Tendulkar - Boxing Day Test Dec 1999 - Lawry

[goose]

 

 

[goose]

Watch from 25.45. 

 

Look at the scorecard.

 

Listen to Bill Lawry seconds later call Tendulkar 'the greatest batsman in the world'. Unequivocal.

 

This test was played 9 months after Lara scored 153* in Barbados, the best test innings ever in modern times according to Wisden.

 

 

[sandeep]

Thanks for this Goosy.   

 

Top order scores around Tendy's 116 - 5, 4, 9, 31, 11.    Note that this wasn't an oddity, it was pretty much the norm for Indian batting away from home.   The main thing I remember fondly of Tendy in the 90s is not the remarkable consistency of scoring big runs.  But the solidity and assuredness of his batting right from ball 1 once he came in - usually around 20/2 or so.  You'd see the rest of the line-up fend and survive tentatively, and ultimately cave in.  But this guy would walk into the chaos, and there was never any doubt as to who was the boss on the pitch.  Ball would keep pinging off the middle of the bat, confident leaves, with a generous sprinkling of some quality strokeplay - breath-taking shots that would turn jaded cynics into gushing admirers.  

 

Phuck the stats, even though his are ridiculously top-notch.  That is what will always define what Tendy was.  An instant masterclass of effortlessly proficient, classy, almost poetically beautiful batting - dominant without any hint of a slog - and married to an unprecedented consistency.  That is why the entire cricket world anointed him as a Great, even before he was 26.  Not his stats.  

 

Post-2003, you didn't see this version of Sachin every innings - Until his elbow injury, you got used to seeing him bat like a God almost every innings.  After his tennis elbow rehab, he was ... human.   Only once every 4-5 innings or so, things would click for him, and in a blink, you'd get to see the in-prime Sachin.  

 

The best comparison I can make for latter-day fans is to remind them of Sehwag's batting in test cricket - his innings where was able to get past the 30s and 40s and make those big ones.  Remember the sheer thrill that you would feel while Veeru went about doing what he did best?  Watching Sachin bat in the 1990s gave you that, but without the bludgeoning, and with more regularity.  

Edited September 6, 2017 by sandeep

[Jimmy Cliff]

Superb performance by the great man in this test. If only he had batted out the last day to save the Test. Then it would've been a truly ATG effort. And that's the thing with SRT, there are just too many of these "if only" moments in the prime of his Test career.

 

If only he had scored a 40 odd in the 2nd innings at Barbados.

If only he had scored a daddy hundred in the 2nd innings at Wellington.

If only he had scored 10 more runs at Chennai in 1999.

If only he had followed up his 97 with another decent score against SA in Mumbai.

If only he had scored a ton at Harare which could've helped us win against a very decent Zimbabwe side in '01.

 

And so on...

 

For a player of his caliber, he rarely batted the opposition out of the game (his 155* vs Aus in Chennai being a rare instance). He has loads of very good-great knocks where he kept us in the game, or reduced the margin of defeat, or gave us a slight edge but very few where he took control of the game and finished the job. This of course wasn't the case in ODIs where he won games for fun.

 

[goose]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

This of course wasn't the case in ODIs where he won games for fun.

 

because unlike tests you can actually win those games on your own. 

[SK_IH]

15 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Superb performance by the great man in this test. If only he had batted out the last day to save the Test. Then it would've been a truly ATG effort. And that's the thing with SRT, there are just too many of these "if only" moments in the prime of his Test career.

 

If only he had scored a 40 odd in the 2nd innings at Barbados.

If only he had scored a daddy hundred in the 2nd innings at Wellington.

If only he had scored 10 more runs at Chennai in 1999.

If only he had followed up his 97 with another decent score against SA in Mumbai.

If only he had scored a ton at Harare which could've helped us win against a very decent Zimbabwe side in '01.

 

And so on...

 

For a player of his caliber, he rarely batted the opposition out of the game (his 155* vs Aus in Chennai being a rare instance). He has loads of very good-great knocks where he kept us in the game, or reduced the margin of defeat, or gave us a slight edge but very few where he took control of the game and finished the job. This of course wasn't the case in ODIs where he won games for fun.

