Tendulkar - Boxing Day Test Dec 1999 - Lawry

[putrevus]

16 minutes ago, sandeep said:

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.  

How was Lara of 1990s inferior to Sachin.Sachin was hyped up to be as good as Bradman but reality is he never was that does not mean he was not a great batsman.

 

That extra ten years you are dismissing as if it meant nothing is most batsmen's career spans.Sachin 1990s was great batsman who scored his share of runs and was extremely consistent  but he never dominated a whole series even then also.

 

[sandeep]

1 minute ago, putrevus said:

Sachin 1990s was great batsman who scored his share of runs and was extremely consistent  but he never dominated a whole series even then also.

Scoring centuries every series, even short 2 test ones, is not "dominating"?   

[sandeep]

3 minutes ago, putrevus said:

How was Lara of 1990s inferior to Sachin.

Lara was great when in the mood.   But his lofty peaks came with a big chunk of valleys.  Don't get me wrong, Lara was a great one too.  And Mr. Daddy Hundred, or Mr. 501.  

[sandeep]

18 minutes ago, putrevus said:

That extra ten years you are dismissing as if it meant nothing is most batsmen's career spans

And that's the point you are missing.  Most batsmen's career can't extend 10 years once they start declining from their prime.   Just because Tendy was still good enough in spite of not being his best, to play so long, shouldn't take the gloss of his actual achievements of his best years.  But they do.  Because people tend to remember more of his recent years, than his best ones 20 years ago.   

[Texan]

8 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Scoring centuries every series, even short 2 test ones, is not "dominating"?   

I don't think you 'get' the point being made. Sachin did get his customary single hundred in the series, sometimes getting 2. The point being made is that he did not really dominate any series where he got 3 even 4 hundreds in a series. The point is that when you are in top form, you should make sure you get the most out of it by batting the opposition out. Neither did he dominate a single Test where he got hundreds in both innings to take India through. To give you examples,

 

Dominating Series:

Gavaskar was the king of "make hay when the sun shines" with his colossal innings in his debut series in WI

Dravid dominated England in 2002 with 3 hundreds in the series, some in very trying circumstances batting at 3

Dravid again dominated England in 2011 in a horrendous series for India where he got 3 hundreds again

Kohli dominated Aussies in our most recent tour there with 4 hundreds

 

Dominating Matches and having an impact:

Gavaskar did on quite a few occassions

Dravid got hundreds in both innings to set up a win against Pak in Eden Gardens

Dravid got twin 50s in WI to win a series there

Dravid got 233 & 72* to win a Test against Aus in eons

Laxman 59 & 281 - no need to even comment on this

Sehwag 201 & 50 in trying circumstances in Sri Lanka 

 

These are the kind of performances, at least one or two of which, should have had the name "Sachin Tendulkar" instead of Mr. Tom, Mr. Dick and Mr. Harry who are not hailed as Gods. This is what some of you who hail him as the next best batsman after Bradman don't 'get'. He is no doubt a top class batsman with a blessed technique who could play all kinds of bowlers. But, even so, there is not a single dominating series/match performance which Indians can recall where Sachin had the kind of impact that less fancied players had.

 

This 116 that is mentioned in OP is also one of those truly great innings played by Tendulkar, which was brilliant in its 'quality', but in context of the series, it neither had an impact on the result of the match, nor did he dominate the entire series.

 

This 116 is no better or no worse than the 195 Sehwag scored in Australia (another brilliant innings in which we dominated the proceedings till he was around but faltered as soon as Sehwag got out). In terms of comparison of where that 195 stands for Sehwag, it won't fall in his top 5 impactful innings. The 2 x 300s, the 201 vs Lanka, 83 vs Eng, 293 vs Lanka will comfortably rank ahead and Sehwag is not even considered in the same 'league' as Tendulkar.

