What if Sachin Tendulkar was born in England. Do you think he would have ended up with a better record?

[Thala_0710]

England played 72% of their games against Australia, South Africa, Pakistan and West Indies in the 1990s. India played 46% of their games against Australia, South Africa, Pakistan and West Indies and even then McGrath and Ambrose didn't travel to India. And all the pacers were strong in England, with West Indies/Australia/South Africa being very good for pacers and thus their natural habitat. In turn, the team Sachin made most of his 90s runs against, England only played 3 out of 107 games against, while India played Sri Lanka 13 out of 69 games.

but I guess losing your bogey team, and having to face the top opposition literally twice as much boosts your average by 6 points

He'd also feast on the Indian attacks he'd have gotten

 

[Johan]

He'd also feast on the Indian attacks he'd have gotten

The English attacks he got in 92-93 and 96 were just as bad.

 

[Thala_0710]

The English attacks he got in 92-93 and 96 were just as bad.

Not in the 2000s though

 

[Johan]

Not in the 2000s though

2000s sure but 2000s English pitches were substantially spicier than 2000s Indian decks and he won't get the historically flat India vs Pakistan decks for the Multan 194* so I'd argue it more than balances out in 2000s too

 

[Coronis]

He might have a 500 run series

 

[Cricket Bliss]

220 odd Tests
16000+ runs
100s around same or bit low
average around 51

English wickets weren’t as flat as Indian. But Cricket would have been more popular in England and maybe a less religious in India.

 

[Johan]

Yeah 50 max, the 90s England schedule is nuts

 

[_00_deathscar]

assuming he debuts at 21-22, he'd still have the early tough years made worse by England's ruthless schedule in the 90s and if he develops into the batsman he eventually became it would be years later, the decline would come regardless with age and tennis elbow, by having his initial development phase for international cricket taking place in early 20s, even if everything goes dandy he'd just years of peak.

Why wouldn’t he debut as a teen for England?
That doesn’t have to be at 16. Could be at 18-19. Guy was scoring international hundreds for fun by that point, he would have absolutely smashed whatever level he was playing at and been fast tracked

 

[Johan]

Why wouldn’t he debut as a teen for England?
That doesn’t have to be at 16. Could be at 18-19. Guy was scoring international hundreds for fun by that point, he would have absolutely smashed whatever level he was playing at and been fast tracked

No reason he won't make it by 17 then considering he made that hundred against Fraser in 1990

 

[_00_deathscar]

Yeah 50 max, the 90s England schedule is nuts

00s but Kevin Pietersen averaged 47+.
Claiming Sachin wouldn’t average 50+ is nuts.

 

[Johan]

00s but Kevin Pietersen averaged 47+.
Claiming Sachin wouldn’t average 50+ is nuts.

on my soul Pietersen would average max 42 playing for 90s England or 80s England.

 

[_00_deathscar]

on my soul Pietersen would average max 42 playing for 90s England or 80s England.

Did visiting players in the 90s average 50+ in England or not?
Are any of those better than Sachin?

 

[Johan]

Did visiting players in the 90s average 50+ in England or not?
Are any of those better than Sachin?

what does that have to do with anything? my point is he'd be playing the top pacers twice as much in the 90s as he did, if not more, he'd be playing 25+ Tests with McGrath and Ambrose each, and a lot more with Donald and Wasim too, and he'd lose his bogey team in Sri Lanka against whom he averaged 80 in 13 Tests as England only played Lanka thrice in the 90s, it's a substantially tougher schedule, nothing to do with conditions.

England bowling until the late 90s was actual filth, so obviously they were plundered for more runs, that just adds more scoreboard preassure.

 

[DrWolverine]

Did visiting players in the 90s average 50+ in England or not?
Are any of those better than Sachin?

 

[DrWolverine]

Sachin Tendulkar was already the most technically perfect batsman I have seen. Given how advanced English coaching was in the 1980s compared to India, it’s fascinating to imagine how much sharper his technique could have become had he trained there.

 

[Cricket Bliss]

View attachment 48870

English bowling during the 90s weren’t great, apart from Gough maybe, but that wouldn’t be how his average turn out when he plays Against other teams for England in swinging conditions.

 

[DrWolverine]

English bowling during the 90s weren’t great, apart from Gough maybe, but that wouldn’t be how his average turn out when he plays Against other teams for England in swinging conditions.

True.

I think he would end up with higher average because he would debut a little late and retire sooner (Eng won’t win ODI WC and he would have played 200 Tests)

 

[Johan]

England might just move on from him in 2006-2007 when he was batting terribly

 

[capt_Luffy]

England might just move on from him in 2006-2007 when he was batting terribly

In his trough he averages 44...... India legit had Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman and Ganguly in that period. I can't see England even competing to that.

 

[Johan]

In his trough he averages 44...... India legit had Dravid, Sehwag, Laxman and Ganguly in that period. I can't see England even competing to that.

softened by the three Bangladesh hundreds tho, did England play Ban much in those years?