Tendulkar's performance in Australia and how much of a rope should batsmen get?

[The Outsider]

Now tell me how many Sachin fans here were even betting on that? Most of them, including you, were going about 45-55 which would effectively leave him atleast 300 runs short of Lara's 2846.

So what if he was a few hundred short or a few hundred ahead? As long as he was making important contributions to the team like he did in South Africa and England he deserved his spot. As long as a batsman of Tendulkar's class is showing signs of coming out of a poor time when he was hampered by two surgeries he should be backed because the dividends are going to be rich. The replacement you and others were touting for him, Yuvraj, was cruelly exposed as someone who could not put bat to ball against a decent attack outside the subcontinent, something which I have been saying all along. I would not have minded Yuvraj playing the entire series either just so that the chimera surrounding him as a test player could have been blown apart once and for all. These hundred runs here and there are just a mathematical exercise and if you watch cricket you would have seen that Tendulkar has improved with every match since he made his comeback last year against South Africa.

[Lurker]

So what if he was a few hundred short or a few hundred ahead? As long as he was making important contributions to the team like he did in South Africa and England he deserved his spot. As long as a batsman of Tendulkar's class is showing signs of coming out of a poor time when he was hampered by two surgeries he should be backed because the dividends are going to be rich.

When was he showing signs of coming out of poor form? Against Bangladesh? In the past 31 Tests the ONLY time Sachin has played like himself was in this series. How many times did you hear the commentators gush - This is Sachin of old- in this series? I also dont buy this whole injury theory. You dont give a player an extended run simply because of injury. International cricket is not the place to get rehablitated. It gets clearer by the day that Sachin's issue is/was in the mind and he seems to have come out of it now. As for the replacements I shall be only happy if you give them a run of 40 Tests as well. Whats the point of playing someone 2 tests here and there? If I am not mistaken this is the 10th or 11th series since Sachin's downslide started and he was not once dropped. Which other Indian player, youngster or otherwise, has received that kind of clean chit? xxx

[The Outsider]

When was he showing signs of coming out of poor form? Against Bangladesh? In the past 31 Tests the ONLY time Sachin has played like himself was in this series. How many times did you hear the commentators gush - This is Sachin of old- in this series?

He was the second highest run scorer in South Africa. Played crucial innings at Johannesburg, Durban, and Cape Town in all the first innings. He set up India's win against England at Nottingham and laid the foundation of the huge score at Oval along with others. Just because he failed in two meaningless innings in England and South Africa was a low scoring series he ended up with an average in the 30s. Looking at the series properly he was a success.

I also dont buy this whole injury theory. You dont give a player an extended run simply because of injury. International cricket is not the place to get rehablitated. It gets clearer by the day that Sachin's issue is/was in the mind and he seems to have come out of it now.

Are you really that naive? He might have recovered from injury but to find the groove back needs some time even if you are Tendulkar. Even in that phase he set up a memorable win at Bombay against Australia after being rushed back into the series.

As for the replacements I shall be only happy if you give them a run of 40 Tests as well. Whats the point of playing someone 2 tests here and there? If I am not mistaken this is the 10th or 11th series since Sachin's downslide started and he was not once dropped. Which other Indian player, youngster or otherwise, has received that kind of clean chit? xxx

That's the biggest pile of garbage you have posted in this thread. On what pedigree should Yuvraj or any other new comer be give 40 tests. Do they have 10,000+ test runs to back them up? And for the record, Yuvraj has already been given a run of 11 straight tests last year. So every time he is brought into the side, the team should be ready to suffer for 10+ tests just so that poster boy can be given his "fair run". Champions take opportunities when they come like Tendulkar did at the start of his career, Ganguly/Dravid did, Laxman did at Calcutta, Sehwag did first on debut and then now at Perth. Losers fail to perform when given chances and whine to the press about not playing tests. It's the guideline in any profession - the better your past track record the longer is going to be the rope, cricket is no different and it's up to the likes of Yuseless to make a pedigree for themselves like other champions have done and not sulk like losers.

[Lurker]

Just because he failed in two meaningless innings in England and South Africa was a low scoring series he ended up with an average in the 30s. Looking at the series properly he was a success.

