The seasonal "Sachin was not that great" thread.

[Real McCoy]

2 hours ago, New guy said:

Which is why the biggest star should also not be the captain. We would have seen this in the 90s too if Sachin had a different personality and refused to budge. 

Talking about refusing to budge, he did on several occasions when asked by the captain to take first strike. What was he afraid of

 

Such was sach's power. He used his star ability to full effect. He whined when RD declared with him on 194. Whining never stopped. he went on to whine about in his own book 10 years after the incident. He did the same when DK happened to finish the game disallowing genius to score yet another ton.

https://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/lsquoKarthik-shouldrsquove-allowed-Sachin-to-complete-tonrsquo/article16854744.ece#!

He only quit captaincy because his averages were going down. Did he ever vacate the no.4 spot in tests. RD opened when Gambhir was injured. Sachin never went to no.3. VVS had to come in at 3. Refusing to budge is all he did. What was the name of his autobiography BTW - Playing it my way - in a team sport @velu@zen@Rasgulla@Gollum Your thoughts?

 

[zen]

3 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

Did he ever vacate the no.4 spot in tests. RD opened when Gambhir was injured. Sachin never went to no.3. VVS had to come in at 3. Refusing to budge is all he did. What was the name of his autobiography BTW - Playing it my way - in a team sport @velu@zen@Rasgulla@Gollum Your thoughts?

All great batsmen from the top of the mind recall have played in the top order in tests - Bradman, Sobers (in fact batted at most positions), Richards, Lara, Ponting, Kallis, .... , so they may have a better case for an place in an AT 11 than Sachin, whose avg falls dramatically when he comes in to play when the ball is relatively harder. Usually, his avg improves when he walks in at a score of 100 or more 

Edited January 4, 2021 by zen

[Rasgulla]

4 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

Talking about refusing to budge, he did on several occasions when asked by the captain to take first strike. What was he afraid of

 

Such was sach's power. He used his star ability to full effect. He whined when RD declared with him on 194. Whining never stopped. he went on to whine about in his own book 10 years after the incident. He did the same when DK happened to finish the game disallowing genius to score yet another ton.

https://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/lsquoKarthik-shouldrsquove-allowed-Sachin-to-complete-tonrsquo/article16854744.ece#!

He only quit captaincy because his averages were going down. Did he ever vacate the no.4 spot in tests. RD opened when Gambhir was injured. Sachin never went to no.3. VVS had to come in at 3. Refusing to budge is all he did. What was the name of his autobiography BTW - Playing it my way - in a team sport @velu@zen@Rasgulla@Gollum Your thoughts?

 

So did our Gangu bhai just say Sachin is a coward at highest level. Always putting his personal useless milestones ahead of Team's interest？ No wonder he was a **** captain. You basically said it all， I have nothing to add. Usually MTC ll run away from posts like yours so. Congrats for burying the myth！

Edited January 4, 2021 by Rasgulla

[sandeep]

1 hour ago, zen said:

All great batsmen from the top of the mind recall have played in the top order in tests - Bradman, Sobers (in fact batted at most positions), Richards, Lara, Ponting, Kallis, .... , so they may have a better case for an place in an AT 11 than Sachin, whose avg falls dramatically when he comes in to play when the ball is relatively harder. Usually, his avg improves when he walks in at a score of 100 or more 

what would quickly shut up this line of argument is stats on pre-Sehwag Indian test cricket, and the average over number that Tendy walked out to bat.  20/2 was the norm not the exception in those Debang Gandhi days.  

 

But trolling requires intentional obfuscation of actual facts in favor of inflammatory assertions, so that's that.

[zen]

9 minutes ago, sandeep said:

what would quickly shut up this line of argument is stats on pre-Sehwag Indian test cricket, and the average over number that Tendy walked out to bat.  20/2 was the norm not the exception in those Debang Gandhi days.  

 

 

 

 

If Tendulkar walked in at 20/2, playing fresh bowlers with red cherry, his avg falls to 41 (overall roughly 43 when the score is 99 or less. 7641 runs in 178 innings so a huge sample size) .... Shuts his case for a place in an ATG 11 in my book 

 

The above are cold heart breaking smell the coffee facts   

Edited January 4, 2021 by zen

[sandeep]

10 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

 

If Tendulkar walked in at 20/2, playing fresh bowlers with red cherry, his avg falls to 41 (overall roughly 43 when the score is 99 or less. 7641 runs in 178 innings so a huge sample size) .... Shuts his case for a place in an ATG 11 in my book 

 

The above are cold heart breaking smell the coffee facts   

 

Kallis didn't play for 24 years - his cumulative stats have an inherent selection bias.  years.  This is glaringly obvious to anybody who bothers to actually read the 'stats' in that picture - Kallis has 26 innings, while Tendy has 37.  So 150% of Kallis's sample size.  That sample size discrepancy is consistent throughout the table - because Tendulkar's career is a unicorn of longevity.  

