Sachin Tendulkar for the 1990-2007 ODI XI

[Beleg]

11-1.

 

[Perm]

I wouldn't be surprised if you did at some point.

Not against such an overwhelming majority, I'm sure if he did do that then a lot of people would stop giving their input.

 

[shankar]

They don't, though, because even as an opener he's batted there countless hundreds of times.

Sadly, there are no stats that reflect runs scored between overs 15 and 40, only by-position. And IMO said stats are far more accurate reflections of such matters than by-position numbers.

If such a statistic showed him doing exceedingly well in overs 15-40, that doesn't automatically mean that he would do similarly well if he came in during the middle overs. He is able to bat the way in overs 15-40 because he's already got a start in the first 15. Coming in directly in the middle overs and having to start your innings nudging for ones and twos is a different matter and not something I've seen him enjoy doing.

 

[aussie tragic]

Well there is, actually, as it's my team I could veto this, but that would kinda defy the point of polling ITFP.

Well if it's your team then just put him wherever you like and don't bother asking us

 

[NUFAN]

I think it's abit unfair for the other players to start with Tendulkar first.

Just say if you had a poll for Mark Waugh and where should he bat, and the options were opener, no. 4 and he shouldn't make the team, more people would generally pick a position rather then saying he shouldn't make it, which gives Tendulkar an advantage.

In saying that, I am going to vote for Tendulkar to bat at 4. If you've got Gilchrist opening, and another gun opener like Jayasuriya, Waugh, Hayden, Anwar, Knight (LOL) etc opening, I think it's not a bad idea having the best two batsmen in the world (Ponting and Tendulkar at 3 and 4).

This would give the openera a license to attack from the get go.

 

[NUFAN]

Hey just a quick question..

Are we selecting these sides like it's 1989 or 2007?

If it's 89, it will change mine and probably others choices a lot..

 

[Perm]

Hey just a quick question..

Are we selecting these sides like it's 1989 or 2007?

If it's 89, it will change mine and probably others choices a lot..

There are going to be two sides selected, one from 1970-1989 and one from 1990-2007.

 

[NUFAN]

There are going to be two sides selected, one from 1970-1989 and one from 1990-2007.

Yeah mate I undestand that. But are we selecting the teams for a game that is going to happen in 2007 or a game that would have been played in 1970-1989 conditions?

It will impact sides IMO, for instance someone like Klusener probably wouldn't even be close if the game was played in 80s conditions, but this decade he would be.

 

[Perm]

Yeah mate I undestand that. But are we selecting the teams for a game that is going to happen in 2007 or a game that would have been played in 1970-1989 conditions?

It will impact sides IMO, for instance someone like Klusener probably wouldn't even be close if the game was played in 80s conditions, but this decade he would be.

Well presumably the team picked for 1970-1989 will be playing in conditions similar to what you would find in that time period, and the same goes for the 1990-2007 team.

As far as I know the teams aren't going to be playing each other, so ther conditions shouldn't play much of a role in selecting the teams.

 

[NUFAN]

Well presumably the team picked for 1970-1989 will be playing in conditions similar to what you would find in that time period, and the same goes for the 1990-2007 team.

As far as I know the teams aren't going to be playing each other, so ther conditions shouldn't play much of a role in selecting the teams.

OK cheers, I just assumed at the end the teams would play against each other and there would be debate as to who would win.

Maybe Richard can tell us if he planned to have a Sim match or something between the two teams at the end, and if so what year the match was to be played?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Stats by position don't really give a clue as to stats by time at which someone batted.

The more important thing is not what SRT's simplistic positional average is, but how he performed in overs 15-40 compared to 1-15.

But there's the obvious point that he's so good between overs 15-40 because he's usually set by that stage, because he's been opening.

 

[alternative]

Opener, easy choice there.

 

[Swervy]

this thread is a joke...Richard has obviously made his mind up on the construction of this entire team. I don't see why he has even asked anyone for their opinions.

 

[Swervy]

For what it is worth, I think it is fairly clear that Tendulkar should be opening

 

[Richard]

this thread is a joke...Richard as obviously made his mind you on the construction of this entire team. I don't see why he has even asked anyone for their opinions.

 

[Manee]

Opening, he is a heavy run scorer at the top of the innings since he can attack the new ball and build an innings through calm strokeplay in the middle overs and powerful hitting at the end.

 

[Richard]

If such a statistic showed him doing exceedingly well in overs 15-40, that doesn't automatically mean that he would do similarly well if he came in during the middle overs. He is able to bat the way in overs 15-40 because he's already got a start in the first 15. Coming in directly in the middle overs and having to start your innings nudging for ones and twos is a different matter and not something I've seen him enjoy doing.

But there's the obvious point that he's so good between overs 15-40 because he's usually set by that stage, because he's been opening.

Yes, there is that too. However, I have indeed seen him come in in the middle overs and immediately look good - because he's a top-shelf player. Obviously many would enjoy more having got a good start before.

 

[Richard]

I think it's abit unfair for the other players to start with Tendulkar first.

Just say if you had a poll for Mark Waugh and where should he bat, and the options were opener, no. 4 and he shouldn't make the team, more people would generally pick a position rather then saying he shouldn't make it, which gives Tendulkar an advantage.

Would anyone seriously argue that Tendulkar should not be in a side like this?

If so, I personally would ignore them, TBH.

Bevan and Tendulkar should be dead-certs.

 

[Richard]

Not against such an overwhelming majority, I'm sure if he did do that then a lot of people would stop giving their input.

More like no-one would ITFP. Saw that on the false-start when I got the 6-year-old response from several.

 

[Pratters]

Would anyone seriously argue that Tendulkar should not be in a side like this?

If so, I personally would ignore them, TBH.

Turbinator wont be happy.