Why is SRT tense while getting to personal milestones?

[Mr. Wicket]

He is a man of eloquence and distinction. He plays for the team and not statistics. .... Damn, I managed to type that with a straight face.

[Gambit]

Gambit, please. This is unnecessary. You should remember that Inzamam does not play for his statistics! After all, he himself said he plays for and deserves "respect and nothing else". http://www.cricinfo.com/superseries/content/story/220227.html Remember this? The great Pakistan captain, hero to millions, winner of matches, conquerer of Australian attacks and tormentor of pace attacks only wanted respect. For him, it wasn't about the statistics, it was just the respect. And yes, he is a team man. Remember the whole fiasco over his non-selection? When he finally got picked as a sub-in for an injured Tendulkar, he cried, moaned and whined about the lack of respect and refused to play. But then he finally realized that it wasn't about him, it was about the team! The whole rather than the individual. So off he went to Australia to take on the mighty attack, the greatest player of pace Imran had ever seen... ... and made 1 and 0 in the Melbourne test with a second-ball duck to the great Bung Lee. http://www.cricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/221840.html :hysterical: Didn't even play for his records either there. No sign of him pushing for a fifty, hundred, 150 or any other milestone - he just came and went!

And remember this fatty crying behind the scenes just so he could be given a 'farewell' game to break Miandad's recrord against South Africa in a series where Pak were actually 0-1 down? The poor potato dissolved in tears after being dismissed 1 short of the record. Pak couldn't win the game and lost the series. :hysterical: So unselfish. :cantstop:

[Mr. Wicket]

And remember this fatty crying behind the scenes just so he could be given a 'farewell' game to break Miandad's recrord against South Africa in a series where Pak were actually 0-1 down? The poor potato dissolved in tears after being dismissed 1 short of the record. Pak couldn't win the game and lost the series. :hysterical: So unselfish. :cantstop:

Actually, I forgot about that. Great recollection! There are so many instances of fatty crying - between the Ireland game in the last WC (scene of another great binary score, if I remember rightly), the farewell Zimbabwe game, crying to the media over his lack of respect in the Super Series, crying to the president for clemency from his post-ICL ban, etc - that it is impossible to keep track of every occasion when Binary Man has broken into tears.

[Chandan]

Chandan, have you not realized that you have contradicted yourself in a matter of two sentences. You said this; And then, you also said this; How could a batsmen capable of one of the fastest 100s by an Indian, possibly 'approach it like a test inning', when its so evidently is not? The point of a cricket match is you play to win, and not 'test the waters out in the middle', like what you suggested.

Well graphics answered that for me. Thanks Graphics! I hope you would understand that one gets to figure a new format in a few matches and if Gavaskar approached his 3rd ODI as a test, don't think he was being selfish but was simply confused how to approach a limited overs game.

But guess what Chandan, I have listened to 1000s of hours of cricket commentary for over a decade and a half, and no other cricketing legend even comes any near matching Gavaskar's obsession with numbers. I have never seen a Clive Lloyd or an Ian Chappell suggest that a batsmen must make sure they score a few runs above and beyond their century, just in case one of their earlier run was found out to be a leg-bye and hence they lose their century I have never seen a Mohinder Amarnath or a Barry Richards chide an up and coming young batsmen (Rohit Sharma) for being dismissed without scoring a 100, when their real reason for complaint must have been that he got dismissed a few runs short of the target (in the 1st CB series final..) The blunt fact of the matter is, no other cricketing legend can even come close to Gavaskar, in terms of the time he dedicates talking about stats. So, are they all wrong then?

Ohho! So it seems you didn't hear the commentary during Champions Trophy. You didn't hear those commentators talking endlessly about Ponting's 12000 runs. Imagine if 12000 runs sent them into such orgasm, what will 17000 do, especially if it'll be achieved by an Australian for the first time and would be miles ahead of any other player. And Gavaskar has a very serious point when he says that a person should make his start count, if he gets one and convert it into a big inning. It will help the team and also the confidence of the player himself. Gavaskar is a big fan of Sehwag because of this reason, if you read his columns, because he always converts his inning into something big which adds to the team's total. It isn't as if a hundred goes only in player's stats. Even Dhoni talks about players getting a start must convert it into big inning. So does Ponting, in this very series. They all must be extremely selfish player, as per your logic!