 

There is simply no way to extrapolate how Kallis would have done over a larger number of innings coming in at "21 to 49" team scores.   Maybe he would have.  But its just an assertion at that point, not "facts" - coffee or tea, is your choice of beverage.  

 

Best way to compare Tendulkar to anyone is to compare prime years to prime, whether its Kallis, Ponting, or anyone else.  Most batsmen have a standard career pattern - a couple of seasons early on where they are not at their optimal run scoring levels, then a long-ish middle stage with a few purple patches, and then a 'tailing off' at the end where they quickly fade away and get discarded.  Tendulkar is such a legend that he breaks this pattern too.  Tendulkar's "post-prime" longevity was almost a decade, instead of a couple of years.  Compare that to the Dravids, Pontings, and yes Kallises, and you will see that the fade to impotency and retirement picks up speed, chews up and throws out the player in about a year or 2.  Tendy post 2003 was a massively different batsman than he was prior, in the 90s and early 2000s - his pomp.  I mean, here is a guy who could put away the cover drive and still drop 240 against the #1 team in their own den.  That Tendy managed to have a decade long international career, with multiple purple patches in it, even after being 80% of his best, is a testament to how ridiculous his best was.  As pointed out already, most batsmen can't survive for more than a year or so once they hit that 20% decline from their peak.  

 

 

Of course, feel free to massage numbers for the mathematically ignorant and assert whatever silliness you feel like.  Basic concepts like sample size bias aren't as widely understood as sensational 'potshots'.  This basic fact is the gravy train for much of media, why shouldn't forum trolls resort to it?

 

 

[ShoonyaSifar]

23 minutes ago, zen said:

 

 

 

If Tendulkar walked in at 20/2, playing fresh bowlers with red cherry, his avg falls to 41 (overall roughly 43 when the score is 99 or less. 7641 runs in 178 innings so a huge sample size) .... Shuts his case for a place in an ATG 11 in my book 

 

The above are cold heart breaking smell the coffee facts   

LIKE looks like this kid is again ecstatic like he was after running a few queries on CI statsguru before the WC.

 

No lessons learnt despite the humiliation. Deserves another schooling, which is imminent sooner than later. 

[Real McCoy]

19 minutes ago, sandeep said:

what would quickly shut up this line of argument is stats on pre-Sehwag Indian test cricket, and the average over number that Tendy walked out to bat.  20/2 was the norm not the exception in those Debang Gandhi days.  

 

But trolling requires intentional obfuscation of actual facts in favor of inflammatory assertions, so that's that.

I know those tests when RD went into bat at 10/1 and Sachin at 20/2. Basically they were in quite early more often than not. So why not RD open and SRT in at one drop. In Australian cricketing terms (which was the dominant one at that time), the best batter bats at 3 because he can counter punch after the early wicket and can also keep out the good balls due to his technique.

Even though RD didn't like to open, he did when the situation arose. SRT never moved to 3 in such cases and pushed VVS into it. That seems very cowardly indeed. If you cant take the heat (playing against the new ball), then you are opening yourself to criticism and rightly so. Also @zen points out stats that back that Kallis has a better output when coming in early and he played in lively SA conditions

Coming back to today's world, Pujara and Kohli are ideally suited to play as opener and no.3. This defensive thinking has cost us more matches than otherwise. no.3 becomes no.4 when close to retirement as was the case with Ponting/Kallis/Lara

[sandeep]

2 minutes ago, ShoonyaSifar said:

LIKE looks like this kid is again ecstatic like he was after running a few queries on CI statsguru before the WC.

 

No lessons learnt despite the humiliation. Deserves another schooling, which is imminent sooner than later. 

Bhaiyya, BHAISAN ko tum paani tak le jao, Bhagvad Gita sunaao, Bhains to ghaas chabaa kar GOBAR hi nikaalegi.  Kavita nahi na sunaegi.

[zen]

17 minutes ago, sandeep said:

 

Kallis didn't play for 24 years - his cumulative stats have an inherent selection bias.  years.  This is glaringly obvious to anybody who bothers to actually read the 'stats' in that picture - Kallis has 26 innings, while Tendy has 37.  So 150% of Kallis's sample size.  That sample size discrepancy is consistent throughout the table - because Tendulkar's career is a unicorn of longevity.  

