Batting with tailenders and Sachin's strategy in the Sydney Test, 2008

[Ram]

Errr...how does it make sense for him to "protect" his wicket at the end of the day's play batting with 10 and 11? This wasn't the case of a nightwatchman in the center or a number 8 batsman in the middle where even if the nightwatchman or number 8 gets out at the end of the day, the main batsman has the opportunity to bat the next day. The innings would have ended here.

Because the light was deteriorating by the minute and there was possibility that it could be offered to the batsmen ANY instant.. In fact, it was quite possible that had Ishant's wicket fell, the umpires would have immediately called stumps. what do you expect Sachin to do then? Go after the bowling and risk getting out? I wouldnt have minded him playing most of the balls in that circumstance, but I am not going to be critical of his decision to give the strike to Ishant either, because it was important that sachin survived.

Alright, now that we are in agreement that Tendulkar did not shield the tail

Where did I agree to that? I only said his decision to not shield Ishant from the strike was only PART of my critique of his approach (the rest of it was his complete non-attempt to score runs). How many more times do I have to repeat the numbers? You've merely assumed that I said Sachin did not shield the tail in Chittagong either. In Sydney, Ishant faced 60% of all the balls. In Chittagong, it was the exact opposite, with Sachin facing the bulk of the strike on day 2. How hard is it for you to understand?

let's look at the different approaches he took when he did have the strike. The score was 500+ in Sydney and the score was 200 here for starters.

Completely irrelevant. Irrespective of what the score reads, your approach as a batsmen is to make sure you score as many runs as possible, before the tail-ender gets dismissed at the other end. Sure, when Ishant came in at Sydney, the score read 500/9, so what? Just because the team's score reads more, it isnt reason enough for the specialist batsmen to shut shop and let the no.11 take all the risks of scoring.

And such judgments are made out there in the middle by Tendulkar and his batting partner, not by Morriz Mirror. Tendulkar would talk to his partner about whether he is feeling comfortable, he would analyze if his partner would be able to survive a particular bowler and come up with his approach. .

Please tell me you're kidding. If I have take what you just typed in face value, I am guessing this is the conversation that happened on the two instances. At Sydney; Ishant Sharma (rookie no.11 who had scored a sum total of 15 FC runs till then and who had, at that point, NEVER batted in an international test match) walks in. Sach: Ishant, I know you've never batted in an international game before, but do you feel confident of not only surviving, but also scoring off not only the fastest bowler of the world today (Lee), but also one of the world's premier swing bowler (Stuart Clarke), while I give you the strike the first ball of every over? Ishant: Absolutely, Paaji At Chittagong; Sach: Ishant, I know you've played a handful of test matches and batted the odd occasion, but is it ok if i take most of the strike and try to score as many runs as possible, while trying to protect you from the deadly bowling of Shahadat Hossain and Shakib-al-Hassan? Ishant: As you wish, Paaji

For me both approaches were right because both succeeded and they were taken by Tendulkar after putting his years of experience into some use rather than being adamant that there is only "one right way" to do things

A'right that is all I needed to know. No point trying to debate with someone who thinks the two directly opposite approaches are the correct.

[The Outsider]

A'right that is all I needed to know. No point trying to debate with someone who thinks the two directly opposite approaches are the correct.

Analogous to my sentiments - there really isn't any point debating with someone who can't understand that different situations can call for different kinds of strategies being adopted in cricket.

[CSK Fan]

needed the strike to get to 100 You are letting your admiration of the man cloud your judgement. What other reason can you think of to explain the frenetic hitting this time?

Because this time India had a much lesser score and Sachin knew that even 20-30 runs would make a difference? Remember he was still hitting AFTER he got to his 100( akhtough it was just one shot as he didnt get any more chance). Gee, I think people should go and watch more matches before making inane comments like this

[CSK Fan]

Why's it so hard to believe that Sachin can be selfish occassionally?

Because its a common procedure to not accuse someone of a bad trait, be it lying, being selfish, greedy, wihtout any proof. It should be innocent until proven guilty

[CSK Fan]

This isn't a court of law and it'd be reasonable to assume based on the available stats above that Sachin was a tad circumspect and discreet in Chittagong because of his looming century.

So we are free to call any player, greedy or a liar or putting himself aboive his country just becuase this isnt a court of law? There can be other reasons for looking circumspect. in the short period following his century he played exactly the same way he had before his century.

[littlemaster1982]

I don't understand this logic. If Sachin slows down in 90s, people say he wants to hit a 100. If he accelerates from 80 to 100 by hitting fours and sixes, still he is accused of playing for 100s.

[observer1]

. Gee' date=' I think people should go and watch more matches before making inane comments like this[/quote'] How would 'going out and watching more matches' make anyone's opinion in this particular case different? Unless you forgot a comma between go and watch. In which case I am slightly less disagreeable to your sanctimonious comment

[dial_100]

Sri... you should be the last person to doubt his game plans. Mate, whatever he has done I have not doubt did it right. As the comentators were saying that he was reading them very easily. And he was instructing them to hit those 4s in sydney. And in Chintong... even though he was scoring to get his century, the score was added in the team total. So why other people have problem with him scoring 100s?? Prof right on mate.. I think we are questioning that man for no reason. He managed to get the runs. whether he scored them or not does not matter. We have seen Bhajji excelled while batting along side him. So chill guys. just njoy It is way beyond me.

