers.

That being said, Harbhajan and Kumar also went a long way to winning those matches.

 

[Pratters]

And he is doing well, not better than the mid-late ninenties though. He was the best I've ever watched during that time.

I wont go into an argument with you over it as it is a fair enough opinion if some one feels the nineties was his best. I can't separate it from his current run though. He is a smarter cricketer, has a way bigger repetoire of shots and his career right now is comparable to any period he has had in his career in my opinion. I wont go bisecting which is the better period as a) The current period hasn't finished, b) I love both the phases.

 

[Maximus0723]

Forgetting the money and fame, and purely from a statistical point of view, I wonder if Sachin would trade his records with, say a Damien Martyn or Justin Langer, so long as he experienced the team success they did.

EDIT: Maybe not Langer, because he never won a World Cup.

No question. He always would. No doubt in my mind.

 

[silentstriker]

No question. He always would. No doubt in my mind.

Hmm, I'm not sure I would. Like baseball, cricket is a very individual game.

As a player? I'm not sure I would - just from a monetary perspective. The difference could be tens of millions of dollars.

As a fan, I'd certainly trade Sachin's record for a better team throughout the nineties, let alone a team as good as Australia had. So from a fan's perspective, its a no-brainer.

Now, if the question were if he could achieve the same fame and money with a Langer-esque record and still be part of a winning team, I think that's a closer call and he might take it.

 

[Jono]

I did say forgetting about the money and fame, as in not taking that into account.

 

[silentstriker]

I did say forgetting about the money and fame, as in not taking that into account.

Ah yes, you did. He might, I probably wouldn't. The more your teammates suck, the better you look in comparison.

 

[rivera213]

Hopefully we see the best of Sachin to come. He played a great knock today in the IPL.

I doubt he'll reach the heights of the mid-90's but I want him to get 50 Test and ODI centuries by the time he retires and have a test run average of 50+. I'd also like him to beat Lara's single innings record.

He'll probably need 40-50 test innings and 60-70 more ODI's to attain that unless he goes bezerk for the next few years, getting 1 every 5 innings/ODI's or something.

Do a Gooch!

 

[vic_orthdox]

Reckon he should bat left handed for the rest of his career. Just to make things fair.

 

[Sanz]

Hmm, I'm not sure I would. Like baseball, cricket is a very individual game.

As a player? I'm not sure I would - just from a monetary perspective. The difference could be tens of millions of dollars.

As a fan, I'd certainly trade Sachin's record for a better team throughout the nineties, let alone a team as good as Australia had. So from a fan's perspective, its a no-brainer.

Now, if the question were if he could achieve the same fame and money with a Langer-esque record and still be part of a winning team, I think that's a closer call and he might take it.

Dont think he would trade his nationality. Langer-esque record will earn him what Langer earned.

 

[Evermind]

Reckon he should bat left handed for the rest of his career. Just to make things fair.

Might still perform better than Yuvraj in tests.

 

[irfan]

Might still perform better than Yuvraj in tests.

No need to be doubtful about that

 

[rivera213]

Yuvraj's stats aren't terrible considering he's still in the infancy of his career.

I just think he's a 1-trick pony. He can't adapt to match situations which is where he flops.

Mohammad Kaif would be a better option in tests IMO.

Ganguly is probably still the best left-handed Indian batsman and he was forced to retire.


EDIT- Left-handed MIDDLE ORDER batsman I meant. Gambhir is obviously the best left hander.

 

[silentstriker]

There are a bunch of guys pushing for spots, we don't need to go back to Kaif, Yuvraj or Ganguly.

 

[rivera213]

Like who?

 

[silentstriker]

Like who?

VIjay, Badrinath, Pujara, Rahane, Chopra....

 

[Anil]

Yuvraj's stats aren't terrible considering he's still in the infancy of his career.

well then his infancy has continued for 6 years...and he has been given more chances than most players...

 

[rivera213]

VIjay, Badrinath, Pujara, Rahane, Chopra....

Pujara & Rahane will almost certainly be in the India team for many years to come, but I don't think they're ready yet. Most 21-year olds aren't. I'd leave it for a couple of years, some tours to other countries and then put them in. Plus you'd be placing both of those out of their natural batting positions buy putting them in @ 6.

Murali Vijay is an opener. I wouldn't put him ahead of Sehwag or Gambhir and that doesn't solve the middle-order problem.

Where would you put Badrinath? He's generally a No. 3, you could put him @ 3, Tendulkar 4, Dravid 5, Laxman 6, but he's not a direct replacement for Yuvraj and that's moving the established players down a slot and switching Tendulkar and Dravid around (you can't have Tendulkar coming in lower than No. 4)

Which Chopra do you mean? Aakash? If so then I don't think he's good enough by a long way, plus he's 31. Hardly a long term replacement. He's India's version of Ramprakash- great at first-class level but not up to the task at test level.

well then his infancy has continued for 6 years...and he has been given more chances than most players...

In terms of number of innings, not years. 45 innings doesn't tell you everything about a player (that's under a 3rd of his possible career), especially when India play so few home tests.

He averaged 70.66 in the series against us in 2008 with a run average of 53, OK it was only 2 tests but he looked in form.

He had a poor series against New Zealand though.

I'm not a fan of Yuvraj, but I wouldn't put any of the promising young batsmen in the test team yet and I also wouldn't move the order around which you'd have to do to put 1 of the batsmen SilentStriker mentioned in the team.

 

[silentstriker]

Murali Vijay is an opener. I wouldn't put him ahead of Sehwag or Gambhir and that doesn't solve the middle-order problem.

Sehwag is a middle order batsman, and he opens. Vijay can play in the middle.

Where would you put Badrinath? He's generally a No. 3, you could put him @ 3, Tendulkar 4, Dravid 5, Laxman 6, but he's not a direct replacement for Yuvraj and that's moving the established players down a slot and switching Tendulkar and Dravid around (you can't have Tendulkar coming in lower than No. 4)

Badrinath can play anywhere in the middle order. To say a #6 spot should be restricted to those who play #6 only is asinine. The top six should be your six best batsmen in the country. That's it - no more no less. The positions should then be decided based on ability.

Which Chopra do you mean? Aakash? If so then I don't think he's good enough by a long way, plus he's 31. Hardly a long term replacement. He's India's version of Ramprakash- great at first-class level but not up to the task at test level.

People are obsessed with long term, who cares about long term? Can you help me now? That's the only thing I care about. If he gives me a couple years, that's more than enough. And Aakash has changed his game quite a bit recently and should get a go.

I'm not a fan of Yuvraj, but I wouldn't put any of the promising young batsmen in the test team yet and I also wouldn't move the order around which you'd have to do to put 1 of the batsmen SilentStriker mentioned in the team.

No you don't have to change the order. You can put any of those batsmen at #6. And Yuvraj wastes space. Hell, I'd rather have Irfan Pathan there.

 

[Pratters]

I have been a supporter of Yuvraj as a test match option from the beginning and believe he has it in him to be a decent test player but he has been given enough chances. Maximum one more series and if he fails, drop him.

 

[Anil]

In terms of number of innings, not years. 45 innings doesn't tell you everything about a player (that's under a 3rd of his possible career), especially when India play so few home tests.

He averaged 70.66 in the series against us in 2008 with a run average of 53, OK it was only 2 tests but he looked in form.

He had a poor series against New Zealand though.

I'm not a fan of Yuvraj, but I wouldn't put any of the promising young batsmen in the test team yet and I also wouldn't move the order around which you'd have to do to put 1 of the batsmen SilentStriker mentioned in the team.

20 odd tests is easily enough to decide whether a player is test-class or not...