Really? Lets pick the CI report card post South african/England trip. 6 Sachin Tendulkar Made a crucial 44 at the Wanderers and his first half-centuries in over a year at Kingsmead and Newlands. But on both occasions, he failed in the second innings when it was imperative that he didn't. Took some good catches at slip, but the crucial drop of Ashwell Prince at Durban had a huge impact on the series. His spin bowling was perhaps underutilised. Sachin Tendulkar - 7 Not the genius who introduced himself with a century at Old Trafford 17 years ago but the elder statesman guiding the rest. His two half-centuries were guarded yet classy, setting up towering totals at both Trent Bridge and The Oval. He bounded in enthusiastically with the ball, outfoxing Kevin Pietersen in the first innings of the final Test, and held on to important catches. Yes one can disagree with the ratings and numbers and all that stuff but I hope you do see that Sachin's performance in the two mentioned series was decent at best and not success at all.

Are you really that naive? He might have recovered from injury but to find the groove back needs some time even if you are Tendulkar. Even in that phase he set up a memorable win at Bombay against Australia after being rushed back into the series.

Keep him out of the team. International cricket is NOT the place to get one's "groove" back? Why should Team India suffer because one of its players has had an injury? You should quit using injury as an excuse if you are not sure if your player is match-fit.

That's the biggest pile of garbage you have posted in this thread. On what pedigree should Yuvraj or any other new comer be give 40 tests. Do they have 10,000+ test runs to back them up?

Easy there tiger. Are you becoming one of those who start shooting first and then ask questions? Point me to a single post where I have even uttered Yuvraj in the context? My simple logic is this - Sachin is NOT bigger than Team India. If he gets the lifeline of 40 Tests on trot surely others should get the same. And yes that 40 Tests non-stop could include include anyone from Rohit Sharma to Manoj Towari to even Rahul Dravid. xxxx

[The Outsider]

Yes one can disagree with the ratings and numbers and all that stuff but I hope you do see that Sachin's performance in the two mentioned series was decent at best and not success at all.

South Africa was decent, but England was a success, IMO.

Keep him out of the team. International cricket is NOT the place to get one's "groove" back? Why should Team India suffer because one of its players has had an injury? You should quit using injury as an excuse if you are not sure if your player is match-fit.

Take any cricketer, why Tendulkar. No matter how much rehab they do etc. after major surgeries it takes some time to get their groove back. Do your remember how pathetically McGrath bowled when he came back from surgery? He had undergone a good, solid rehab and was in off season.

Are you becoming one of those who start shooting first and then ask questions? Point me to a single post where I have even uttered Yuvraj in the context? My simple logic is this - Sachin is NOT bigger than Team India. If he gets the lifeline of 40 Tests on trot surely others should get the same. And yes that 40 Tests non-stop could include include anyone from Rohit Sharma to Manoj Towari to even Rahul Dravid.

No, I understood perfectly well what you are saying and its utter tosh. I just used Yuvraj as an example. Simple fact is that the stronger your track record and pedigree, the longer your rope is going to be during your bad times. It applies not only to cricket but every profession in the world. If you have made your company $20 million one year when the target was $10 million and the next year you make $7 million at a target of $10 million you are likely not going to be fired. Someone who made $9 million the first year and $7 million the next will be fired. Simple. When the likes of Yuvraj and Tiwary have 10000+ test runs to back them up they can talk about longer ropes. Do you honestly believe Tendulkar would have been given 40 tests at the start of his career if he was averaging in his 30s?

[Lurker]

Take any cricketer, why Tendulkar. No matter how much rehab they do etc. after major surgeries it takes some time to get their groove back. Do your remember how pathetically McGrath bowled when he came back from surgery? He had undergone a good, solid rehab and was in off season.

I am assuming, and correct me if I am wrong, that you mention Mcgrath when he came back from injury circa 2005/06 against South Africa. Yes he took 8 wickets in 3 tests@40. But in the series preceding he had 13 wickets(3 tests)@22 and in the series after he had 21 wickets(5 Tests)@24. I hope I dont have to remind you of how many series Sachin was given a long rope for. Again I would be with you if Sachin had got his act together in say 2-3 series but it was clearly lot more than that(my sample set was of 25 tests at the time).

Simple fact is that the stronger your track record and pedigree, the longer your rope is going to be during your bad times.

And obviously noone is disagreeing with it. However what I am disagreeing with is how long should the lad be given the rope? Its not that he was being asked to retire after 5 failures. He was having poor performance one after the other and hence the daggers were out. I still maintain that carrying him then was wrong, plain and simple. Just like Ganguly and Zaheer worked their way back so should have Sachin.

When the likes of Yuvraj and Tiwary have 10000+ test runs to back them up they can talk about longer ropes. Do you honestly believe Tendulkar would have been given 40 tests at the start of his career if he was averaging in his 30s?