 

couldnt agree more 

[Laaloo]

19 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Superb performance by the great man in this test. If only he had batted out the last day to save the Test. Then it would've been a truly ATG effort. And that's the thing with SRT, there are just too many of these "if only" moments in the prime of his Test career.

 

If only he had scored a 40 odd in the 2nd innings at Barbados.

If only he had scored a daddy hundred in the 2nd innings at Wellington.

If only he had scored 10 more runs at Chennai in 1999.

If only he had followed up his 97 with another decent score against SA in Mumbai.

If only he had scored a ton at Harare which could've helped us win against a very decent Zimbabwe side in '01.

 

And so on...

 

For a player of his caliber, he rarely batted the opposition out of the game (his 155* vs Aus in Chennai being a rare instance). He has loads of very good-great knocks where he kept us in the game, or reduced the margin of defeat, or gave us a slight edge but very few where he took control of the game and finished the job. This of course wasn't the case in ODIs where he won games for fun.

 

He definitely underachieved   

[sandeep]

28 minutes ago, Jimmy Cliff said:

Superb performance by the great man in this test. If only he had batted out the last day to save the Test. Then it would've been a truly ATG effort. And that's the thing with SRT, there are just too many of these "if only" moments in the prime of his Test career.

 

If only he had scored a 40 odd in the 2nd innings at Barbados.

If only he had scored a daddy hundred in the 2nd innings at Wellington.

If only he had scored 10 more runs at Chennai in 1999.

If only he had followed up his 97 with another decent score against SA in Mumbai.

If only he had scored a ton at Harare which could've helped us win against a very decent Zimbabwe side in '01.

 

And so on...

 

For a player of his caliber, he rarely batted the opposition out of the game (his 155* vs Aus in Chennai being a rare instance). He has loads of very good-great knocks where he kept us in the game, or reduced the margin of defeat, or gave us a slight edge but very few where he took control of the game and finished the job. This of course wasn't the case in ODIs where he won games for fun.

 

You raise some reasonable questions.   Could he have done more?  Did he convert too few of his admittedly limited opportunities, to play those defining innings in test cricket?   Sure.   But does that nullify all that he did do, and all that he was?  The greatest of diamonds may have a small flaw on it, but does that dull its sparkle? 

[goose]

3 minutes ago, sandeep said:

You raise some reasonable questions.   Could he have done more?  Did he convert too few of his admittedly limited opportunities, to play those defining innings in test cricket?   Sure.   But does that nullify all that he did do, and all that he was?  The greatest of diamonds may have a small flaw on it, but does that dull its sparkle? 

the thing is though, virtually nobody i know raised any of these questions at the time 

[putrevus]

7 minutes ago, Laaloo said:

He definitely underachieved   

For the talent he had, he under achieved and the main reason for it ,he was drafted into Indian side a couple of seasons too early.He never learnt the art of scoring big tons at first class level.

 

It took him a decade to score a double hundred,  as a school boy he scored 353 but never could do that later.There was nothing he could not do but most often his own muscle memory failed him as he did not know how to proceed after getting to hundred.

 

[sandeep]

2 minutes ago, goose said:

the thing is though, virtually nobody i know raised any of these questions at the time 

You couldn't raise them in the late 90s, because he was scoring 50+ every other innings.   Its only later in his career, when his batting no longer lived up those lofty standards that he had set, and he didn't exhibit that God-like aura on the batting crease all the time, that people started questioning why the guy is considered so great after all.   You have to understand the impact recency bias has.   

[Texan]

1 hour ago, goose said:

 

 

What an atrocious decision for Kanitkar on debut!!! DRS would never had given that out. Bouncing too much. Tells you how these Aussie umpires cheated their way to make Australian teams look better than they were. 

[sandeep]

2 minutes ago, putrevus said:

For the talent he had, he under achieved and the main reason for it ,he was drafted into Indian side a couple of seasons too early.He never learnt the art of scoring big tons at first class level.

 

It took him a decade to score a double hundred,  as a school boy he scored 353 but never could do that later.There was nothing he could not do but most often his own muscle memory failed him as he did not know how to proceed after getting to hundred.

