Criticising Tendulkar the in thing

[sohummisra]

^ Well, the thing the critics are further disappointed by is the idea that Sachin would fail when trying to capitalize on the bowlers. He is supposed to be one of the best in the world and the best in the world dictate terms to the bowlers rather than have it dictated to them. Over the last 3-4 years Sachin has made a habit of giving debutants a slice of glory by prizing his wicket away to them... by giving them too much respect. Yous ay that slapping around Bangladesh at a quicker rate wouldn't have meant anything special and I think you are incorrect in that assumption. Pre-World Cup, Sachin had a run of matches where his form seemed to capture that of his prime. Although he didn't go on to make many huge scores, people were definitely optimistic about it. Injuries caused him to slip back into the defensive mindset he has now.

Tendulkar himself has admitted that his role has changed in the team to be more of an anchor. But it seems that the Indian line-up that boasted of strokemakers in the past is now quickly becoming a sea of sailors. With Jaffer, Dravid, Tendulkar and Ganguly choosing to play anchors, we only have our second-opener and Dhoni (and sometimes Yuvraj) to drive home the advantage.

 

[Sanz]

^ And your point is ?

 

[Jono]

The ironic thing is, people who have said Sachin still belongs in the test team have never stated that Sachin is as good as he once was. All that they have stated is that he is still likely to be in the top 6 batsman in India (well that is the core point).

Now, I ask you this, if you replace Sachin with another batsman who has now taken Sachin's place in the team, let's just hypothetically say its Badrinath who seems to be talked up a lot. Put the exact same scores that Sachin got next to Badrinath, with the exact same strike rate, and the exact same apparent "refusal to up the rate" and "inability to dominate the bowling like the other batsman did".

Would you people be criticising him? Would he have played a selfish innings?

If the answer is no, then its a hypocritical stance and you're just expecting more from Sachin than what you're going to get. No one is saying he's the #1 batsman in the world, no one is saying Sachin of the 90s will make an appearance in England. All that is being said is, he performed in Bangladesh as someone who is in the top 3-4 Indian test batsman should.

 

[Piper]

I haven't read the whole thread so please forgive me if I say something someone has already said. The thing that gets me about the press is when I player is playing well they haven't got enough good things to say about him but when he has a bad match, day or whatever, they seem to really enjoy ripping him to shreads. It amazes me when they do it to someone like Tendulkar - I don't think they have been doing there homework on him and don't realise what kind of player he is.

 

[atisha_ro]

tbh, Sam dear, it happens as such when you create idols, as indians are very keen to do.
he was amazing, now is just good. he's human.
i can't wait to see him facing the English attack tho'

 

[Piper]

Yeah I know but I don't think they should criticise him just because he's now only good lol. He is still capable of taking on the best bowling attacks in the world, which is the whole point of the game.. Sigh..

 

[Anil]

Why do I think the criticism is unfair? Because as I sort of said earlier, to me, the series against Bangladesh wasn't about winning it. It was about not losing it first, and ensuring that the correct preparation was given to the Indian team.

The Indian team isn't about Tendulkar no, but its about each individual getting done what was needed, and for a few batsman, Sachin and Ganguly in particular, it was time in the middle, batting practice and increasing confidence. That happened here, and India won the series. Mission accomplished.

If Sachin deliberately doesn't increase his pace when batting against England, and it is obvious that this has occurred, for selfish reasons, then I think an article should be written. Until that day happens, I think the articles should wait.

Anil, would an article have been written had Tendulkar failed? Definitely. Would a similar article also been written had he tried to bat too fast, gotten out and exposed Dhoni etc. early? Probably.

Runs aren't going to be easy when he plays England in England, I don't see how him slapping around Bangladesh at a quicker rate would have meant anything special anyway. So just like India were in a no win situation, neither was Sachin.

ok no point in taking this further, we agree to disagree...

 

[sohummisra]

^ And your point is ?

You seem to have been blessed with the ability to comprehend English to figure that out.

 

[Sanz]

You seem to have been blessed with the ability to comprehend English to figure that out.

I do and I still dont know what was the point of that post.

 

[sohummisra]

The ironic thing is, people who have said Sachin still belongs in the test team have never stated that Sachin is as good as he once was. All that they have stated is that he is still likely to be in the top 6 batsman in India (well that is the core point).