You're not going to get me to defend the Aussies (some of them are an evidently arrogant bunch..) but I have not come across too many instances where they have endlessly harped on about Bradman's average. Sure, there maybe the odd mention of it here and the, but nothing as incessant as Gavaskar's dronings.

It is so sad that even an intelligent follower like you do not understand the point he is trying to convey. Had Bradman been playing and these guys commentating then, you'd have seen the difference.

Not for a moment am I trying to belittle Gavaskar's contribution to the Indian cricket scene. He came to the scene when we were cricketing super-minnows and scored runs against top-class opponents in tough conditions like no other Indian batsmen had done till then. But I take strong exception to what I call the culture of selfishness that is so self-evident in his commentary. He seems a man more obsessed with his own game and what he does on the field, than the bigger collective picture of the team. For me at least, that attitude is like cancer. It destroys the essence of team sport and divided people. I simply CANNOT stand that.

So if a batsman tries to convert his own start into something big, for the team to have a bigger total on board is a culture of selfishness? You must start throwing the wickets away for quickfire 20s and 30s then, like Viru did this series? It was a great act of selflessness and helped the team in a big way? Wow!!

And you dont have to take my word for it. Many players in the past have alluded to Gavaskar's apparent 'selfishness', the one and only Kapil Dev included (in his autobiography..)

Kapil Dev has been the greatest player Indian team ever had. But he talks a lot of non sense like BCCI should have sacked Kirsten if they sacked Prasad and Singh. Even he said that Sachin should retire. In WC 2003, when we were playing at Durban, he said that Sachin was content at getting a 50 and he threw his wicket. Just a few minutes later we all saw how difficult it was to bat there with ball swinging everywhere and wickets falling like nine pins. So I'd rather believe in the logic of Gavaskar's 'obsession' with a big score, ie, century, rather than what Kapil Dev said.

[yoda]

http://churumuri.wordpress.com/2006/07/02/gavaskar-most-petulant-indian-cricketer-ever/ Some theories and quotes from some of those who were involved with that match. I have no respect for Gavaskar wrt to that match. It was a blot on his career, it was deliberate and intentional, IMO. That said, he has more than made up for it throughout his career. So overall, a blot, but not the defining moment of his career. And that innings alone doesn't make every comment he makes suspicious.

[EnterTheVoid]

And remember this fatty crying behind the scenes just so he could be given a 'farewell' game to break Miandad's recrord against South Africa in a series where Pak were actually 0-1 down? The poor potato dissolved in tears after being dismissed 1 short of the record. Pak couldn't win the game and lost the series. :hysterical: So unselfish. :cantstop:

[ame=

Inzamam's last Test innings, Out for 3[/ame] Need 6 Runs, Out for 3 ! True team player :D :hysterical:

[Mr. Wicket]

:rotfl: at the dismissal! I don't think I ever saw him move quicker in his career than he did when charging out of the crease. (What did they do, stick a paratha halfway down the pitch to get him to move that fast?)

[Ram]

Why are they lame? Did everyone succeed in T20 in their first game? Did they not have to take time to adjust to the format? And, my argument by no means implies that the 100 off some 80 deliveries was Gavaskar's only notable ODI knock. The 36 n.o. was the 3rd ODI, and it came in the world cup. Take a look at the density of ODI matches at the time:

28  	-  	-  	0  	0  	 	v England  	Leeds  	13 Jul 1974  	ODI # 12
20 	- 	- 	0 	0 		v England 	The Oval 	15 Jul 1974 	ODI # 13
36* 	- 	- 	0 	0 		v England 	Lord's 	7 Jun 1975 	ODI # 19
65* 	- 	- 	0 	0 		v East Africa 	Leeds 	11 Jun 1975 	ODI # 24
12 	- 	- 	0 	0 		v New Zealand 	Manchester 	14 Jun 1975 	ODI # 28
4 	1 	10 	0 	0 		v Pakistan 	Sialkot 	13 Oct 1978 	ODI # 55
8 	- 	- 	0 	0 		v West Indies 	Birmingham 	9 Jun 1979 	ODI # 61
55 	- 	- 	0 	0 		v New Zealand 	Leeds 	13 Jun 1979 	ODI # 65
26 	- 	- 	0 	0 		v Sri Lanka 	Manchester 	16 Jun 1979 	ODI # 68
4 	- 	- 	1 	0 		v Australia 	Melbourne 	6 Dec 1980 	ODI # 97
0 	- 	- 	0 	0 		v New Zealand 	Perth 	9 Dec 1980 	ODI # 99
22 	0 	7 	0 	0 		v Australia 	Sydney 	18 Dec 1980 	ODI # 100
1 	- 	- 	0 	0 		v New Zealand 	Brisbane 	21 Dec 1980 	ODI # 102
17 	- 	- 	1 	0 		v New Zealand 	Adelaide 	23 Dec 1980 	ODI # 103