 

Again, you raise a fair point about Tendy not scoring daddy hundreds, especially in his prime.  And start speculating and attributing the reasons based on your own projected biases.  He "did not know how to proceed"?   I would argue that the batting method of in-prime Tendy prioritized dominance over accumulation, and that is responsible for him failing to kick on to the so-called Daddy hundreds.  

 

And its ironic, because in the latter phase of his career, he visibly went too far in the opposite extreme - and you had so many people clamoring for him to "play his normal game".   

 

The one time I was fortunate enough to watch him bat live - 4th test match at the Kennington Oval in 2011 - he fell victim to the same mistake.  In the 2nd innings, Tendy was 'in' and absolutely cruised into the 70s.   Once he got there, he was within sight of that infamous 100th hundred, and he visibly tightened up.  You could see that he had decided to eschew risks, and "not give it away".   And promptly got out to Graemme Swann for 80-odd.  As sad as it was predictable.  Still a decent innings though.   

[Texan]

13 minutes ago, sandeep said:

You couldn't raise them in the late 90s, because he was scoring 50+ every other innings.   Its only later in his career, when his batting no longer lived up those lofty standards that he had set, and he didn't exhibit that God-like aura on the batting crease all the time, that people started questioning why the guy is considered so great after all.   You have to understand the impact recency bias has.   

Its not just recency bias. There are a few factors at play here. 

 

1. During most of the 90s, we didn't really have any other batsman who was consistently getting runs in both ODIs and Tests. Sachin was the only one. This was before the era in which Sehwag, Dravid, Laxman played. Hence Sachin by default became our "only savior".

 

2. The 90s also saw an explosion of TV audience and Indians generally becoming richer and having access to more disposable income. This meant they spent more on entertainment and cricket became a household obsession. Access to live action cricket and the fact that Sachin was viewed as the sole savior led to eulogizing Tendulkar to dizzying heights. 

 

When people noticed in the post 2000 era that other Indians can play at a comparable level to Tendulkar if not at his level, but can produce more impactful innings, his legend was being questioned more and more especially because even though he played some superlative knocks in the 90s, they were not as impactful as some of his less fancied colleagues' innings. 

Edited September 6, 2017 by Texan
Typo

[Nonbeliever]

Just now, Rasgulla said:

Is he even relevant anymore with all the tuk tuks he did later on... Should have retired after that shameful 2007 innings 

He was the 2nd highest scorer in 2011 world cup with strike rate of 91 when ur King was doing tuk tuk at 82 strike rate.  He was 38 then and King was 22.

[sandeep]

11 minutes ago, Texan said:

Its not just recency bias. There are a few factors at play here. 

 

1. During most of the 90s, we didn't really have any other batsman who was consistently getting runs in both ODIs and Tests. Sachin was the only one. This was before the era in which Sehwag, Dravid, Laxman played. Hence Sachin by default became our "only savior".

 

2. The 90s also saw an explosion of TV audience and Indians generally becoming richer and having access to more disposable income. This meant they spent more on entertainment and cricket became a household obsession. Access to live action cricket and the fact that Sachin was viewed as the sole savior led to eulogizing Tendulkar to dizzying heights. 

 

When people noticed in the post 2000 era that other Indians can play at a comparable level to Tendulkar if not at his level, but can produce more impactful innings, his legend was being questioned more and more especially because even though he played some superlative knocks in the 90s, they were not as impactful as some of his less fancied colleagues' innings. 

Agree that the marketing hype did not match the batting, especially in the 2000s.   But my point is that for a few years, in the late 1990s, it actually did. 

 

And again you are getting into a somewhat tangential and subjective question of "impactful", while Tendulkar's greatness is in his quality.   Goose's post alluded to that when he somewhat glibly posted  "I deal in sport, you are hung up on 'facts'" - or something like that.  

 

As I type this, Dickwella is having a non-trivial impact on the on-going T20 match.  But will an impactful 40+ score make him a better batsman than Virat, if Kohli gets out cheaply? Or even a Kusal Mendis? No, because those guys are simply better quality batsmen than Dickwella - no disrespect to Niroshan and his fiesty skillset.   I hope that helps in clarifying my point.