He is not as good as he once was. I think a lot of his selection is based on past performances. We have solid batsmen like Yuvraj and Laxman sitting on the sidelines. As much as we like to criticize him, very few people can look at a teamsheet without Tendulkar.

Now, I ask you this, if you replace Sachin with another batsman who has now taken Sachin's place in the team, let's just hypothetically say its Badrinath who seems to be talked up a lot. Put the exact same scores that Sachin got next to Badrinath, with the exact same strike rate, and the exact same apparent "refusal to up the rate" and "inability to dominate the bowling like the other batsman did".

If the answer is no, then its a hypocritical stance and you're just expecting more from Sachin than what you're going to get. No one is saying he's the #1 batsman in the world, no one is saying Sachin of the 90s will make an appearance in England. All that is being said is, he performed in Bangladesh as someone who is in the top 3-4 Indian test batsman should.

The context is far different for a debutant and an international batsman who has played over 400 international games for 17 years, having scored more than 25000 runs and 70 international centuries. The yardstick, so to speak, is different. No one would have expected a debutant to dominate the Bangladesh attack like Jaffer, Karthik, Dravid, and Ganguly, who have all shown that they have something special to offer. And the point we are making, I feel, is that Sachin performed as one of the top 3-4 in India, but not like the top batsman in India, which is what he should be. It's just different with Tendulkar, which is something people who haven't grown up around Indian cricket won't understand.

 

[adharcric]

the top batsman in India, which is what he should be. It's just different with Tendulkar, which is something people who haven't grown up around Indian cricket won't understand.

No. Every Tendulkar fan on here realizes that he is far from India's best batsman and he does not need to be that anymore.
He just needs to be good enough to make the test side. Quite simple really.

 

[sohummisra]

I do and I still dont know what was the point of that post.

The points were:

1. Tendulkar was criticized because of the way he got the runs. He was praised for the fact that he got the runs and the confidence under his belt, but he was criticized because he did not look a shade of his former self while getting it.

2. India risk playing too many batsmen who fill the role of being anchor-men.

3. Even if Sachin had scored a fluent 50, people would have been less on his back than they are now. As evidence for this theory, I brought up the fact that when Sachin looked to have been at his best before injury, even though the big runs weren't coming, people did not criticize him because he was playing positive and looking to be on the track back to his best.

 

[sohummisra]

No. Every Tendulkar fan on here realizes that he is far from India's best batsman and he does not need to be that anymore.
He just needs to be good enough to make the test side. Quite simple really. Please don't try to take an objective stance and serve up this stuff instead.

That's a fine way to charade an opinion as a fact.

I want to see Tendulkar at his best, and at his best he is the best in the country.

 

[Sanz]

The points were:

1. Tendulkar was criticized because of the way he got the runs. He was praised for the fact that he got the runs and the confidence under his belt, but he was criticized because he did not look a shade of his former self while getting it.

Well then it is unjustified, because we all know that he is nowhere close to his former shelf. Sooner we understand it the better it is.

2. India risk playing too many batsmen who fill the role of being anchor-men.

I see only one, Dravid, Jaffer, Gambhir, Karthik, Sachin VVS, Ganguly, Dhoni, Yuvraj etc dont/cant fill the role of an anchor man. We have seen it over and over again.

3. Even if Sachin had scored a fluent 50, people would have been less on his back than they are now. As evidence for this theory, I brought up the fact that when Sachin looked to have been at his best before injury, even though the big runs weren't coming, people did not criticize him because he was playing positive and looking to be on the track back to his best.

So you would rather have Sachin make low scores which look fluent than Sachin make high scores which may not be as fluent as you expect them to be ?

 

[sohummisra]

Well then it is unjustified, because we all know that he is nowhere close to his former shelf. Sooner we understand it the better it is.

This is true. You can call it holding on to the past.

I see only one, Dravid, Jaffer, Gambhir, Karthik, Sachin VVS, Ganguly, Dhoni, Yuvraj etc dont/cant fill the role of an anchor man. We have seen it over and over again.