 

 

Kallis comfortably out performs Tendulkar over 100 tests (again a huge sample size), where Tendulkar was not even the best batsman for Ind 

 

With 5K or more runs (huge sample size) 

Primary team India  or South Africa

Opposition team Australia  or England  or India  or New Zealand  or Pakistan  or South Africa  or Sri Lanka  or West Indies

Start of match date between 1 Jan 2000 and 1 Jan 2014

Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 5000

Ordered by batting average (descending)

 

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
JH Kallis (SA)	2000-2013	123	215	27	10540	224	56.06	22044	47.81	37	45	13	1204	74
AB de Villiers (SA)	2004-2013	83	141	15	6613	278*	52.48	12090	54.69	18	33	2	746	45
HM Amla (SA)	2004-2013	69	121	10	5664	311*	51.02	10865	52.13	19	26	6	702	8
R Dravid (INDIA)	2000-2012	114	205	23	9190	270	50.49	21718	42.31	25	41	5	1144	15
VVS Laxman (INDIA)	2000-2012	109	185	30	7758	281	50.05	15643	49.59	16	50	11	998	4
V Sehwag (INDIA)	2001-2013	96	168	4	8151	319	49.70	9917	82.19	23	28	16	1161	88
GC Smith (SA)	2002-2013	103	186	13	8303	277	47.99	14177	58.56	23	37	10	1043	18
SR Tendulkar (INDIA)	2000-2013	114	195	16	8445	241*	47.17	15914	53.06	21	43	7	1100	36

 

 

In 20 more innings, Kallis has 16 more 100s for e.g. .... Tendulkar shone of a selected period in the 90s (much like how Ponting was in his career for a selected period - though maintained that consistency longer than Tendulkar ) 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2021 by zen

[sandeep]

2 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

I know those tests when RD went into bat at 10/1 and Sachin at 20/2. Basically they were in quite early more often than not. So why not RD open and SRT in at one drop. In Australian cricketing terms (which was the dominant one at that time), the best batter bats at 3 because he can counter punch after the early wicket and can also keep out the good balls due to his technique.

Even though RD didn't like to open, he did when the situation arose. SRT never moved to 3 in such cases and pushed VVS into it. That seems very cowardly indeed. If you cant take the heat (playing against the new ball), then you are opening yourself to criticism and rightly so. Also @zen points out stats that back that Kallis has a better output when coming in early and he played in lively SA conditions

Coming back to today's world, Pujara and Kohli are ideally suited to play as opener and no.3. This defensive thinking has cost us more matches than otherwise. no.3 becomes no.4 when close to retirement as was the case with Ponting/Kallis/Lara

 

If Ashwin is such a great bowler, why doesn't he do the job of opening the bowling on a green pitch?  why does he hide behind other bowlers?  Why did Kumble do the same and force India to use weak opening bowlers?  Why didn't Warne take the new ball when McGrath and Gillespie were out with injury, forcing Australia to depend on guys like Nathan Bracken etc?  

 

Cricket teams have for generations slotted in their best batsman at #4.  Batsmen who bat in the middle order have developed a certain level of confidence and comfort in their batting slot and routines.  The team's primary goal is to maximize the output of their individuals, put them in positions they are most likely to produce for their team.  To turn this basic concept into some sort of presumption of "selfishness", requires a specific kind of selective myopia.  This argument is as old as the hills.  And its just boring now.  Go ahead, get your jollies by talking up random pseudo-factoids and twisting into a simulacrum of an argument.  

 

VVS became an opener because he was stuck in the reserves waiting behind Tendy, Dravid, Ganguly in the middle order.  If anything you can point to Ganguly's spot in the middle order and question why he wasn't replaced with a guy like VVS.  But we know how Indian selection works - the new guy has to make the adjustment if his preferred spot is occupied - not the incumbent.  For better or for worse.  That's the way it works in almost all teams not just India.  

 

But again, let's blame VVS's failed attempt at test opener, on Tendulkar's 'selfishness', because, you know, this line has a certain marketability, for a certain subset of cricket 'fans.  

