SRT in form

[flamy]

Captaincy is taking its toll on him. MI will be the cause for him not being able to play his dream WC 2011.

[Laaloo]

in B4 finleg quotes ravis posts, highlights the negative parts and agrees with it!

[Ram]

FOr one thing Tendulkar must score 500 runs in a Test series. He has never done that in his 20 year career. He must fix this.

Absolutely and unequivocally disagree with the contention that Sachin's resume is somehow incomplete without a 600 run test series. The only criterion that should be set for him is ask him to make a match winning differences in test series, whether at home or abroad. It does not matter if that match winning difference is 100 runs or 400 runs or 800 runs. For far too long, this stat obsessed mentality of both our players and fans has cost us heavily. Sachin of now is looking much better than the Sachin of 2003-2007. I believe he has achieved a lot more in the last 2 years of his test career, than he did in the preceeding 10, especially in terms of victories abroad. He should focus on building on this momentum and if possible, look to be part of the '11 WC campaign.

[vvvslaxman]

Absolutely and unequivocally disagree with the contention that Sachin's resume is somehow incomplete without a 600 run test series. The only criterion that should be set for him is ask him to make a match winning differences in test series, whether at home or abroad. It does not matter if that match winning difference is 100 runs or 400 runs or 800 runs. For far too long, this stat obsessed mentality of both our players and fans has cost us heavily. Sachin of now is looking much better than the Sachin of 2003-2007. I believe he has achieved a lot more in the last 2 years of his test career, than he did in the preceeding 10, especially in terms of victories abroad. He should focus on building on this momentum and if possible, look to be part of the '11 WC campaign.

There is something called going the distance. You score a 100 in first innings then you are required to make runs in the 2nd innings as well . Those who do that are considered going the distance. Best example is Rahul Dravid.. He made 233 in Adelaide. He could have got out for duck in the 2nd. Not a sould would have questioned him. But went the extra distance by making an important 72 not out in the 2nd innings. In Eden Gardens Dravid was needed in both innings , he rose upto the challenge both times making 2 centuries in the same test. India won. Similar thing he did in West Indies as well. On a horrible pitch he was the only one who stood tall in both innings. That is something Tendulkar can improve. Not that he has never done. But he has failed a few times in that aspect. Yes 500 runs in a series means you are extremely consistent in a series. Definitely for a player who has been playing Tests for 20 years this record is a surprising absence. It is purely subjective whether it is a requirement or not. All top players have got once or twice.He came very close to achieving that in Australia. But he only managed 494. So close.I still back him to achieve that. Even Bradman is being talked for the one series where he made 974 runs and Gavaskar for his 774 runs. As a mark of great batsmanship you want the best player to have such a sequence.

[graphic23]

The 500-runs in a series is a an arbitrary statistic. Its like saying Obama's first 100-days are extremely important and that you judge his presidency based on this - its no different than "the Monday of the first 10 weeks of Obama's presidency". Sachin has not taken part in more than 1 or 2 (or even that seems unlikely) 5-test match series. To me, it is not 600-runs in a series that is of importance but rather how many times did you score more than 300-runs in a 4-test match series or 200-runs in a 3-test match series that is of importance, and I believe there are very very few series in which his contribution was minimal. And again, judging a player based on the 3rd/4th innings record is quite arbitrary and if anything, unfair, because the pitch in the 4th innings is at its worst. The 3rd/4th innings is meaningless if you have not set up the game for your team in the 1st/2nd innings of a test match. When he top scored with a 60+ run in Melbourne in the last Australian summer, the team was bundled out to a <200 total. When he didn't score as many runs in the 2nd innings (mind you, he was still the most attacking player on scene in 2nd innings as well), the team was still bundled out for a smaller total. Now why say that Sachin does not 'go the distance' when no one else on view has even gone the same amount of distance he has? If Bradman did not have a series with 900+ runs, would you consider him any less greater? And Gavaskar without a 700-run series? These are arbitrary standards. I would personally consider Sachin a greater batsman because he has maintained a higher level of consistency in both the formats and is, without any doubt, the greatest ODI batsman the world will possibly ever see (and has seen). There is absolutely no competition for him in the one-day format. He's just been phenomenal. And when you look at the test-match stats (with an average hovering around 54.5) in light of his accomplishments in the other-format, it is just mind-boggling. You may claim that there are others with a higher average than Sachin (like Ponting or whatever) but their record in the ODI format pales when compared to that of Sachin's. Consistency in all the cricket he's played and given how long he's played makes him a truly special player. If Sachin retired today (God forbid), he wouldn't be any lesser of a batsman if he retired with a 500+-run series. He'd still be the greatest ODI batsman and still (according to me, yomv) the 2nd greatest test match batsman ever.

[vvvslaxman]

Not arbitrary statistic. It has been there for ages. Just because Sachin didn't make 500 in a series it doesn't become arbitrary. it is not going to make him any less. Nobody denies that. http://cricket.yahoo.com/cricket/blog/partabramchand/21/21partabramchand

[punjabi_khota]

Not arbitrary statistic. It has been there for ages. Just because Sachin didn't make 500 in a series it doesn't become arbitrary. it is not going to make him any less. Nobody denies that. http://cricket.yahoo.com/cricket/blog/partabramchand/21/21partabramchand

750 runs in 5 test series is hallmark now ? How is that NOT arbitrary ? and if he has 494 instead of 500 in 3 tests, thats not good enough ? Man..these people never stop thinking of ways to make themselves look foolish.