We play as many ODIs in 1.5 years as Gavaskar did in his entire career. When the premier form of cricket played was Tests, and you played a few ODIs sparsely spread through 5 years, it is quite unimaginable to expect everyone to succeed right away.

I am unreasonable enough to expect Gavaskar to come and score a blazing 100 in first ODI he played. All I look for is intent. And an innings of 36 not out out seems to completely lack intent and purpose to me. You can put forward all sorts of arguments like ‘it was only the 3rd ODI and we did not play as many ODI then as we do now ‘ etc etc., but none of them address my under-lying question of lack of intent in Gavaskar’s innings. Besides, how many other opening batsmen of his time played an entire inning to score only 36 in an ODI? Surely, they were straddled with the same sense of uncertainty and novelty of the ODI game that Gavaskar was burdened with. Tellingly though, we have not had too many other instances of batsmen what Gavaskar did, the other day. And, you cannot totally accuse me of living in a different era and second guessing what happened more than 2 decades ago. Even during that time, that innings of his drew a lot of flak from many quarters.

Some do' date=' and some don't. Ultimately, that gavaskar scored 36 n.o. has no bearing on the "stats" aspect of your argument. Perhaps his commentary does but this is irrelevant. [/quote'] Sure it does. My whole grouse against Gavaskar all along has been that he has revealed a streak of selfishness with which he probably approached his game. And his obsession with stats tied into that argument.

[Ram]

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=851934&postcount=20 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=853424&postcount=35 http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=853994&postcount=48 Ahem.

?? Are you being pedantic for the sake of it? I have criticized Gavaskar's innings because no amount of 'spin' can hide the sheer hypocricy of that innings. Maybe I should start indulging in this game of nitpicking too, sounds quite fun.

[graphic23]

I am unreasonable enough to expect Gavaskar to come and score a blazing 100 in first ODI he played.

That was the point I was making as well :icflove: But.. moving past the typo,

All I look for is intent. And an innings of 36 not out out seems to completely lack intent and purpose to me. You can put forward all sorts of arguments like ‘it was only the 3rd ODI and we did not play as many ODI then as we do now ‘ etc etc., but none of them address my under-lying question of lack of intent in Gavaskar’s innings.

I really cannot understand this logic. You have answered the question yourself, and still question Gavaskar's innings. Every player has had a freak innings. Sure, 36 n.o. as an opener in 60 overs is awful - by any standards, but I am not sure how much extrapolate from that. Particularly, as you are using the innings to claim that Gavaskar was extremely selfish. Perhaps, 5-6 years down the lane, you will use this match and claim that Tendulkar was selfish because he was going to score the slowest hundred of all of his centuries - ever. (Although going by your earlier post in this thread, you have already hinted that Tendulkar is worried about the records, and I am not quite sure what the apt reply for that statement is - especially coming from someone who has followed Sachin's career very closely). Maybe this 2nd innings Rahul Dravid knock is enough for you to call him selfish and claim that his 'lack of intent' shows that he's obsessed about statistics? If you're going to claim that this is a test match vs. Gavaskar's ODI match, I think a S/R of 12.5 in test matches TODAY is equivalent to an opener scoring 36 n.o. in a Limited Overs game (particularly seeing that Dravid played 96 deliveries). Another thing that baffles me is the fact that you've completely ignored the fact that a higher S/R is a very important factor for any batsman in the LOI format, and playing slowly deliberately would mean that you're match fixing or want to get dropped - not being selfish there.

Besides, how many other opening batsmen of his time played an entire inning to score only 36 in an ODI? Surely, they were straddled with the same sense of uncertainty and novelty of the ODI game that Gavaskar was burdened with. Tellingly though, we have not had too many other instances of batsmen what Gavaskar did, the other day. And, you cannot totally accuse me of living in a different era and second guessing what happened more than 2 decades ago. Even during that time, that innings of his drew a lot of flak from many quarters.

