Actually unless your ricardo Powell or Wavell Hinds you dont get too many more games than those to prove your worth. Tendulkar has had 35 odd and has hardly been very successful on either of his runs, therefore the sensible move has always been to move your best player to the position that he performs best in.
Giving newbie a chance to cement his spot in the team and judging a player of nearly 18 year careers are two totally different ballgames.
Again the logic of your argument comes into question. Yes he had 20 not out scores, but the number of innings he lost by coming in too late(especially with the selectors having him bat at no 6) is incredibly large. AFAIC it really isnt a fair comparison to use when comparing a player opening to one who batted mostly at 6.
Everyone has matches where they lost out on chances to score big due to curtailed overs.
Tendy has had his fair share of it too.
If you look at the actual instances where Bevan has been denied a chance to score a 50 and same with Tendy, there is very little difference.
Scoring boundaries is only important when players are incapable of turning the strike over at a consistent rate.
No, scoring in boundaries is very important too - for one, it is the best way to score in the opener's slot in ODIs- a boundary-scorer can play in the middle and succeed but a poker like Bevan would be far less likely to succeed up top if he cant score boundaries at will.
Also, players who score mostly in boundaries gives the team an extra edge because they can simply go nuts and 'explode' in a game or two- pokers do that much rarely.
As a result, you cannot be talking up the 'turning strike over' aspect and in the same breath not acknowledge that scoring boundaries are equally important.
and yet as usual you are sprewing nothing other than absolute rubbish.
And as usual, you dismiss facts that dont suit your argument as garbage.
Personally you'd have to be a complete idiot if you thought the Australian batting card of the 90s was significantly better than the Indian batting lineup.
THROUGHOUT the 90s, OZ's batting was better - after the mid 90s, India's batting had more stars but still the lone alsoran which OZ had much rarely.
No the fact is that Tendulkar has had the opportunity to bat for a significant period of time in every one of his 367 ODIs and when you think about it 7 out of 367 is a very very ordinary figure.
Except that he hasnt played 367 games chasing.
As ive said before, and i will continue to say again, exceptions dont change a general pattern. Australia may have been one of the toughest teams to play against, but that doesnt mean that performances against them have come under the most intense pressure situations.
Whatever. It means that performance against OZ has to be weighed higher than performance against various other lesser teams.