Your punctuation confuses me. Dravid is supposed to be the anchor-man, and I don't mind having a couple of others either. But Jaffer, Sachin and Ganguly in their current roles also fulfill the job seeing that they keep one side locked down.

So you would rather have Sachin make low scores which look fluent than Sachin make high scores which may not be as fluent as you expect them to be ?

Well I would rather see Sachin make high scores that look fluent against England. He's not going to change gears overnight.

 

[Sanz]

He is not as good as he once was. I think a lot of his selection is based on past performances. We have solid batsmen like Yuvraj and Laxman sitting on the sidelines. As much as we like to criticize him, very few people can look at a teamsheet without Tendulkar.

Since when Yuvraj Singh became a SOLID test batsman and Laxman started sitting on the sidelines ? And actually there are many who can look at a team sheet without Tendulkar. If he performs poorly, IMO he should be dropped.

The context is far different for a debutant and an international batsman who has played over 400 international games for 17 years, having scored more than 25000 runs and 70 international centuries. The yardstick, so to speak, is different. No one would have expected a debutant to dominate the Bangladesh attack like Jaffer, Karthik, Dravid, and Ganguly, who have all shown that they have something special to offer. And the point we are making, I feel, is that Sachin performed as one of the top 3-4 in India, but not like the top batsman in India, which is what he should be. It's just different with Tendulkar, which is something people who haven't grown up around Indian cricket won't understand.

People need to lower their expectation with him, Media needs to get off his back. It is totally unfair to expect a batsman to bat at the same level for 25 years. If Tendulkar can perform like the top 3-4 in India, he is good enough for me. I dont need him to be the Tendulkar of 90s. Oh and I have grown up watching Tendulkar, watched almost every game of his, most of us on this forum have.

 

[adharcric]

That's a fine way to charade an opinion as a fact.

I want to see Tendulkar at his best, and at his best he is the best in the country.

You're living in the past. Dravid > Tendulkar at his best, right now. Tendulkar can be very useful at his best, but to suggest that he can be the very best is simply wrong.

 

[Sanz]

This is true. You can call it holding on to the past.

I dont get it. When I say the criticism is unfair, you agree with me and yet criticize him. Are you saying that you are unfairly criticizing Tendulkar ?

Your punctuation confuses me. Dravid is supposed to be the anchor-man, and I don't mind having a couple of others either. But Jaffer, Sachin and Ganguly in their current roles also fulfill the job seeing that they keep one side locked down.

Locking down one end is different from anchoring the innings. Even If we consider that definition, I dont see Jaffer, Laxman,Yuvraj, Dhoni, Karthik as anchor-men.

Well I would rather see Sachin make high scores that look fluent against England. He's not going to change gears overnight.

I really dont care how he scores his runs, as long as he is making them I am happy. I would prefer for the sake of entertainment value that he bats like Sachin of 90s or early 2000s, but If he doesn't, I am not going to criticize him for that.

 

[sohummisra]

Sachin, Sachin, Sachin. I agree that it is unfair to criticize him because he's not playing as he did 10 years back. But I also think there are certain expectations from him that must be met. I think some of the criticism is unfair, but some of it is fair. I think he could play more positive cricket whilst not endangering his wicket and that would help the team out more.

I also think the Indian team has to shift their batting strategies around a bit and that they could get more utility from the current batsmen if they redefined the roles for each one. I don't think Sachin is at his most useful for the team in the manner he played in Bangladesh.

I realize that I have probably made a few silly comments and I find myself in a corner that I did not initially start at. Well, the discussion was fruitful for me!

 

[Jono]

That's a fine way to charade an opinion as a fact.

I want to see Tendulkar at his best, and at his best he is the best in the country.

So you're pretty much saying

"Tendulkar, average 55+ at a strike rate of around 65+, or get out of the team"

Just stupid. We all want Sachin at his best, but the main thing is he at whatever "ability" level he has now, he still makes the Indian test team. Not automatically, but he does.

If you think he doesn't, then I bring you all back to the original question. Would you have criticised Badrinath or enter any other Indian domestic player had they did the exact same thing Sachin did vs. Bangladesh. Because its "no different", you've all been saying the team comes first and its not all about Sachin.

Well apparently it is all about Sachin, not only from his fans' view but also from his detractors.