[sandeep]

15 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Kallis comfortably out performs Tendulkar over 100 tests (again a huge sample size), where Tendulkar was not even the best batsman for Ind 

 

With 5K or more runs (huge sample size) 

Primary team India  or South Africa

Opposition team Australia  or England  or India  or New Zealand  or Pakistan  or South Africa  or Sri Lanka  or West Indies

Start of match date between 1 Jan 2000 and 1 Jan 2014

Qualifications runs scored greater than or equal to 5000

Ordered by batting average (descending)

 

Overall figures

Player	Span	Mat	Inns	NO	Runs	HS	Ave	BF	SR	100	50	0	4s	6s
JH Kallis (SA)	2000-2013	123	215	27	10540	224	56.06	22044	47.81	37	45	13	1204	74
AB de Villiers (SA)	2004-2013	83	141	15	6613	278*	52.48	12090	54.69	18	33	2	746	45
HM Amla (SA)	2004-2013	69	121	10	5664	311*	51.02	10865	52.13	19	26	6	702	8
R Dravid (INDIA)	2000-2012	114	205	23	9190	270	50.49	21718	42.31	25	41	5	1144	15
VVS Laxman (INDIA)	2000-2012	109	185	30	7758	281	50.05	15643	49.59	16	50	11	998	4
V Sehwag (INDIA)	2001-2013	96	168	4	8151	319	49.70	9917	82.19	23	28	16	1161	88
GC Smith (SA)	2002-2013	103	186	13	8303	277	47.99	14177	58.56	23	37	10	1043	18
SR Tendulkar (INDIA)	2000-2013	114	195	16	8445	241*	47.17	15914	53.06	21	43	7	1100	36

 

 

In 20 more innings, Kallis has 16 more 100s for e.g. .... Tendulkar shone of a selected period in the 90s (much like how Ponting was in his career for a selected period - though maintained that consistency longer than Tendulkar ) 

 

 

 

*yawn*.

 

So predictable - you took Kallis's best years, and put them against Sachin's worst, post prime phase  Excluding his best years.  The appropriate comparison would be to take 13 years from 1995 for Tendy.  Of course the unfortunate fact for Tendy is that in the late 90s, which was the purple peak within his prime, BCCI had stumbled onto the money-printing capacity of ODIs, and hardly played any test cricket.  2 match series were the norm, even at home.  IIRC in the 2nd half of the 90s, there was a 2 year window where India played single-digit tests -across 2 YEARS. Arguably, in Tendulkar's best years, there are about 20+ "missing" tests.  But even setting that aside, if you compare Tendulkar from 95 to 2008 or 96 to 2009, and take that vs Kallis, then we can talk.  

 

Else all you are doing is again flawed sampling.   But hey, bakwaas biktaa hai na bazaar mein, to becho banjo, bahut mil jayenge bakre - there's one born every minute, as is memorably said. 

 

 

If I wanted to do an honest comparison of batsmen - I would start with year 2 or 3 of their career, and then take 10 years or so.  And I would tabulate each player's record on an annual basis, including number of tests played.  That would very quickly show how certain players benefit from a few big years (especially played in favorable conditions, home or similar).  And how certain players lose out on stat padding in their best years.

 

In the current era, Kane Williamson may be another quality bat, who does not get to play 5 test series that often, and misses out on putting up big numbers in his best years.

Edited January 4, 2021 by sandeep

[zen]

3 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Cricket teams have for generations slotted in their best batsman at #4. 

 

Again a fallacy  .... Best batsman for many teams have batted in the top order (and have good record batting there) - Bradman, Sobers, Richards, Lara, Ponting, Kallis and so on .... Many have moved into the MO once their reflex slowed down relatively 

 

 

 

 

[sandeep]

8 minutes ago, zen said:

 

Again a fallacy  .... Best batsman for many teams have batted in the top order (and have good record batting there) - Bradman, Sobers, Richards, Lara, Ponting, Kallis and so on .... Many have moved into the MO once their reflex slowed down relatively 

 

 

 

 

 

Best bowlers have bowled with new ball, many have moved to support roles as they age.  So anybody who doesn't 'open' the bowling is automatically ruled out from consideration as 'best' bowler. 

 

To clarify, above statement is sarcastic.

[zen]

2 minutes ago, sandeep said:

 

*yawn*.

 

So predictable - you took Kallis's best years, and put them against Sachin's worst, post prime phase  Excluding his best years.  The appropriate comparison would be to take 13 years from 1995 for Tendy.  Of course the unfortunate fact for Tendy is that in the late 90s, which was the purple peak within his prime, BCCI had stumbled onto the money-printing capacity of ODIs, and hardly played any test cricket.  2 match series were the norm, even at home.  Arguably, in Tendulkar's best years, there are about 20+ "missing" tests.  But even setting that aside, if you compare Tendulkar from 95 to 2008 or 96 to 2009, and take that vs Kallis, then we can talk.  

