Is Tendulkar a choker

[krkode]

I think I am distantly related to Chauhan on my mother's side.

Never met him, though.

 

[chicane]

To continue though:

ENG v IND 2002, 3rd Test Match
Tendulkar 193
Ganguly 128
Dravid 148

SA v IND 2001, 1st Test
Tendulkar 155
Sehwag 105

ENG v IND 1990, 2nd Test
Tendulkar 119*
(Alone here too)

OK can you list all the batsmen of the current era you rate as better than Tendulkar and please back it up with statistics too.

 

[marc71178]

In my opinion, yes, you are wrong and I am right. You may have whatever opinion you want though.

But you said:

Statistically he will rank among the top 3 batsmen to ever play the game, but realistically not many of those who actually saw him play will even consider him among the top 3 of his generation.

I would say the people on here sort of prove that to be a load of codswallop.

 

[luckyeddie]

But you said:



I would say the people on here sort of prove that to be a load of codswallop.

Now, now marc. Opinions are not allowed to reference facts, nor are they permitted to pay lip-service to the opinions of others.

Is it just my perception of matters or has the average IQ on CW gone down over the last few weeks?

 

[Neil Pickup]

I'm gobsmacked.

I cannot believe that on a pitch where one man manages a century, there's more chance of others making it than not.

 

[maxpower]

If they bowl badly a lot, then how can they truly be world class? Or has 'class' depreciated?.

well to me class has depreciated, I should have put quotes around "world class" in my previous post. Maybe the focus on pace is adding more pressure on the bowlers to abandon some of the true craft of pace bowling.

 

[bhooth nath]

i am really surprised to see an indian being so anti-tendulkar. i wont give my opinion on if tendulkar is a choker or not, but here i go,

also i do agree on dravid being better than tendulkar, but that does not make tendulkar a bad player. tendulkar was, is and will always remain a great player. nowadays tendulkars achievements arent noted down too much due to the presence of other great batsman like sehwag, dravid, laxman, etc. in the team. but when tenculkar fails, everybody seems to get after him.

it is said that tendulkar averaged only 17 in tests in 2003, but what is being forgotten in that tendulkar averaged 65 in odis for the same year showing that he wasnt out of form. tendulkar emerged to be the top scorer in the world cup and the tvs cup. this year, tendulkar made nearly 500 runs breaking a 50 year old record without being dismissed in tests.

tendulkar might have lost a bit of his touch, but he still one of the greatest batsman and still ranks among the worlds best. also, tendulkar is not overrated.

 

[tooextracool]

Sachin stats:

When India wins:

Mat Runs HS BatAv 100 50
33 2793 194* 64.95 10 9

When India draws:

48 4186 241* 74.75 15 19

When India loses:

33 2491 177 37.74 8 9

Ok, what do you interpret from this? That Sachin fails in pressure situations, when India needs someone that can rescue them, Sachin fails etc. etc.?

So, you get this from the last statistic, right?

Now lets see the first two stats, how has he played when India wins or draws? What does this mean? Sachin has set up so many wins for India. Does that mean wins only in winning positions? That he was called upon to do just the final act? No, there were pressure situations in (33+48) games, out of which Sachin did set up some, if not all the victories and draws.


Rahul Dravid:

When India wins:

23 2336 270 75.35 6 11

When India draws:

29 3051 222 80.28 10 14

When India loses:

26 1468 118 29.95 1 7


Now compare, India has lost 33 Tests out of 114 Sachin has played in, and 26 out of 78 Dravid has played in. I'm sorry, Sachin has the better stats.

these stats dont prove anything.....how do you know that in those 33 winning games that tendulkar didnt score a 100 in the first innings and fail in the 2nd innings when they needed him to score?or that he wasnt aided by someone else who scored 150* and batted till the end with 8 wickets down while tendulkar got out on 75 pretending that the ball kept low by squating on the floor after playing the shot? or that he got out when the score was 254 chasing 270??

And 33 centuries, what does that mean? You mean to say none came in a pressure situation?

probably 1 or 2 at most which came around 15 yrs ago

A century after your father passes away a couple of days before. No matter what the team is, that shows character.

let me also remind you about the ground on which this match was played...bristol...only 9 wickets fell in that match and kenya were at one stage 147/2 and looking good to at least give india a fight.

Gavaskar 102 out of 400 odd? Yeah good. Did anyone hang around Sachin when 270 odd were needed to chase and he scored 130 odd? No. So who score the rest 300 while Gavaskar was batting? It was a team effort. For Sachin, there was no team support. For Dravid there has been.

actually he got out before giving the last 4 players a chance to hang around with him.and besides if a centurion cant manage to score 16 runs giving the non striker minimal strike, a ball every over at most, then hes not very good is he?graeme thorpe in the 3rd test against the WI managed 107 runs for the last 4 wickets on a lively wicket.tendulkar couldnt get 16.

