Tendulkar - Boxing Day Test Dec 1999 - Lawry

[Deleted_User_1]

SRT is an underachiever who is overrated!!

[putrevus]

23 hours 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.

Very well put,that is exactly my point about Sachin.

 

He always got his runs and his averages always looked good but they never had the impact.Somehow Sachin's fans feel that as an insult.No one in right mind would deny the class of this great man.

 

Like great man Kapil dev said Sachin's talent demanded more but he delivered less.That is also greatness of Sachin even 51 test hundreds is viewed as under achievement, as Dravid once said Sachin had so much talent that he could change his stance and outlook on the fly which he did in South Africa and scored 160 odd without even practising.

[goose]

On 7 September 2017 at 5:15 AM, Texan said:

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.

 

Curious to understand why you term yourself as 'blind'? It seems to me Tendulkar loses a bit of sheen with you in retrospect because the team he was part of wasn't winning much. It sounds like you'd much rather laud a player who isn't quite so good but helped by a couple of others will win you a game.

 

[Nonbeliever]

His runs were useless. He bought 62 mom awards in a era where bowler also had chances of winning mom awards. Where his rivals were also very good to perform in the same match.

 

[goose]

on the subject of god which is a man-made creation, is the deification of Tendulkar any dafter than another major religion?

[Chaos]

look at everyone standing up. He is brought us lot of joy. Shame he played with a shabby team most of his twilight years.

[rkt.india]

19 hours ago, Nonbeliever said:

His runs were useless. He bought 62 mom awards in a era where bowler also had chances of winning mom awards. Where his rivals were also very good to perform in the same match.

 

so, you mean to say bowlers are not getting MOM, MOS anymore? I think a bowler got MOS the last series India played.

[Nonbeliever]

4 hours ago, rkt.india said:

so, you mean to say bowlers are not getting MOM, MOS anymore? I think a bowler got MOS the last series India played.

I said chances are very few specially In odis. Unless u are playing a pathetic batting line up like Lankans or windies.  Every cricketer is saying that game is continuously tilting in favor of batsman, if u don't accept even that no point in debating.