 

Else all you are doing is again flawed sampling.   But hey, bakwaas biktaa hai na bazaar mein, to becho banjo, bahut mil jayenge bakre - there's one born every minute, as is memorably said. 

 

Appears as if you have begun to smell the coffee

 

What's next - select Tendulkar's best 123 tests to compare it with Kallis' 123 on the stretch

 

 

[zen]

1 minute ago, sandeep said:

 

Best bowlers have bowled with new ball, many have moved to support roles as they age.  So anybody who doesn't 'open' the bowling is automatically ruled out from consideration as 'best' bowler. 

 

To clarify, above statement is sarcastic.

 

Best pace bowlers in regular sides have got the new ball whether it is Lillee, Hadlee, Imran, Ambrose, Donald, McGrath, Steyn, and so on 

 

The point here is about judging top batsmen based on their ability to triumph in the top order as well, Einstein! 

 

 

[Real McCoy]

14 minutes ago, sandeep said:

 

If Ashwin is such a great bowler, why doesn't he do the job of opening the bowling on a green pitch?  why does he hide behind other bowlers?  Why did Kumble do the same and force India to use weak opening bowlers?  Why didn't Warne take the new ball when McGrath and Gillespie were out with injury, forcing Australia to depend on guys like Nathan Bracken etc?  

 

Cricket teams have for generations slotted in their best batsman at #4.  Batsmen who bat in the middle order have developed a certain level of confidence and comfort in their batting slot and routines.  The team's primary goal is to maximize the output of their individuals, put them in positions they are most likely to produce for their team.  To turn this basic concept into some sort of presumption of "selfishness", requires a specific kind of selective myopia.  This argument is as old as the hills.  And its just boring now.  Go ahead, get your jollies by talking up random pseudo-factoids and twisting into a simulacrum of an argument.  

 

VVS became an opener because he was stuck in the reserves waiting behind Tendy, Dravid, Ganguly in the middle order.  If anything you can point to Ganguly's spot in the middle order and question why he wasn't replaced with a guy like VVS.  But we know how Indian selection works - the new guy has to make the adjustment if his preferred spot is occupied - not the incumbent.  For better or for worse.  That's the way it works in almost all teams not just India.  

 

But again, let's blame VVS's failed attempt at test opener, on Tendulkar's 'selfishness', because, you know, this line has a certain marketability, for a certain subset of cricket 'fans.  

If I recall correctly, Ashwin opened the bowling in the first test in Edgbaston 2 years ago and he got Cook out in the first over. Bowlers have changed their methods, bowling to the field set for them by the captain, and even opened as a spinner as was the case with Ashwin and started after the spinner as was the case with Siraj in Melbourne two weeks ago. Both of them succeeded in their trials.

You have to go to the extent of comparing bowlers who come in different variations such as spinner and fast bowler to batsmen is laughable to say the least. Anyways I was just thinking how it was always RD and SRT almost opening in the 90s that made me think about the RD opener SRT no.3 idea. My belief is that it would have served India's cause much more because it would have allowed VVS and other strokemakers an easier entry into the team as RD and SRT were already a given in the teamsheet. Dont channel your inner Shashi Tharoor with your "factoids and simulacrums". Just speak in layman's language

[sandeep]

@zenBtw, Kallis got to play 75 test matches in his 1st 10 years in cricket - when he was young and in his prime.  Tendulkar?  57.  

 

I used your opposition selection criteria - but in order to keep it consistent - I only included opposition that they both played against - so exclude Ind/SA respectively, and care to take a guess what a basic attempted apples to apples comparison shows?

 

Tendulkar averages higher than JKallis cumulatively.  Tendulkar also averages higher than Kallis, in away matches against Aus, Eng, NZ, WI, Pak.  

 

But hey, sorry to rock the selective stats party!  

 

 

[sandeep]

5 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

Dont channel your inner Shashi Tharoor with your "factoids and simulacrums". Just speak in layman's language

these aren't exactly "high-falutin' words - not my fault if you have a problem with 'factoids'.  This isn't a popularity contest. Its a 2 way conversation.  Tangents on word choices seem to indicate you are looking for alternative 'points' to nit pick on, maybe because the primary subject at hand isn't going that well...

[sandeep]

6 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

If I recall correctly, Ashwin opened the bowling in the first test in Edgbaston 2 years ago

There have been dozens of times where Tendulkar has batted against  the new ball with paltry team scores on the board.  No?