 

[tooextracool]

So you agree that there is no objective way to measure what is too much bounce and what is not, and what is too much lateral movement and what is not, right ? So stop touting your rants as gospel.

if u cant make out whether a pitch is offering consistent bounce or not,then you shouldnt be watching cricket anymore.i think the number of play and misses in the match usually suggests whether there was too much lateral movement or not, but u can easily make that out with the naked eye.

Now tell me if the pitches in NZ that were used for the India-NZ series of 2003 had too much or too less or moderate lateral movement ?

too much lateral movement and a real bowlers paradise.

 

[tooextracool]

And it was so "obvious" that I hadn't seen Chauhan bowl, right ? Yes ofcourse I cannot claim to have seen every over that he bowled but I have seen enough of his matches to know how good or bad he was. And I don't have to back up my opinion using some stupid cricket-obituary from cricinfo.

and have u been able to convince me as to why harbhajan is better? i think not.

He on the other hand was talented and gutsy enough to take the opportunity and make something out of it, unlike Chauhan who always remained on the borders of mediocrity.

he was lucky enough to come across an underprepared aussie batting against off spin and was also given the opportunity to be indias strike bowler while chauhan was forced to be the defensive bowler to counter kumble.

And why again has cricinfo proven me wrong about this Chauhan/Harbhajan thing ? Is there any statistical data by which Chauhan beats Harbhajan ? Look at facts and not fiction that you try to imagine.

cricinfo has proven you wrong because you considered chauhan "The flattest stock offie" which is clearly an opinion of someone who has just had g.bush's brain transplanted into his.

 

[DJ]

also i do agree on dravid being better than tendulkar, but that does not make tendulkar a bad player.

No-one is saying that Tendulkar is a bad player, we're just saying that we don't think he's as magnificent as some people say he his and that we don't think he's the best around. He's still a great player though.

 

[marc71178]

actually he got out before giving the last 4 players a chance to hang around with him.and besides if a centurion cant manage to score 16 runs giving the non striker minimal strike, a ball every over at most, then hes not very good is he?graeme thorpe in the 3rd test against the WI managed 107 runs for the last 4 wickets on a lively wicket.tendulkar couldnt get 16.

I cannot believe you're still going on about this!

How can you blame SRT for this when you look at the efforts of the rest of the top order?

You have a go at him for getting out, yet not at the one's who got out before him?

 

[luckyeddie]

I cannot believe you're still going on about this!

How can you blame SRT for this when you look at the efforts of the rest of the top order?

You have a go at him for getting out, yet not at the one's who got out before him?

There's one way to decide.
If TEC responds, he's a flat-thread bully. If he doesn't, he's a choker.

 

[Sanz]

Because runs are being scored faster and batsmen are trying to score runs faster. If you score 350 runs in a day and rack up a first innings of 600 with time left on day 2, chances are you'll get a win unless it's at the ARG.

So doesn't that even things out ?? That means batsmen are taking more chances, playing more shots and giving the bowlers a fair chance to take wickets by attacking them ?

 

[aussie_beater]

if u cant make out whether a pitch is offering consistent bounce or not,then you shouldnt be watching cricket anymore.i think the number of play and misses in the match usually suggests whether there was too much lateral movement or not, but u can easily make that out with the naked eye.

You agreed that Multan had consistent bounce, did you not ?

too much lateral movement and a real bowlers paradise.

So the pitches in NZ had too much lateral movement ? Is that a characteristic of a "non-flat pitch" which can be called a "minefield" where decent enough runs are hardly ever scored ? Your theory that runs need to be scored in a non-flat pitch, and yet not too many runs can be scored for it to qualify as a non-flat pitch are self-contradictory. And to apply that theory to judge a batsman and to say that he should have scored more in such surfaces is ludicrous.

 

[Sanz]

i dont think records do really matter. the fact was that steve waugh was there for his team when his team was under immense pressure....that for me is priceless,unlike some of the pointless 241s and 194s on those dead flat wickets.viv richards himself didnt hold too many records either...but that doesnt mean he wasn't better than tendulkar.

Records do matter, Otherwise why do we see a Brian Lara score 400 runs and Hayden score 380 runs ? It is important for them. As for Sachin's useless innings of 241 & 194, Well India ended up winning one and was an the verge of winning another one. I can show you lot Viv's useless inning which did not do his team his team any good. As for Steve Waugh batting in pressure situation well all I can say is he still has (much)lower 3rd & 4th innings avg than Sachin. Did you know that Steve Waugh has not scored single test century in 4th innings of a test ? Tells a lot about batting well under pressure, isn't it ?

if u call this era an era of great fast bowling then u obviously are out of you're mind. compare it to the 80s when we had holding,marshall,garner,roberts,botham,lillee,thommo,imran,hadlee etc and that list looks very ordinary indeed.