As did so many other players during all the eras. You are claiming that Gavaskar was a selfish statistically obsessed batsman based on ONE freak ODI innings out of 108 matches that he played over a 13-14 year span. If this statement is NOT true, and you have other innings to show me that Gavaskar was selfish, I'll retract this.

Sure it does. My whole grouse against Gavaskar all along has been that he has revealed a streak of selfishness with which he probably approached his game. And his obsession with stats tied into that argument.

Again, playing out 60 overs for 36 n.o, at best will increase your average by a few decimals (in the tenths or hundreds place) - and make your S/R go down several points (seeing that it was only his 3rd ODI, it probably had a severe effect on S/R). Care to point out how this is being selfish? As far as I understand, its an awful innings that anyone will hope not to ever replicate. This is akin to claiming that Jadeja was playing for his average in that match against England in the T20 WC in England earlier this year. That was why he didn't try to hit because he wanted to remain not out at the end of the innings. Does it even make sense to you ? I did not want to derail the quotes thread so I'm going to quote your post in that thread here (even though it was not addressed at me):

?? Are you being pedantic for the sake of it? I have criticized Gavaskar's innings because no amount of 'spin' can hide the sheer hypocricy of that innings. Maybe I should start indulging in this game of nitpicking too, sounds quite fun.

What hypocrisy are we talking about here? I have addressed the 36 n.o. above. I will not do it again. As far as I know, from the articles I've read from the past and following most of Gavaskar's articles these days, he has been one guy who has never vacillated about his opinion on anything. He accused the umpire's decision being one due to bias towards Australian players in his walkout in 1981, and he did the same nearly 27 years later in several circumstances during the Indian tour of Australia 07-08. Just thought I'd add this in here (even if you may know it): when Gavaskar started his career in 1971, India was NOT a strong team. We did not have too many records to speak proudly of, we were a relatively weak team even though we had been playing since the 1930s. Obviously, we did not have a lot of say in the decisions that were made by the MCC or the ICC. He wanted to be that guy who changed that. An Indian batsman at the top of the runs scored (ever) in Test cricket. From his perspective, he wanted India to be recognized as a country that could produce batsman of his calibre - in case you have forgotten, this is arguably the best batsman against the West Indies' pace attack, in their prime. He has bullied them on their land in their prime - coming from a team that used to use HIM as the opening bowler. Think about that for a second. When you hear comments such as "India is only good enough to beat East Africa", you're bound to want to prove them wrong. Clearly, being recognized as statistically superior to other batsmen mattered to him - and from his perspective, and from the perspective of those times, it is absolutely valid. I am not sure what you gain by claiming 100s of times that he is a statistically obsessed batsman. Well, if I can have a guy like Gavaskar open the innings and score 10000 runs and that too 14 centuries against the greatest pace attack of all times, I'm not sure I'd refuse. Someone else (or maybe it was you) brought up the fact that he spoke of a Rohit 100 during the 240 chase in the first CB series final last march. Clearly, whoever it was, has short term memory loss problems. He was full of praise for Rohit Sharma (deservedly), and inspite of the 66, Gavaskar mentioned that though it might not have been possible for him to get a hundred (as the score was 210 when he was dismissed), players are judged by the fifties, hundreds, and not outs that they score when playing a game. Having been there, done it at the highest level, I'd think Gavaskar knows what he's talking about. We talk about conversion rates all the time. [/rant].

[Mr. Wicket]

?? Are you being pedantic for the sake of it? I have criticized Gavaskar's innings because no amount of 'spin' can hide the sheer hypocricy of that innings.

Hardly pedantry, just calling you out on a BS comment as you've posted plenty of times in the past on incidents of the past that you obviously have not watched, and now make this claim just to try and defend a comment that shows a complete blind spot re. a particularly historically significant cricket series.

[graphic23]

?? Are you being pedantic for the sake of it? I have criticized Gavaskar's innings because no amount of 'spin' can hide the sheer hypocricy of that innings. Maybe I should start indulging in this game of nitpicking too, sounds quite fun.

I've responded to an aspect of this post in another thread. But honestly speaking, forget Gavaskar's hypocrisy. What about your own everytime you mention that Yuvraj has been the "lynchpin of the ODI team" for the past 5 years, completely ignoring the fact that he plays alongside the worlds #1 ranked batsman (presently), and world's #1 ranked batsman (of all time). How's that for hypocrisy and in general, just sheer ignorance?