And how do you propose they get to 10,000 when their slots are effectively occupied by senior brigade? How good(or bad) Yuvraj or Sharma or Tiwary actually are can be gauzed only after you give them a long run. Remember after 20 Tests SRT was averaging 37 and he was not dropped once! When did Yuvraj or Tiwary had that chance? xxx

[The Outsider]

I am assuming, and correct me if I am wrong, that you mention Mcgrath when he came back from injury circa 2005/06 against South Africa. Yes he took 8 wickets in 3 tests@40. But in the series preceding he had 13 wickets(3 tests)@22 and in the series after he had 21 wickets(5 Tests)@24. I hope I dont have to remind you of how many series Sachin was given a long rope for. Again I would be with you if Sachin had got his act together in say 2-3 series but it was clearly lot more than that(my sample set was of 25 tests at the time).

Tendulkar had not one, not two but three surgeries in the period under question, McGrath had one. After his first one, he was rushed back because we were 0-1 down in the BG trophy and he failed at Nagpur like the rest of the team and played a match winning knock in the next match at Bombay. He had a poor series against South Africa followed by a good one against Pakistan. During that summer he was once again under the knife came back to have one good series against Sri Lanka followed by two poor series against Pakistan and England. Those were the only two poor series he had in succession. He once again went for surgery and returned to have a decent series against South Africa and an ever improving performance since then. Now if someone has three major surgeries within less than two years, how can you expect him to perform at his peak. McGrath had one surgery.

And obviously noone is disagreeing with it. However what I am disagreeing with is how long should the lad be given the rope? Its not that he was being asked to retire after 5 failures. He was having poor performance one after the other and hence the daggers were out. I still maintain that carrying him then was wrong, plain and simple. Just like Ganguly and Zaheer worked their way back so should have Sachin.

He was not having poor performance after another as I have shown above. He had three poor series against South Africa in 2004 and then against Pakistan and England in 2006. In the remaining ones, he made contributions not as stellar ones as we expect from him but decent ones. And two consecutive poor series are not enough to discard someone like Tendulkar. Ganguly and Zaheer are not fit to shine the boots of Tendulkar as cricketers so obviously standards are going to be different even so Ganguly got a very long rope.

And how do you propose they get to 10,000 when their slots are effectively occupied by senior brigade? How good(or bad) Yuvraj or Sharma or Tiwary actually are can be gauzed only after you give them a long run. Remember after 20 Tests SRT was averaging 37 and he was not dropped once! When did Yuvraj or Tiwary had that chance?

It's a professional world out there and you have to make your place in the opportunites given. Yuvraj got an unbroken run of 13 tests when Tendulkar was injured and Ganguly was dropped. He could do jack$hit to make a place for himself. In fact Ganguly played in his spot in South Africa when Yuvraj was injured and sealed it with his performance. You can't whine about not being given chances if you don't perform. Look at how Dravid/Ganguly sealed their spots on debut when turmoil in the team gave them a spot. Manjrekar and Kambli were sidelined after that. Yuvraj could have done the same to others. Look at how Sehwag on debut sealed his spot or more recently on his comeback made it impossible for anyone to drop him now. Please don't blame the "seniors" for stopping the likes of poster boy because they haven't done their cause any good. Why are you bringing up really naive arguments like Tendulkar's average after 20 tests. Tendulkar played his first 20 tests in places like Pakistan, New Zealand, England, Australia, and South Africa and outperformed all his senior batting peers during those matches. Has Yuvraj done anything remotely close to that. The guy probably hasn't scored 100 runs total outside the subcontinent yet. That's why I keep on saying learn to put some context on numbers before dishing them out blindly.

[The Outsider]

PS : Just verified. In his first 21 tests, Tendulkar played just 1 test in India. 4 in Pakistan against the likes of Imran, Akram, Waqar, and Qadir 3 on seaming NZ wickets against Hadlee and Morrison 3 on seaming Enlgand wickets against an in form Fraser 5 in Australia against the likes of McDermott, Hughes, Reid 4 in South Africa against the likes of Donald, Schultz, Matthews, and McMillan He had one test at home against Sri Lanka and one against Zimbabwe away. If Yuseless had played his first 21 tests in such conditions against such bowlers, he would not averaged 10.

[The Outsider]

BTW, have split this discussion up as it had little to do with the OP of the other thread.

[Lurker]

Tendulkar had not one, not two but three surgeries in the period under question, McGrath had one.