First of all I didn't say that Garner, Lillee etc weren't great, I just said that Ambrose, Walsh, Donald, Mcgrath, Waseem, Waqar, Warnie, Murali etc were great fast bowlers and were no way Ordinary even in the comparisons of the greats like Marshal, Holding etc. It just seems that you will go to any extent to prove your point and even call bowlers like Waqar, Akram, Donald, Mcgrath, Warnie etc as Ordinary. Btw is it Sachin's fault that he wasn't born in the era of Lillee, Holding etc ?

i would in no way classify saqlain,akhtar,and gillespie as great.akhtar is a 1 one devastating spell every 5 test matches type bowler who bowls rubbish when he isnt in rhythm, gillespie is decent but by no means great and saqlain,well he just wasnt very good was he?

On one hand you call Thommo as great and then declare that Akhtar & Gillespie are ordinary. For me I think Akhtar and Gillespie are as good as Thommo if not better. Saqlain in his prime was much better bowler than today, He played only one test and I dont think we can judge his performance on the basis of just one TEST. He still has one of the best strike rates (for a spinner) in Tests & ODIs both.

btw how many times has tendulkar played gough in a test match?if ur going to bring up random names then why not include larwood and wes hall too?

It's not Sachin's fault that Gough was not able to play in any of the 15 tests Sachin has played against England in last 10 years. Sachin has played him in ODIs and was alright against his bowling. I never said Sachin has played TESTS against Gough. Give a rest to your assumptions.

tendulkar never got to play ambrose in his prime either.and using your argument about kumble he never got to play waqar in his prime either, he faced him on waqar's debut series

It's not his fault that he didn't get to play Ambrose or Waqar at their prime, Btw he did play Ambrose in 1996-1997 and consistently played Waqar in ODIs. I am just waiting for you to declare that Ambrose's prime was over by 1995.

 

[aussie_beater]

and have u been able to convince me as to why harbhajan is better? i think not.

Remember, there is an objective thing called statistic ? ....not sure if your school had that in its curriculum, but most people in the world look at that for an objective analysis, alright !! Now I can't help an ostrich, can I ?

he was lucky enough to come across an underprepared aussie batting against off spin and was also given the opportunity to be indias strike bowler while chauhan was forced to be the defensive bowler to counter kumble.

Yeah, anybody who doesn't fit the profile that you have for using in your weird theories have been lucky enough or had an angel by their side all their lives.....eh ?

cricinfo has proven you wrong because you considered chauhan "The flattest stock offie" which is clearly an opinion of someone who has just had g.bush's brain transplanted into his.

Now how can someone's article prove me wrong. Has right and wrong become that subjective ? Well I may have gotten G.Bush's brain transplanted into mine, but I would say good luck with yours.....check out for those haemorrages mate

 

[Sanz]

if u call this era an era of great fast bowling then u obviously are out of you're mind. compare it to the 80s when we had holding,marshall,garner,roberts,botham,lillee,thommo,imran,hadlee etc and that list looks very ordinary indeed.

Hehehe, Just wanted to quote this one so that it doesn't get lost in the Galaxy of other posts. So you think Akram, Younis, Mcgrath, Warnie, Murali, Donald, Akhtar etc are Ordinary ??

BTW - Sachin Did play against Hadlee in his first Series against NZ, Against Imran in his debut series, needless to say that he was pretty comfortable against their bowling even as a Kid.

 

[Sanz]

well i had already stated my opinion on it. you obviously have never seen chauhan bowl and yet you make a judgement on him. so if there was any way to prove to you that he wasnt as bad as you make him out to be, it was with a second opinion which is why i brought in cricinfo.

Well I have seen Chauhan bowl in almost every test & ODI he has played for India. Infact I was right there at Wankhede Stadium in Mumbai in 1997 winter when chauhan bowled the best of his career in best of the conditions and I still think he was Ordinary at best and can't be compared to Harbhajan at all.

well if u want to count 5/115s and performances against zimbabwe and the WI in india. nothing can convince me if that chauhan had been given an extended run in the team that he too wouldnt have got those 5/115s etc.

Well In the Mumbai Test, Chauhan did get an extended spell on a spinning track in Mumbai and he still could't take a fifer in any of the innings.

 

[DJ]

Hehehe, Just wanted to quote this one so that it doesn't get lost in the Galaxy of other posts. So you think Akram, Younis, Mcgrath, Warnie, Murali, Donald, Akhtar etc are Ordinary ??

BTW - Sachin Did play against Hadlee in his first Series against NZ, Against Imran in his debut series, needless to say that he was pretty comfortable against their bowling even as a Kid.

Err, I hate to butt in, but I have to say that the quick bowling these days is very ordinary indeed. The 'list' you produce up top pretty much proves it, as you've selected 3 bowlers who've retired, one who hasn't played in about a year, two spinners and a greasy show-pony who can only play a maximum of 2 Tests in a row before taking 3 months off to recuperate in the night-club of his choice. And he chucks it anyway.

I think that pretty much sums it up.