[Ram]

Hardly pedantry' date=' just calling you out on a BS comment as you've posted plenty of times in the past on incidents of the past that you obviously have not watched, and now make this claim just to try and defend a comment that shows a complete blind spot re. a particularly historically significant cricket series.[/quote'] Oh really? I take you up on this. I have posted my opinion on 100s, maybe 1000s of cricketing incidents in this very board. I'd like you to bring out 10, yes just 10 of them, where I have passed judgement on incidents of the past. I am presuming that must be real easy since you yourself have claimed I have done do it 'plenty of times' And my comment Anil Kumble is my own interpretation of the events that preceeded and suceeded that match and once again and I can fully justify it, given the drama that surrounded it.

[Ram]

I've responded to an aspect of this post in another thread. But honestly speaking' date=' forget Gavaskar's hypocrisy. What about your own everytime you mention that Yuvraj has been the "lynchpin of the ODI team" for the past 5 years, [i']completely ignoring the fact that he plays alongside the worlds #1 ranked batsman (presently), and world's #1 ranked batsman (of all time). How's that for hypocrisy and in general, just sheer ignorance?

Are you really thick or something? I said yuvraj is the lynchpin of the odi team. I never said he is the only lynchpin of team or the only reason why we win matches. What part of that sounds hard to understand? What I said is neither hypocritical (I have given credit to all of our other batsmen their roles in our victories) nor is if ignorant (his role in the rise of our ODI sucesses is undeniable). I dunno about you mate, but if I were you, I'd check up the meaning of certain adjectives in the dictionary before I use them freely.

[The Outsider]

^ Not to nitpick but linchpin is generally used to signify the single, most important aspect of something.

[graphic23]

Are you really thick or something? I said yuvraj is the lynchpin of the odi team. I never said he is the only lynchpin of team or the only reason why we win matches. What part of that sounds hard to understand? What I said is neither hypocritical (I have given credit to all of our other batsmen their roles in our victories) nor is if ignorant (his role in the rise of our ODI sucesses is undeniable). I dunno about you mate, but if I were you, I'd check up the meaning of certain adjectives in the dictionary before I use them freely.

From a dictionary:

lynchpin: a person or thing that is critical to a system or organisation

Now if you were calling yuvraj THE lynchpin of the ODI team, how does that not imply that he is the single most important player of our team? Furthermore, based on your other posts (one of which that suggested that a MO average of 36 is equivalent or greater than an opener average of 44-45), I could infer what I wrote in my previous post.

[graphic23]

Ignoring Tendulkar for now, since I believe even you cannot question Sachin's authority in the game, and his importance to our team: -------------- MS Dhoni (started in 23rd Dec. 2004 - So approx. 5 year span) Average: 50.04 79.85 in Won matches starting 2004 December 26.85 in Lost matches ----- Yuvraj's His average in ODIs since 24 Dec 2004 ? 43.24 Yuvraj's average in matches won: 57.5 Average in matches lost: 28.23 Clearly, Yuvraj has a key role to play in our middle order. Does that make him the "lynchpin" as you've exaggeratedly claimed since forever? No, because forgetting Tendulkar, the captain of our team has clearly contributed equally or greater to our success. --- Since Dhoni took over as captain, from the India-Australia ODI series 2 years ago to now, Dhoni's first bilateral series was a loss, and now this one. In between, we've won all our bilateral series. So, during that time (which I would call "a rise in our ODI successes"), lets take a look at who's done better: Dhoni's average in matches won: 80.04 Dhoni's average in matches lost: 31.54 His overall average: 56.21 Yuvraj's average in matches won: 53.25 Yuvraj's average in matches lost: 26.45 His overall average: 40.63 If I distinguish the averages for away and home, there's only one clear winner (not that there isn't now). Keep in mind that I'm not claiming that Yuvraj has not been important to our team - I think he's been extremely important and of late, he's done pretty well as well.

[Ram]

From a dictionary: Now if you were calling yuvraj THE lynchpin of the ODI team, how does that not imply that he is the single most important player of our team? Furthermore, based on your other posts (one of which that suggested that a MO average of 36 is equivalent or greater than an opener average of 44-45), I could infer what I wrote in my previous post.