[putrevus]

9 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Again, you raise a fair point about Tendy not scoring daddy hundreds, especially in his prime.  And start speculating and attributing the reasons based on your own projected biases.  He "did not know how to proceed"?   I would argue that the batting method of in-prime Tendy prioritized dominance over accumulation, and that is responsible for him failing to kick on to the so-called Daddy hundreds.  

 

And its ironic, because in the latter phase of his career, he visibly went too far in the opposite extreme - and you had so many people clamoring for him to "play his normal game".   

 

The one time I was fortunate enough to watch him bat live - 4th test match at the Kennington Oval in 2011 - he fell victim to the same mistake.  In the 2nd innings, Tendy was 'in' and absolutely cruised into the 70s.   Once he got there, he was within sight of that infamous 100th hundred, and he visibly tightened up.  You could see that he had decided to eschew risks, and "not give it away".   And promptly got out to Graemme Swann for 80-odd.  As sad as it was predictable.  Still a decent innings though.   

It does not matter what type of game he played especially in tests, as a batsman he never became the match winner he should have become because of the talent he had possessed. People underestimate the importance of big hundreds , they change the matches.

He was also very unfortunate in a sense for some odd reason when ever he scored big his team mates never closed the deal for him He has so many so near yet so far matches.

As he played more he got burdened by carrying the batting line up and that weighed him down heavily.

 

[sandeep]

1 minute ago, putrevus said:

It does not matter what type of game he played especially in tests, as a batsman he never became the match winner he should have become because of the talent he had possessed

Set aside your own expectations of what you wanted him to be, for once.  And take a clear-eyed view at what he was.   Forget the numbers, the centuries, what he scored what he could and should have scored but didn't.  The guy was a master artisan of batting.   A modern day Michelangelo of the sport.  

 

Just because he slogged through an extra 10 years at a level that didn't match his own best (still good enough to be amongst the best in the world), should in no way be held against him. Or somehow change the metrics on the lofty heights he scaled in his prime.  

[Texan]

7 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Agree that the marketing hype did not match the batting, especially in the 2000s.   But my point is that for a few years, in the late 1990s, it actually did. 

 

And again you are getting into a somewhat tangential and subjective question of "impactful", while Tendulkar's greatness is in his quality.   Goose's post alluded to that when he somewhat glibly posted  "I deal in sport, you are hung up on 'facts'" - or something like that.  

 

As I type this, Dickwella is having a non-trivial impact on the on-going T20 match.  But will an impactful 40+ score make him a better batsman than Virat, if Kohli gets out cheaply? Or even a Kusal Mendis? No, because those guys are simply better quality batsmen than Dickwella - no disrespect to Niroshan and his fiesty skillset.   I hope that helps in clarifying my point.

Agreed that Tendulkar's greatness is in his quality of being able to play in any kind of conditions all over the globe. And lets not compare Dickwella's T20 innings with greatness in Test cricket. Kohli too, for all he has achieved in ODI and T20 cricket, is yet to play that truly impactful Test innings. 

[sandeep]

13 minutes ago, Texan said:

Agreed that Tendulkar's greatness is in his quality of being able to play in any kind of conditions all over the globe. And lets not compare Dickwella's T20 innings with greatness in Test cricket. Kohli too, for all he has achieved in ODI and T20 cricket, is yet to play that truly impactful Test innings. 

My example is to contrast impact vs quality.   Sure, runs are the ultimate measure of a batsman's production. But there is a bit more to batting than just the runs scored.   Especially in test cricket.  The scorecard records 4 runs for an inside edge that goes between the legs past the stumps and also for a spanking cover-drive played off the back-foot.  Are they the same?  

 

On the subject of Kohli and "impactful" test innings.  IMHO, he has played a few.  To me, there's a lot of parallels between Tendy's famous 136 at Chennai and Kohli's Adelaide 100.   Kohli's double(?) at Bombay against England this past series, was quite impactful, and came at a pivotal moment in the game.  VK has his strengths, and I am more than appreciative of them - his determination and 'fight in the dog' instincts are an Indian version of Ricky Ponting.   But qualitatively, you can't really compare him to Tendy.   Numerically, maybe in a few years.  But as batsmen, if you 'get' batting, you simply can't.  And guess what?  If you ask Virat himself, he'll be the first to tell you that.

Edited September 6, 2017 by sandeep