That has to be one of the weirdest comments I have seen on the subject! So Sachin has 3 surgeries and deserves to play 25 Tests@35? Tomorrow Dravid has 5such operations and then he gets to play 40 tests@35! Where does this silliness stop? What is your thumb rule here shwetabh? One injury = ?? Tests

Now if someone has three major surgeries within less than two years, how can you expect him to perform at his peak. McGrath had one surgery.

Why was he playing when he was half-fit?? It is not as if cricket is Olympics, a Test every 4 years or so. Sachin knows very well that India would pick him the moment he is fit so why didnt he take the time off, play as much domestic cricket as say ganguly, sehwag or zaheer did and came back fit? Why is there two set of rules in the same team?

He was not having poor performance after another as I have shown above. He had three poor series against South Africa in 2004 and then against Pakistan and England in 2006. In the remaining ones, he made contributions not as stellar ones as we expect from him but decent ones.

Not sure what performance you are suggesting. To be honest I am a little tired of this same old debate or I could have dug Sachin's performance in the past 7-8 series where he clearly sucked. You can still find it or if you insist I shall look it up. I also remember a Bumper's post where it was shown that SRT was our worst bat in the mentioned period.

You can't whine about not being given chances if you don't perform.

Agreed 100%. Now tell me why Sachin was not dropped with the same logic. I am sure I will hear the same old tune. Apparently performance matters only when the players surname doesnt end with a kar.

Why are you bringing up really naive arguments like Tendulkar's average after 20 tests. Tendulkar played his first 20 tests in places like Pakistan, New Zealand, England, Australia, and South Africa and outperformed all his senior batting peers during those matches. Has Yuvraj done anything remotely close to that. The guy probably hasn't scored 100 runs total outside the subcontinent yet. That's why I keep on saying learn to put some context on numbers before dishing them out blindly.

Yes I know all of that. Now say with me 20 tests@37 and the player doesnt get dropped. What was all that talk about performance and all?? You can not speak the same line and keep changing your stance when it comes to Sachin, sorry it doesnt work that way.

BTW, have split this discussion up as it had little to do with the OP of the other thread.

Cool. It was taking the spotlight away from the topic at hand. xxx

[The Outsider]

That has to be one of the weirdest comments I have seen on the subject! So Sachin has 3 surgeries and deserves to play 25 Tests@35? Tomorrow Dravid has 5such operations and then he gets to play 40 tests@35! Where does this silliness stop? What is your thumb rule here shwetabh? One injury = ?? Tests

It wasn't as if he knew he was going to be injured in the future. He would come back, play for some time, get injured again. How can you blame that on Tendulkar? If anyone, it has to be the doctors who advised him to return who should take the blame. As far as I can remember, every cricketer coming back from injury no matter after how much rehabilitation takes some time to fire up and it doesn't help if you get injured again in a few months. Given this entire context, having only 3 poor series is not bad.

Why was he playing when he was half-fit?? It is not as if cricket is Olympics, a Test every 4 years or so. Sachin knows very well that India would pick him the moment he is fit so why didnt he take the time off, play as much domestic cricket as say ganguly, sehwag or zaheer did and came back fit? Why is there two set of rules in the same team?

You think Tendulkar makes these decisions in isolation? There are obviously physios and doctors advising him on it and if he did rush back on their advice to get injured again, how is Tendulkar to blame for it? During matches, he does have a lot of responsibility and I criticized him roundly on this very board along with Chappell and Dravid to have him come out at number 4 when he had back spasms at Cape Town. As for two set of rules, I've already explained that - the likes of Ganguly and Zaheer are not even in the same ball park as Tendulkar. Dravid is and Dravid is getting an extended run in his lean patch. For that matter even Ganguly did.

Not sure what performance you are suggesting. To be honest I am a little tired of this same old debate or I could have dug Sachin's performance in the past 7-8 series where he clearly sucked. You can still find it or if you insist I shall look it up. I also remember a Bumper's post where it was shown that SRT was our worst bat in the mentioned period.

With mathematical jugglery without context one can "show" pretty much anything.

Agreed 100%. Now tell me why Sachin was not dropped with the same logic. I am sure I will hear the same old tune. Apparently performance matters only when the players surname doesnt end with a kar.

I've already explained that so many times. The greater your pedigree and potential the longer is going to be the rope given to you. I even gave you a corporate life practical example but you refuse to imbibe it.

Yes I know all of that. Now say with me 20 tests@37 and the player doesnt get dropped. What was all that talk about performance and all?? You can not speak the same line and keep changing your stance when it comes to Sachin, sorry it doesnt work that way.