Ignoring Tendulkar for now, since I believe even you cannot question Sachin's authority in the game, and his importance to our team: -------------- MS Dhoni (started in 23rd Dec. 2004 - So approx. 5 year span) Average: 50.04 79.85 in Won matches starting 2004 December 26.85 in Lost matches ----- Yuvraj's His average in ODIs since 24 Dec 2004 ? 43.24 Yuvraj's average in matches won: 57.5 Average in matches lost: 28.23 Clearly, Yuvraj has a key role to play in our middle order. Does that make him the "lynchpin" as you've exaggeratedly claimed since forever? No, because forgetting Tendulkar, the captain of our team has clearly contributed equally or greater to our success. --- Since Dhoni took over as captain, from the India-Australia ODI series 2 years ago to now, Dhoni's first bilateral series was a loss, and now this one. In between, we've won all our bilateral series. So, during that time (which I would call "a rise in our ODI successes"), lets take a look at who's done better: Dhoni's average in matches won: 80.04 Dhoni's average in matches lost: 31.54 His overall average: 56.21 Yuvraj's average in matches won: 53.25 Yuvraj's average in matches lost: 26.45 His overall average: 40.63 If I distinguish the averages for away and home, there's only one clear winner (not that there isn't now). Keep in mind that I'm not claiming that Yuvraj has not been important to our team - I think he's been extremely important and of late, he's done pretty well as well.

I generally resist from playing the stats game, because as the saying goes, ‘There are lies, damned lies and statistics..’. But I understand that stats do help paint a generic picture every now then, which makes it worthwhile for us to indulge in it every once in a while. But merely pointing out the averages of players in the respective period is hardly a way to present a worthwhile case in favor of, or against that player, because that approach is flawed in so many ways. First of all, I’d like to question your basis for the ‘Average in matches won’ stat as a differentiating factor between players. Sure, it may give you a good indication of how the player performed in the matches we won, but does that mean we ignore his performances in the matches we lost? I understand that the overall average stat that you have pointed out does bring the performance in lost matches too, but solely highlighting average in matches won alone skews the reality, especially for someone like Dhoni, who has a unusually high number of not outs in chases. Take for example the 3rd ODI between India and Australia in the series just concluded. Both Yuvraj and Dhoni made significant scores in that. Yuvraj scored 70+ in that match and got dismissed, while Dhoni also score similar amount of runs and was unbeaten. UV’s average for that match was 70-odd, while Dhoni’s average for that match was infinity. Does that mean the difference in contribution of the two players towards our victory in that match was that big? Of course not. If anything, it was Yuvraj who won the man of the match, because it was he who propelled our chase during the most uncomfortable middle overs. So, the ability of a player to remain unbeaten should not be the deciding factor in giving him the relative importance. Therefore, to get the real picture, lets do a series-by-series comparison of the three players shall we, and assign an ‘Allan Border Medal’ style 3, 2 and 1 points for the relative contribution of the three players in our performances in that series. Once again, what I am looking for here isn’t merely 50s and 100s and unbeaten innings (that boost up the averages unreasonably), but real performances that maybe hidden underneath all the stats. For simplicity’s sake, I am dividing my analysis over three timelines; 1)2002 Natwest trophy – 2004/05 BCCI Platinum Jubilee match 2)2004/05 B’desh series to WC ‘07 3)2007 WC – Present. I chose these respective timelines because 2002 was when Yuraj really cemented his place in the ODIs and Dhoni made his international debut in the 2004/05 B’desh series. I expect Sachin outscore Yuvraj in the first period, while Yuvraj to win the battle in the 2nd period, with Dhoni taking the honors in the third. The rules of the game are as follows;

• If a player misses a tournament due to injury or any other reason, he will be given a zero (which I think is reasonably fair because the ability of a player to remain fit also determines his relative value to the team)
• A single outstanding performance gets one point, while consistent performances right throughout the series gets 2 points for the player.
• If there’s a tie between the top two players, both of them will be awarded 2 points
• If a player does not have a worthwhile performance at all in a tournament, he will be given no points.
• Bonus points will be awarded for outstanding performances in that series.
• Efforts even in losing causes will be considered.

Note; If you’re interested, we can tweak the rules as we go along. Before we go on to the individual analysis for the first timeline (June 2002 to November 31), here’s an overall look at the numbers for the two players concerned Sachin played 53 matches, scored 2328 runs at an extremely impressive average of 49.6, with 6 100s Yuvraj played 77 matches, scoring 1851 runs at an average of 30.3, with 2 100s. On the face of it, there’s only one clear winner in this comparison – Sachin. He scored more runs, at a higher average. A series-by-series analysis reveals a slightly different picture.