[sandeep]

9 minutes ago, Texan said:

I don't think you 'get' the point being made. Sachin did get his customary single hundred in the series, sometimes getting 2.

I get the point.  Given Tendy's "talent" and promise, you wanted more from him.  You wanted and expected him to win more games for India.   And he didn't do that as often as you'd like.   

[goose]

1 hour ago, sandeep said:

And that's the point you are missing.  Most batsmen's career can't extend 10 years once they start declining from their prime.   Just because Tendy was still good enough in spite of not being his best, to play so long, shouldn't take the gloss of his actual achievements of his best years.  But they do.  Because people tend to remember more of his recent years, than his best ones 20 years ago.   

like Federer winning Wimbledon at 36

[goose]

1 hour ago, Texan said:

I don't think you 'get' the point being made. Sachin did get his customary single hundred in the series, sometimes getting 2. The point being made is that he did not really dominate any series where he got 3 even 4 hundreds in a series. The point is that when you are in top form, you should make sure you get the most out of it by batting the opposition out. Neither did he dominate a single Test where he got hundreds in both innings to take India through. To give you examples,

 

Dominating Series:

Gavaskar was the king of "make hay when the sun shines" with his colossal innings in his debut series in WI

Dravid dominated England in 2002 with 3 hundreds in the series, some in very trying circumstances batting at 3

Dravid again dominated England in 2011 in a horrendous series for India where he got 3 hundreds again

Kohli dominated Aussies in our most recent tour there with 4 hundreds

 

Dominating Matches and having an impact:

Gavaskar did on quite a few occassions

Dravid got hundreds in both innings to set up a win against Pak in Eden Gardens

Dravid got twin 50s in WI to win a series there

Dravid got 233 & 72* to win a Test against Aus in eons

Laxman 59 & 281 - no need to even comment on this

Sehwag 201 & 50 in trying circumstances in Sri Lanka 

 

These are the kind of performances, at least one or two of which, should have had the name "Sachin Tendulkar" instead of Mr. Tom, Mr. Dick and Mr. Harry who are not hailed as Gods. This is what some of you who hail him as the next best batsman after Bradman don't 'get'. He is no doubt a top class batsman with a blessed technique who could play all kinds of bowlers. But, even so, there is not a single dominating series/match performance which Indians can recall where Sachin had the kind of impact that less fancied players had.

 

This 116 that is mentioned in OP is also one of those truly great innings played by Tendulkar, which was brilliant in its 'quality', but in context of the series, it neither had an impact on the result of the match, nor did he dominate the entire series.

 

This 116 is no better or no worse than the 195 Sehwag scored in Australia (another brilliant innings in which we dominated the proceedings till he was around but faltered as soon as Sehwag got out). In terms of comparison of where that 195 stands for Sehwag, it won't fall in his top 5 impactful innings. The 2 x 300s, the 201 vs Lanka, 83 vs Eng, 293 vs Lanka will comfortably rank ahead and Sehwag is not even considered in the same 'league' as Tendulkar.

Did you feel this way when the ninth wicket fell and Tendulkar walked back to the dressing room?

 

Also there is nothing very impactful in going from 300 to 400.

[sandeep]

25 minutes ago, goose said:

like Federer winning Wimbledon at 36

Lot of parallels with Federer and Tendy.  Both were prodigies who actually went on to live up to their promise, while most prodigies tend to flame out quite early and often.  Both can be accused of underachieving with respect to their talent, at least statistically.   Both continued playing at the highest level past their absolute prime, and still gave you those flashes of their original brilliance, late into their careers.  I'm reminded of that in-depth review that Cricinfo did on Tendy's quality performance against a rampant Dale Steyn in his home conditions, where Dale confessed to feeling absolutely frustrated by Tendulkar.   And this was a Tendy in his Eminence grise stage, not one at the height of his powers.