Aaahhh....when your whole 20 tests 37 average theory has been ripped apart by pointing out where and against whom those 20 tests were played, you are accusing me of changing my stance. My stance is simple - performance and potential. And quoting random averages out of context does not portray any of it. Show me three batsmen who did better than Tendulkar during that 20 test period for him to be dropped. Azhar would be one and I can't think of another one. You are being deliberately naive here by saying an average of 37 in those 20 tests was not a good performance in context. I have never and I repeat never lais down inane numbers as a performance criteria. That's your forte and I cannot challenge you in it. Now if you willing to move further away from numbers, Tendulkar was 16-19 years old during that period and was brought in as a batsman who would grow in international cricket. Yuvraj was 25+ with 6 years of international cricket experience behind him. All this is just auxiliary to the fact that out of those 21 tests, 20 were outside India and 16 outside the subcontinent. They included 88 at Napier against Hadlee and Morrison, a match saving 100 at Old Trafford, twin hundreds in Australia, and a century in South Africa. Who are you trying to fool by comparing that performance with what poster boy has achieved?

[The Outsider]

Here are Tendulkar's numbers compared to the others in those 20 tests you are referring to courtesy Bossbhai :

Batsman                    Runs   Inngs    Notout        AVG    100s     50s   Ducks
M Azharuddin        	1378	32	0	43.06	5	4	1
SV Manjrekar        	1260	32	2	42.00	3	5	1
RJ Shastri          	958	24	1	41.65	3	2	1
PK Amre             	163	5	1	40.75	1	0	0
SR Tendulkar        	1085	31	2	37.41	4	4	3
KS More             	671	26	7	35.32	0	6	0
WV Raman            	240	8	1	34.29	0	2	3
M Prabhakar         	847	31	6	33.88	0	6	2
N Kapil Dev         	831	30	1	28.66	2	4	4
NS Sidhu            	478	18	0	26.56	0	4	3
AS Wassan           	94	5	1	23.50	0	1	1
DB Vengsarkar       	370	17	0	21.76	0	3	2
A Jadeja            	60	3	0	20.00	0	0	0

Now you are free to run a poll here if you can't see how well he performed to see whether he deserved to be dropped or not. There is more context here in Manjrekar's numbers which were made almost half in one series against Pakistan. So we have Tendulkar as the third highest run scorer during that period and the third highest average amongst specialist batsmen if you discount Amre's 5 tests, a small number, and second highest number of centuries.

[Guest HariSampath]

which is the thread where we all predicted series result for tests in Aus ? Anyone knows ?

[Guest HariSampath]

Tendulkar has been given enough rope.....to hang Dravid and Ganguly :D

[DomainK]

so tendulkar had an extended lean patch....who cares? if others could play for 19 years at a stretch consistently and look good for another four then maybe we can have a discussion. not to forget, in the 90's, sachin tendulkar was "the team".

Well said :two_thumbs_up:

[Sachinism]

No it is not. It is rather simple. Average and form goes hand in hand. I will take Ishant Sharma's performance in this series even though his average is lousy simply since the numbers dont tell the full story. However if Sharma sucked in 9 consecutive series(like Sachin was) I wouldnt keep him in. It is rather simple. No they are not. The Indian success was built as much on Sachin as it was on Ishant Sharma and RP Singh. Sure a Yuvraj Singh failed but so did Dravid and Ganguly. The only senior brigade that covered himself with glory was Sachin and to an extent VVS. Kumble was never under the scanner. RD and Gangs had an average to bad series. xxx

not really, what happens when you have incompetent umpires

[DesiChap]

Not really CA. I was one of the rarest ones who had said here that India is going to win the series in Australia. Of course that was deemed as "jingoistic Indian fan" slogan but anyone who knows me should know I am anything but jingoistic, heck many of jingoistic fans keep muttering how I put down India, go figure! A funny observation has been how SRT fans have now come out shouting how great he was in the series and eggs on his face of detractors etc etc. The same people were nowhere to be seen when I had raised how much would SRT score(beleive Bumper was asking the same question) in Australia and many of his ardent fans couldnt promise a series@50. I remember saying(probably to Holysmoke) that I would be happy if SRT/Dravid/VVS score at what their average in Australia is(50) and I still see them very capable of doing so. Turns out SRT did score at 50 plus and VVS about 45. Onwards to bowling I did not find an attack of Lee-Clarke-Johnson-Tait too much of worry and but for Lee it eventually turned out thus. So yes I am not at all surprised by a 2-1 outcome. xxx

Lurker if you remember I had guaranteed a 55+ average. I can go back and quote the post if you like

[DesiChap]

and here you go Lurker " Temdulkar will have an average of 55+ in his next 30 test matches"

[Lurker]

How can you blame that on Tendulkar? If anyone' date= it has to be the doctors who advised him to return who should take the blame.