[Bumper]

I am reading this wonderful book called "Beyond BullSh*t". The essence of the book is to acknowledge bullsh*t that we come across every day - specifically, thinking one thing & saying another, going along to get along, advancing a hidden agenda, holding others to a diff standard than the one we use for ourselves et al, and doing what we can to counter it. While I scanned this thread couple of streams of bullsh*t jumped out at me. As Sam Culbert advises in his book, here is some straight talk to counter both: 1) As Sriram points out (doesnt take so many score cards to see this point), the two innings have witnessed two very different performances from Sachin. In Sydney, no milestones were at stake and hence Sachin wasnt in any sort of ugrency, whereas at Chittagong a 100 was at stake (while Ponting was closing in on him). If you guys deny this, you are simply being dishonest to yourself. 2) So what if Sachin is going after a milestone ? Do these runs not help the team ? How difficult is it to see that Sachin is human ? If you accuse Sachin of being selfish, ask yourselves, when was the last time you tried to save money on food when you were on a business trip ? When was the last time you washed a rental car ? Every human acts in a way that maximises his self-interest & cricketers are no exception. Cricket has seen one or two mad men like Sehwag who bat like their a.$$ is on fire even when they are on 299. But majority of the batsmen (that includes all the Aussies) care about milestones. It is like an engineer proudly collecting and flaunting his patents. These things matter to every sportsman. So there, is a dosage of some straight talk I have been practising the last couple of days :-)

[The Outsider]

^ Now I can well and truly claim that Bumper is back with all venom against Tendulkar!:winky:

[Anakin]

Different matches' date= different situations, different conditions, different opposition, why should Sachin or some other batsman's approach be similar then? End of the day, the tail scored some valuable runs. Let the no 11 score 100 runs with SRT for the 10th wicket with Sachin contributing zilch, I wouldn't mind that at all, every run goes to the team's kitty after all.

Ah, why are you using common sense when the simple facts like SRT is selfish and afraid of Chuckter have been proven beyond any shred of doubt?

[Bumper]

^ Now I can well and truly claim that Bumper is back with all venom against Tendulkar!:winky:

I know, straight talk to can lead to strange conclusions :-)

[Anakin]

Yes, specially delusion between BS and facts, but as long as they are "straight talks"..........

[kabira]

LOL at MM.

[The Outsider]

I know' date=' straight talk to can lead to strange conclusions :-)[/quote'] Does Sehwag change his normal game when approaching milestones?:winky:

[Bumper]

Does Sehwag change his normal game when approaching milestones?:winky:

I think you guys are missing the point. There is nothing wrong with players slowing down for milestones. Be honest to yourself. Dont you want to see Sachin end up with the highest number of 100s ? As an Indian, I certainly would admit that i want him to end up his career at 50 100s, finishing well ahead of Ponting! Then why cant we simply acknolwedge that Sachin (and Ponting too) would have similar milestones in their mind when they play! And Sehwag is human too, he too admitted that he would not like to miss a 200 that he missed out the prev game against Lanka. I dont think there is anything wrong with players looking for milestones when it is not in direct conflict with the team's interests

[The Outsider]

^ Agree with your post above, but it makes no sense to single out Tendulkar for doing it.

[CSK Fan]

1) As Sriram points out (doesnt take so many score cards to see this point), the two innings have witnessed two very different performances from Sachin. In Sydney, no milestones were at stake and hence Sachin wasnt in any sort of ugrency, whereas at Chittagong a 100 was at stake (while Ponting was closing in on him). If you guys deny this, you are simply being dishonest to yourself. So there, is a dosage of some straight talk I have been practising the last couple of days :-)

Why are you ignoring other factors like the match situations, etc? Werent the bowler in Sydney of a different quality than the bowlers here? When the score is as low as 200, wouldnt it make more sense to hit out and score the extra 30-40 which might make all the difference in the world rather than when the score in at 500? There were a 100 things that were different from Sydney to the last test Claiming that Sachin nearing a milestone was the only reason for the difference in approach is deluding yourself. I have seen him play in various modes over various times for various reasons. You are pre-assuming things and then twisting what happened to suit yourself

[CSK Fan]

How would 'going out and watching more matches' make anyone's opinion in this particular case different? Unless you forgot a comma between go and watch. In which case I am slightly less disagreeable to your sanctimonious comment

Becasue watching more test matches will at least make you understand that situations are completely diffeent when a team is 500+ and wehn a team just crossed 200 in a test innigns. That any good batsman will play differently in these different situations. That in the later hitting out will make sense as an extra 30-40 runs quickly scored might make a difference in the match result while in the former, you can afford to consolidate

[CSK Fan]

Yes. It's reasonable to question motive when you adopt contrasting approach in two similar situations (team-wise) with a milestone to achieve.

So when a team is at 500+ and when a team is at 200, in a test match innings, the situtations are similar to you? And the only difference you see in these games is motive? No comments then