 

Yet, for all of Federer's flaws, you won't find tennis fans denigrating his quality comparing him to the Andy Roddicks of the world.  Sure it doesn't help matters when the relentless, blunt-edged, 500 ton marketing hammer that kept pounding fans with Sachin's magnificence on their head, keeps chanting about his greatness like a illiterate pretender mis-pronouncing sanskrit mantras.  But that shouldn't take away anything from Sachin the Batsman. 

 

 

Alrite, enough of waxing nostalgic on Tendy.   Bas, ab mera  ho gaya.  

[Texan]

1 hour ago, goose said:

Did you feel this way when the ninth wicket fell and Tendulkar walked back to the dressing room?

 

Also there is nothing very impactful in going from 300 to 400.

What are you talking about?

[Texan]

44 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Lot of parallels with Federer and Tendy.  Both were prodigies who actually went on to live up to their promise, while most prodigies tend to flame out quite early and often.  Both can be accused of underachieving with respect to their talent, at least statistically.   Both continued playing at the highest level past their absolute prime, and still gave you those flashes of their original brilliance, late into their careers.  I'm reminded of that in-depth review that Cricinfo did on Tendy's quality performance against a rampant Dale Steyn in his home conditions, where Dale confessed to feeling absolutely frustrated by Tendulkar.   And this was a Tendy in his Eminence grise stage, not one at the height of his powers.

 

Yet, for all of Federer's flaws, you won't find tennis fans denigrating his quality comparing him to the Andy Roddicks of the world.  Sure it doesn't help matters when the relentless, blunt-edged, 500 ton marketing hammer that kept pounding fans with Sachin's magnificence on their head, keeps chanting about his greatness like a illiterate pretender mis-pronouncing sanskrit mantras.  But that shouldn't take away anything from Sachin the Batsman. 

 

 

Alrite, enough of waxing nostalgic on Tendy.   Bas, ab mera  ho gaya.  

You are comparing a team sport with an individual sport. Night and day. Individuals can play as long as they want in an individual sport. Even at 36 if Federer can win 2 out of 4 slams and be ranked in the top 3, then why not keep playing? In comparison, Tendulkar after the 2011 World Cup (when he should have retired) averaged 32 in Test cricket with no hundreds. He played Tests for 2 1/2 more years and was picked mainly because of his "history" with cricket.

 

[Ankit_sharma03]

7 hours ago, putrevus said:

How was Lara of 1990s inferior to Sachin.Sachin was hyped up to be as good as Bradman but reality is he never was that does not mean he was not a great batsman.

 

That extra ten years you are dismissing as if it meant nothing is most batsmen's career spans.Sachin 1990s was great batsman who scored his share of runs and was extremely consistent  but he never dominated a whole series even then also.

 

That is something of debate and individual call

Ill take lara over sachin in test and sachin over lara in ODi

 

Sachin was a lot more consistent and lara may be more impactful, now up to individual what they wanna choose .

 

But something that wud keep tendulkar higher then all wud be his longevity with perfomance, also again the pressure of being a star batsman of our nation . 

[OpeningBatsman]

Only those who have grown up watching cricket in the 90's would know and appreciate what Sachin did for Indian cricket.

So I don't blame the millennials, coz his game wasn't the same from the mid 2000s and no amount of watching highlights from the 90s would change their opinion.

[Laaloo]

 

 

This is orgasmic  

 

[goose]

7 hours ago, Texan said:

This 116 that is mentioned in OP is also one of those truly great innings played by Tendulkar, which was brilliant in its 'quality', but in context of the series, it neither had an impact on the result of the match, nor did he dominate the entire series.

Did you feel this way at the time at the fall of Tendulkar's wicket? How many more might he have eked out batting with Kumble or No.11? He got the rough end on at least two occasions in that series. These sound like excuses but you can't have these discussions without them. I think people watching him play live, and i mean all his innings, were rational people, just as capable of a harsh critique as watchers today. Indians watching then could all rejoice together in what was unfolding, there was no debate to be had. Whereas now we have been reduced to historians, desperately seeking evidence to support X Y Z and when not there in the form of a triple ton we indulge in revisionism. 