I have already blamed the Doctors, support-staff etc. I am not sure if you remember but I distinctly recall how pi$$ed I was when I read one of Indian lead doctors mention how Sachin was - The most impressive Indian ever when it came to fitness. It was purely a cricket fan speaking and any sane person would realize that Sachin, while a great player, is hardly the fittest Indian. Now onto the fans. Clearly it is a case of idol worship where they are unable to see that Sachin was failing, time and again. And instead of just accepting that yes maybe he should have taken a step back they are adamant he deserved a place. If you go that route stop making perfomance the criteria. End of story.

You think Tendulkar makes these decisions in isolation? There are obviously physios and doctors advising him on it and if he did rush back on their advice to get injured again, how is Tendulkar to blame for it?

Just listen to yourself for a moment. You are blaming everyone under the sun except the one man who should take the hit. So Sachin could play because he had a fantastic past. Errr okay. So Sachin should not be dropped because he had not one but 3 injuries. Errr okay. So Sachin being half-fit was not the fault of his but that of the support staff. Errrr alrighty. Are you trying to portray a picture of hapless 10 year old who doesnt know what his body is capable of? Why dont you simply admit Sachin was wrong in playing at this time?

With mathematical jugglery without context one can "show" pretty much anything.

Never had to resort to Mathematical jugglery to prove my point. Thats one for statistics minded and I have never been one of those. Not sure why you are not aware of this facet of me.

I've already explained that so many times. The greater your pedigree and potential the longer is going to be the rope given to you.

There is no such things, except in fans mind. And of course this works in India and India only. Should I remind you what has transpired with the likes of Gilly, Martin and many other Aussies recently?

I even gave you a corporate life practical example but you refuse to imbibe it.

The reason I didnt pick that up was I had made similar analogies right here at ICF in past and many posters, including you if I am not mistaken(but do correct me here), spoke of how cricket world is different from corporate world. How the two shall not mix and all of that. Let me put it straight. If Indian cricket resembled Corporate world(or was Professionaly run in the least), SRT would be out on his ass by mid last year.

Aaahhh....when your whole 20 tests 37 average theory has been ripped apart by pointing out where and against whom those 20 tests were played, you are accusing me of changing my stance. My stance is simple - performance and potential.

Hahaha yes of course. I was wondering why it took you so long to utter that word - potential. Its been a while since I saw how "potential wise" Pakistan was the greatest team and how Indian are most natural when it comes to "potential". The proof of the pudding is in the eating. SRT got a long rope when he sucked towards the end of the career, and when he started it. 20 Tests@37 is no shakes. Which brings me to my next point.

And quoting random averages out of context does not portray any of it. Show me three batsmen who did better than Tendulkar during that 20 test period for him to be dropped. Azhar would be one and I can't think of another one. You are being deliberately naive here by saying an average of 37 in those 20 tests was not a good performance in context. I have never and I repeat never lais down inane numbers as a performance criteria. That's your forte and I cannot challenge you in it.

You have done that yourself I see, havent you? Azharuddin, Manjrekar, Shastri, Amre all made better average(as per YOUR stats). Even a Kiran More had similar stats to SRT(35 something as against 37). Now here is a question for you(and I want straight answer) - How many of these players(Amre, Raman etc) got the rope to play 20 consecutive Tests without being dropped?

Now if you willing to move further away from numbers, Tendulkar was 16-19 years old during that period and was brought in as a batsman who would grow in international cricket.

Another BS argument. Why would a country give any player a free-ride to "grow" in International cricket?? The reason why SRT was picked when he was 16-19 was because he was ALREADY one of India's best batsman. He scored centuries galore in Ranji Trophy and played some stellar strokes against top batting. I remember how in early 90s there was this great Ranji trophy finals between Bombay and Haryana where he and Vengsarkar almost won Bombay an impossible win. SRT was in Indian team because he was a truly fine batsman, stop making excuses as he was young etc etc. xxxx

[Lurker]

Lurker if you remember I had guaranteed a 55+ average. I can go back and quote the post if you like

Good on you DC. You knew what you were talking then :two_thumbs_up: