Jump to content

Sachin's centuries and India's defeats.


Recommended Posts

Indian team is made of 1 DON and 10 DONKEYS :hatsoff:
:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: the sad part is that India's destiny at this WC depends as much on the Don as on the Donkeys so no matter how well the Don performs, the Donkeys will let him down :giggle:
Link to comment
out of those 10 hundreds we lost 4 and tied one. in the 4 matches that we lost we set up targets in excess of 300 on 3 occasions and 297 in the other one. If your bowlers cant defend ( or leak a humongous 350 in that Hyderabad match ) such huge totals you simply cant blame it on SRT. In any case one of the matches had D/L step in and reduce the target to a very manageable 113 in 20 overs. That is simply no fault of even our bowlers if they cant defend unless you are now expecting SRT to predict weather and bat accordingly upfront. BTW MSD made a grand 2 runs of 10 balls in that match :D Infact that 175 inngs is a fantastic example of how the great man converted a massive miserable defeat into a very very close match and a more than honourable loss in the end. If you expect him to keep winning you matches after such bakwas performances by the rest then you have a very unrealistic expectations from the man or that you simply dont understand the dynamics of Cricket and batting.
Ya that was the windies match. D/L gave a stupid target of 113 if 2 wickets were lost. Windies had scored 141 by then :(( http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/256607.html
Link to comment

CricBuzz has come up with a similar analysis on its site today

Sachin Tendulkar gets to yet another century but India end up on the losing side - How many times have we seen that? Even in this World Cup, the batting legend went past 100 on two occasions but neither facilitated an Indian win. However, it is not the fault of the great cricketer that India ended up on the losing side yet again. While there would be the Tendulkar bashers and critics who say that India lose a match whenever Sachin scores a century, the statistics prove otherwise. Of the 48 ODI centuries that Tendulkar has scored so far, only 13 such three-figure scores have ended up in a losing cause for India, while in 33 matches, where the batting maestro has gone past 100, India have emerged victors. One match against England in July 2002 saw a Sachin ton yield no result while the recently concluded match against the same side resulted in a tied game. Now that the statistics prove Sachin's hundreds have yielded more wins than losses for India, let us see what the maestro has done for India's cause when he has gone past 50 but not a ton. Out of the 93 times Sachin Tendulkar has scored a fifty, India have secured 56 wins while ending up on the losing side 35 times. Two games yielded no results. Digging deeper, India has won 28 times whenever Sachin has scored between 70 to 99. The next question that will come up on peoples' minds is "Who has scored the maximum number of tons in winning causes for their respective teams?" Once again, Tendulkar's critics will have their mouths tightly shut because the master tops the chart with most number of tons resulting in a team's win. He also has stayed unbeaten the most number of times while leading a team's win. To add to all these, Sachin Tendulkar has the most number of 'Man of the Match' and 'Man of the series' awards than any other cricketer in ODIs - evidence to the fact that Tendulkar is a major contributor in Indian wins. To conclude, Sachin's contribution to the game and to India, regardless of what people say, is undoubted and he has more often than not provided joy than agony to the cricket fan. The South Africa match was another instance of the legend putting up his hand and giving his all to the team while the others failed, but can Tendulkar be blamed for his teammates not performing?
Link to comment

I'll continue to not dwell on his 100s but on his commitment. Any other player (especially an English player) would've shat in his pants by the time he reaches his age and field on the boundaries..Players like KP would've refused to take field after making a century and would've given any injury excuse.. If I would've had some powers, I would've put any other WK in Dhoni's place and sent Dhoni to field on the Thirdman region or Sweeper cover..Would've been interesting to read Dhoni's "well ofcourse" verbal diarrhea after that..

Link to comment
Infact its the opposite because heres how SRT progressed to the hundred for the last about 15+ runs .. the scores are as recorded at the end of each over which is in brackets. 83 - 73 ( 30th ) 88 - 78 ( 31st ) 93 - 81 ( 32nd ) 96 - 84 ( 33rd ) 97 - 85 ( 34th ) 98 - 89 ( 35th ) 100- 92 ( 36th ) So his last 17 runs to the hundred came of 18 balls and the next 11 of 9 balls making it a 28 in 27 balls but the 33 runs right after the 50 came in 40 balls which is the slowest period in his inngs. So again no truth to the allegation that he slowed down to get a milestone ... unless you think he starts to think about a hundred soon after he touches 50. And I wouldnt be surprised at all if you said that with a straight face :giggle:
I am talking about from about 88 to 100 that is when I noticed a marked slowness in both his innings and Gambhir's innings. All I saw were singles. And whether he played for his milestone or not I can't tell for sure, but it is the "feeling" I got watching the game. And no matter how you analyze the game, you can't possibly deny that he was blazing with Sehwag and then slowed down. Now the question is why?
Link to comment
Simple fact is that he is capable of scoring hundreds even in conditions where others fail. This gives the impression that a lot of his runs are in losses' date=' which is factually correct but misses the crux of the situation.[/quote'] This pretty much explains the "100s in losing causes" argument for any layman or statistician. But....people who can understand this know this already, and who do not - most likely never will.
Link to comment
Probability cannot be calculated for data that has no correlation. For probability, one event has to be the cause and another the effect. Though an individual's hundred furthers the team's cause, it has no correlation with a victory since a hundred can neither guarantee a superb bowling performance nor can it stop similar performances by opposition batsman..
Well put. It is funny to see people who claim to come up with 'insightful' probability/statistical numbers - do not seem do understand the simple thing you mentioned, OR - the level of complexity of evaluating/estimating/analyzing the cause-effect graph of performances vs result in a team game - that too in cricket. If it was so easy to correlate individual performances with results, then whole betting business would have been shut down (or armchair statisticians would have hired Bill Gates to do programming). [As it would have been pretty easy to predict the results purely based on past performances (recent or career) of the individuals comprising a team.]
Link to comment

The fact of the matter is, he has the highest number of centuries in Indian wins, i.e 33. This is more than any player ever. Even if his winning % is only 20% 33 centuries in mathces won is a lot For example Lara has 16 100s in matches won which is more than 80%. So is Lara a better match winner than Sachin? Sachin has double the number of centuries in matches won than him. Which player is more valuable to his team and has won more? Also VD, this shows Sachin has the maximum number of 100s in matches won which does not compare with anyone else and hence is our biggest match-winner

Link to comment
yeah...and then some of them talk abt imaginary 'pwnages' like the idiot in the previous page!!
Others are not to blame if an immature dumbass can't figure out for life that he is being pawned by all and sundry and keep repeating foolish fictional arguments like a coward who had gotten cornered and not knowing how to get out of it without admitting that he was being wrong and dumb more often than not.
Link to comment
I may be part of a minority, but I am with poster ghost here. I thought while watching the game that both Sachin and Gambhir were playing for their respective milestones going at less than 6 RPO before they took the batting PP. Then they started playing wild shots and the collapse started. After the blazing start by Sehwag and SRT, losing just a single wicket shouldn't slow you down from 8.8 RPO to 6+ RPO. That is just bad batting. I also agree with posters like BB that these winning 100s stats is all bogus as it depends on how your bowlers perform. It isn't indicative of how good the 100 was unless it was a slow ass 100 resulting directly in the loss which ofc wasn't the case here.
If you dont understand the difference between the first 20 overs in an ODI and the period between overs 20 to 35, then I pity your knowledge of cricket. Even in very high scoring matches where scores close to 400 were made, in this period the run-rate was alway just above 6. There is no way you can maintain a run-rate over 7-5 in an ODI without losing wickets no matter how flat the wicket In the end what stopped India from a high score was not the run rate but a lack of wickets. We even failed to bat our full quota of overs. The NZ vs Pak matches showed the importance of having wickets in hand and settled batsmen in the last 10 overs. Look at historical data of which team scores more in the end, A team which is going at 5.5 with 8 wickets in hands or a team which is going at 6+ with 5-6 wickets in hands. Heck even NZ managed to score more than India in the end though they were going qat just over 4 runs an over.
Link to comment
Wrong again ... here are the boundries hit by the two during that "milestone approaching" period. 30.2 Botha to Tendulkar, FOUR, Sachin breaks the shackles, jumping out to hammer a full toss to the cover boundary! 31.6 du Plessis to Tendulkar, FOUR, four more! Short again and rushing on to the batsman, Tendulkar rocks back and pulls in the air and straight of midwicket to beat the fielders out there 33.2 Duminy to Gambhir, FOUR, Gambhir charges and lofts the ball over extra cover, splitting the gap between deep cover and long off 33.3 Duminy to Gambhir, FOUR, Duminy strays down leg side and Gambhir plays a fine paddle, du Plessis chases after it and dives head first to try and save the boundary. He doesn't and then crashes into the thick advertisement hoardings. The electronic ones. Careful man! And the reason for that "feeling" is that one over from Kallis where two certain boundaries were stopped by brilliant fielding. In any case the fact that you expect him to keep blazing away for the 40 overs he was out there because he was able to do that for the 15 overs when the PP was around is infact a perfect example of the totally unrealistic and ruthlessly unforgiving "fans" that SRT has to contend with. As I have said before if there is any threat to SRT's legacy it will come from these fans and the sort of allegations they can heap scrutinizing every single minute detail and questioning Lastly let me remind you again of the irony that I mentioned earlier ... had he infact played for a milestone which he is being accused of here and gone for the 18K Milestone we would have won the game. But I somehow suspect that it wouldn't have stopped any such allegations. Some people can just never be happy.
Also dont forget the fact that Smith had got on his best bowlers and had brought the field in a bit when SRT was in his 90s. If SRT had tried to force the innings he would have played into Smith's hand and as an old pro he is not falling for that
Link to comment
Well put. It is funny to see people who claim to come up with 'insightful' probability/statistical numbers - do not seem do understand the simple thing you mentioned, OR - the level of complexity of evaluating/estimating/analyzing the cause-effect graph of performances vs result in a team game - that too in cricket. If it was so easy to correlate individual performances with results, then whole betting business would have been shut down (or armchair statisticians would have hired Bill Gates to do programming). [As it would have been pretty easy to predict the results purely based on past performances (recent or career) of the individuals comprising a team.]
1. Yeah, I think 'probability' was not a right word to use there. A sense of feel-good abt winning chances could have the right phrase. 2. It is normal for a fan to expect team win 80-85% of the times when someone scores a ton coz a Ton is a big thing. This is not happening certainly in sachin's case. That stat was a mere reflection of that fact.
Link to comment
Others are not to blame if an immature dumbass can't figure out for life that he is being pawned by all
see thats what I mean the imaginary 'pwnage' that only an idiot or a moron like yourself could see and comfort himself with... And the 'pwnage' like these, tht nobody cares about..... bbye for now, sleeping time!!
Link to comment
1. Yeah, I think 'probability' was not a right word to use there. A sense of feel-good abt winning chances could have the right phrase. 2. It is normal for a fan to expect team win 80-85% of the times when someone scores a ton coz a Ton is a big thing. This is not happening certainly in sachin's case. That stat was a mere reflection of that fact.
You have again not explained how its Sachin's fault when a team scores 338 and is not able to defend it? Also, its lgical to assume that the more frequently someone scores a 100, the more likely the winning % to go down
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...