Edited September 6, 2017 by goose

[Vilander]

12 hours 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.   

Really. You think its wise to state something as grand and illogical as terming someone as 'God-like' and something as astute as a cognitive bias in the same argument. How was he god like did he have a halo ? Sachin gets demeaned because extreme fans endup deifying him and well intended neutrals endup having enough of it. 

[Texan]

5 hours ago, goose said:

Did you feel this way at the time at the fall of Tendulkar's wicket? How many more might he have eked out batting with Kumble or No.11? He got the rough end on at least two occasions in that series. These sound like excuses but you can't have these discussions without them. I think people watching him play live, and i mean all his innings, were rational people, just as capable of a harsh critique as watchers today. Indians watching then could all rejoice together in what was unfolding, there was no debate to be had. Whereas now we have been reduced to historians, desperately seeking evidence to support X Y Z and when not there in the form of a triple ton we indulge in revisionism. 

Read my first comment in this thread. I absolutely agree that he got rough decisions in this series. I remember the "Shoulder-before-wicket" dismissal, which was just ridiculous. During the lunch break, Mark Taylor tried to justify the decision on commentary calling it a "brave decision". I felt like jumping inside the TV and telling Mr Taylor that there is nothing like a "brave" decision in umpiring. Its either a good decision or a bad decision. Why the hell does an umpire have to give a "brave" decision, whatever that means.

 

Umpiring in general in Australia was horrendous those days. The problem with umpiring in Australia and why it was worse than anywhere else was that almost all bad decisions went against touring sides. Aussies rarely got bad decisions and this resulted in Australians teams looking better that they actually were. Poor umpiring wasn't only the case in 2007, when it just boiled up to an unbearable limit.

 

Having said all this also, let me ask you - do you remember the horrendous decisions Rahane has received in Australia? Watch this same clip and see what an atrocious decision Kanitkar receives on Test debut. Many of our players were wrongly given out, not just Sachin. Of course, we all remember Sachin's unfair dismissals because he was our best player then.

 

And yes, I was one of those who watched many of his innings live during his peak and was a blind Sachin fan then. Expectations for most Indians then was to just be a middling team and Sachin being this extraordinary World beating talent was hailed beyond reason. Of course, we all loved it because even though the team as such was doing just okay, we all basked in the laurels that Sachin received for his individual brilliance.

 

Now, we seek greater accountability. We are not just satisfied with individual brilliance that does not really win the game for the team. We aspire to be a top team and not be satisfied with being a middling team. That is why current players are judged not on their individual brilliance but on their contributions to the team cause, which is exactly how it should be in a team sport.

 

[Texan]

6 hours ago, OpeningBatsman said:

Only those who have grown up watching cricket in the 90's would know and appreciate what Sachin did for Indian cricket.

So I don't blame the millennials, coz his game wasn't the same from the mid 2000s and no amount of watching highlights from the 90s would change their opinion.

Why do you assume those not giving him "God-like" status did not watch cricket live during the 90s? I watched cricket live (on TV when available) throughout the 90s and have watched many of his innings.

[Jimmy Cliff]

15 hours 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? 

Not saying that at all. As it is, he's one of the top 5-6 Test batsmen of his era anyway and one can make an argument for him being marginally better than his rivals. However if he had delivered a few knock out punches along with all the consistency and volume, he could've been the undisputed best batsman of his era in Tests.

[OpeningBatsman]

5 hours ago, Texan said:

Why do you assume those not giving him "God-like" status did not watch cricket live during the 90s? I watched cricket live (on TV when available) throughout the 90s and have watched many of his innings.

I never called him a GOD. Neither am I a fanatic. I just appreciate good cricket. I wasn't talking about you in particular, but i was talking in general about people who just call him oridnary, overrated etc.