[graphic23]

Not arbitrary statistic. It has been there for ages. Just because Sachin didn't make 500 in a series it doesn't become arbitrary. it is not going to make him any less. Nobody denies that. http://cricket.yahoo.com/cricket/blog/partabramchand/21/21partabramchand

Why is that not an arbitrary statistic? How come its not 424 runs in a series that can judge whether you're consistent over a series or not? Rahul Dravid made scores of 66, 62, 83, 66, 35, 66 in the recent NZ tour. Would you say that this is worse than making 300, 0,0,150,0,0 ? The second string of scores is an aggregate of 450, and the first one somewhere less than that. To me, this is more important - and Sachin has maintained a high level of consistency. And that page you linked actually quotes the Wisden's top five as one of the great recognitions of Bradman. I can't find a more convoluted thing to say. Why was Warne chosen to be one of the top five, despite debuting nearly 2 years after Tendulkar did, and yet Tendulkar's achievements were overlooked because the team didn't win watches? Well, I didn't know cricket was a one-man job and not a team job. Its ****ing ridiculous.

[vvvslaxman]

And again, judging a player based on the 3rd/4th innings record is quite arbitrary and if anything, unfair, because the pitch in the 4th innings is at its worst. The 3rd/4th innings is meaningless if you have not set up the game for your team in the 1st/2nd innings of a test match. When he top scored with a 60+ run in Melbourne in the last Australian summer, the team was bundled out to a <200 total. When he didn't score as many runs in the 2nd innings (mind you, he was still the most attacking player on scene in 2nd innings as well), the team was still bundled out for a smaller total. Now why say that Sachin does not 'go the distance' when no one else on view has even gone the same amount of distance he has? .

No it is not arbitrary. I don't say he should play well only in 3rd or 4th innings. I say both innings. What is the use of setting up if you don't finish it and vice versa. There are times you should do both. I gave you examples of Dravid doing well in both innings to win Test matches. Ordinary people cannot do that. Great batsmen do that atleast once in their life. Tendulkar when he was 17 played such an innings. But it was to save a Test.68 & 119* . This is something even Sachin one talked about. This is not to belittle Sachin. He will still be able to do that. Century in each innings like Punter made against SA.

[vvvslaxman]

750 runs in 5 test series is hallmark now ? How is that NOT arbitrary ? and if he has 494 instead of 500 in 3 tests' date=' thats not good enough ? Man..these people never stop thinking of ways to make themselves look foolish.[/quote'] Just 5 wicket haul is not an arbitrary. 10 wicket in an innings is not arbitrary. I can say why is 5 wicket haul is important not 4 wicket haul. Jeez.. you just started following cricket.

[The Outsider]

500 runs in a series used to be a valid milestone in days when there were lots of 5 test series - presumably the idea being to garner 100 runs per test at least once in 10 odd attempts in a career. It still has a legacy value but you hardly find it talked about anywhere these days except as some odd statistic. Just as an example, Gavaskar played around 15 5 test series in 125 tests while Tendulkar has played 3 in 159.

[vvvslaxman]

500 runs in a series used to be a valid milestone in days when there were lots of 5 test series - presumably the idea being to garner 100 runs per test at least once in 10 odd attempts in a career. It still has a legacy value but you hardly find it talked about anywhere these days except as some odd statistic. Just as an example, Gavaskar played around 15 5 test series in 125 tests while Tendulkar has played 3 in 159.

Finally someone says it is not arbitrary. I don't say it is a must. But for someone like Tendulkar who is the greatest in his era would be expected to produce a spectacular series in his career.Yes it has legacy value. Lot of guys have scored 500 runs even in 3 Test series these days. I hope he has one of those astonishing series where he makes multiple centuries. Since 2000, 24 times players have crossed 500 plus runs in series in 4 or less Test series http://stats.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=matches;orderbyad=reverse;qualmin1=500;qualval1=runs;spanmax1=31+Dec+2009;spanmin1=01+Jan+2000;spanval1=span;template=results;type=batting;view=series

[graphic23]

No it is not arbitrary. I don't say he should play well only in 3rd or 4th innings. I say both innings. What is the use of setting up if you don't finish it and vice versa. There are times you should do both. I gave you examples of Dravid doing well in both innings to win Test matches. Ordinary people cannot do that. Great batsmen do that atleast once in their life. Tendulkar when he was 17 played such an innings. But it was to save a Test.68 & 119* . This is something even Sachin one talked about. This is not to belittle Sachin. He will still be able to do that. Century in each innings like Punter made against SA.

I'm reading a book by Jack Fingleton, and he's almost mentioned nearly 5-6 times in just the first 2 chapters about how superior a 50 or a 60 in a trying circumstance is compared to a 100 when everyone else around you is making 150. To his credit, Sachin has all kinds of records. I don't consider Gavaskar great because he scored 700+ in a series but because he has 14 tons against the greatest side of his era (by a HUGE margin) in their backyard. That is far more impressive to me - and of far more higher significance. Sachin's 493 isn't his greatest series either, just because its closest to 500. He scored less than that in the 1998 series against Australia at home, and that was an amazing series for him. He scored 241* runs by scoring 60 on the off and the rest on the leg - that is more significant because he didn't want to give away his wicket to a stroke he thought was faulty. That is of much much more importance to the team and to his own resume than 3 500-run series on flat-pitches in WI, Pakistan, etc. And regarding, the second innings, how come the 136 v. Pak isn't something you'd consider? Is it because India lost by 12 runs after he set up the chase magnificently? Just for your reference, apart from that 68 and 119*, here are the # of matches, where he's scored more than 50 in both the innings. And look at how many wins India could manage. ZERO in all of the 1990-2000 decade. http://content.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63661.html http://content.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63715.html http://content.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63831.html http://content.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63866.html (Australia won by 180 runs despite Sachin contributing in both the innings, and Ian Chappell said that the ton in the first innings is possibly the best ever at the MCG that he's seen given the circumstances.) http://content.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/63919.html (10 wicket win for Aus again) http://content.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/64062.html http://content.cricinfo.com/statsguru/engine/match/64126.html There are countless more where he's scored an important 40+ in the 2nd innings to complement a success in the first innings.

[punjabi_khota]

Just 5 wicket haul is not an arbitrary. 10 wicket in an innings is not arbitrary. I can say why is 5 wicket haul is important not 4 wicket haul. Jeez.. you just started following cricket.

5 and 10 wicket hauls would be equivalent to century and double century (or twin centuries), respectively in ONE match. Now do you go around judging bowlers by how many times they took 30+ wickets in a series ? Bhajji did it one time..is he a all time great now ?

[graphic23]

Just 5 wicket haul is not an arbitrary. 10 wicket in an innings is not arbitrary. I can say why is 5 wicket haul is important not 4 wicket haul. Jeez.. you just started following cricket.

Wait that is an incorrect comparison. When you take a 5 WI, you've single handedly completed 1/2 of the work the team's bowlers were meant to complete (and 1/4 in a test match). If there was a limit to how many runs one team can score in an innings, and you scored a maximum, then perhaps that would be of a higher significance. Just randomly quoting a figure because you think it defines greatness is just that - random, and not of much importance.

[The Outsider]

Now do you go around judging bowlers by how many times they took 30+ wickets in a series ? Bhajji did it one time..is he a all time great now ?

You would like him to say yes, wouldn't you?:winky:

[The Outsider]

Wait that is an incorrect comparison. When you take a 5 WI, you've single handedly completed 1/2 of the work the team's bowlers were meant to complete (and 1/4 in a test match). If there was a limit to how many runs one team can score in an innings, and you scored a maximum, then perhaps that would be of a higher significance. Just randomly quoting a figure because you think it defines greatness is just that - random, and not of much importance.

Actually the comparison is not wrong if you want to simplify things in terms of numbers. In bowling there are 4 people to take 10 opposition wickets and if someone has the job of two people by taking 5 of them, then he did a pretty good job. Similarly, in batting you have 8 people to score runs(accounting for the lower order weakness) and if you scored a century you have done the job of two people again - assuming a par score of 400 or so. Of course the above are very loose definitions, but over a long career with tough and easy batting conditions, bowling well and not picking up wickets, batting well and still getting out to the first mistake etc. etc. it's not a bad comparison to draw.

[punjabi_khota]

You would like him to say yes' date=' wouldn't you?:winky:[/quote'] :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:..nahi yaar...thoda to bharosa rakho :((

[graphic23]

Just to support my argument, in the series Brian Lara scored a 400 in, he has 500 runs in the series ( the supposedly rational standard), he scored 23, 0, 0, 8, 36, 33, 400. Now when you look at his statistics, it will say 500 runs. How is this more significant than say, 160, DNB, 62, 49, 64, 9 ? Hmm?

[graphic23]

Actually the comparison is not wrong if you want to simplify things in terms of numbers. In bowling there are 4 people to take 10 opposition wickets and if someone has the job of two people by taking 5 of them, then he did a pretty good job. Similarly, in batting you have 8 people to score runs(accounting for the lower order weakness) and if you scored a century you have done the job of two people again - assuming a par score of 400 or so. Of course the above are very loose definitions, but over a long career with tough and easy batting conditions, bowling well and not picking up wickets, batting well and still getting out to the first mistake etc. etc. it's not a bad comparison to draw.

But 400 is not a limit, is it? Again, its just a reasonable approximation of a good score for a team on the pitches that we see today. Say you have set a standard that in a particular innings, the team will have to declare at 750 (if they score that much), and are not allowed bat any further. In that case, Brian Lara's 400* is a phenomenal achievement. However, a 4WI or a 5WI or a 10WI is always more impressive because you can't take more than 10 wickets. So Anil Kumble's 10 WI is a lot more impressive than Anil Kumble's 110* in a team score of 664 runs.