Series: 2002 Natwest series. Stats: Sachin – 337 runs at an average of 56, with 2 100s Yuvraj – 254 runs at an average of 50 Description – This series is memorable for two reasons – a) Sachin was bunted down the order probably for the first time since he promoted to opening and b) The Yuvraj – Kaif Partnership that won us the final from that almost improbable position. Points – Sachin - 2 Yuvraj - 2 Dhoni – 0* * - Dhoni did not even make his debut then, but a separate comparison of point from the point in which he made his debut will be done later. Sub total : Sachin – 2, Yuvraj – 2

Series: 2002/03 ICC Champions Trophy Stats: Sachin – 39 runs at an average of 19.50 Yuvraj – 65 runs at an average of 32.50 Description – Notable aspects of this series a)Kaif’s 100 against Zim in our first pool match b)Sehwag’s blitzkrieg against England c) Our tremendous fightback to win the semis against the Saffies and d) The washed out finals. Both Sachin and Yuvraj bombed in the league matches, while Yuvraj made a significant contribution in the semis against the South Africa. ( 62 versus Sachin’s score of 16) Points: Sachin – 0 (Sachin does not any points because he did have any score of note in this series) Yuvraj - 1 Dhoni – 0* Sub total: Sachin – 2, Yuvraj - 3

Series: 2002/03 West Indies in India (7 match ODI series) Stats: Sachin – Did not play Yuvraj – 172 runs at an average of 28.66 Description – Very high scoring series in which the Windies pipped us 4-3 Yuvraj did not do much in the first 5 matches of this series, while scoring 50s in the last 2 matches (one in a losing cause, one in a winning) Points – Sachin – 0 Yuvraj – 1 Dhoni – 0* Sub total :Sachin – 2, Yuvraj – 4, Dhoni – 0

Series: 2002/03 India in New Zealand (7 match ODI series) Stats: Sachin – Missed the first 4 matches, only played the last 3, scoring just 2 runs collectively in all of them Yuvraj – A poor series, with just 134 runs in 7 innings. Did have a match-winning 50 while chasing in the 5th ODI. Description – A disastrous series for us, batting wise. Except Sehwag, no other batsmen even looked like scoring runs. Points – Sachin – 0 Yuvraj – 1 Dhoni – 0* Sub total :Sachin – 2, Yuvraj – 5, Dhoni – 0

Series: 2002/03 ICC world cup Stats: Sachin – 673 runs at 11 matches at an average of 61 Yuvraj – 240 runs at an average of 34. Description – Enough has already been said and written about this tournament. Points – Sachin – 4 (Sachin gets a two bonus points in this tournament for his outstanding consistency and that magical innings in the final Yuvraj – 1 (Yuvraj gets one point for his superb 50 in the semi-final and other minor contributions) Dhoni – 0* Sub total: Sachin – 6, Yuvraj – 6, Dhoni – 0

Series: 2003 TVS Cup ( Ind, South Africa and B’desh, held in B’desh) Stats: Sachin – Did not play Yuvraj – 115 runs at an average of 115 Description – We performed reasonably well in this tournament, but the final was abandoned without a ball being bowled Points Sachin – 0 Yuvraj – 1 (Yuvraj gets a point for his superb unbeaten 100 against B’desh in the first league match) Dhoni – 0* Sub total : Sachin – 6, Yuvraj – 7, Dhoni – 0

Series: 2003/04 India in Pakistan Stats: Sachin – 213 runs at an average of 42 (Sachin smashed that superb yet unsuccessful 141 against Pakistan in the 2nd ODI) Yuvraj – 141 runs at an average of 28 (Did not do things of much worth in this tournament) Description – We beat the Pakistanis 3-2 in a closely fought series. Sachin – 1 (Sachin gets a point for that superb 100) Yuvraj – 0 Dhoni – 0* Sub total :Sachin – 7, Yuvraj – 7, Dhoni – 0

Series: 2004 Asia Cup Stats: Sachin – 281 runs at an average of 56, our highest scorer in this tournament Yuvraj – 155 runs at an average of 31, with one solitary 50 Description – Lost to Pakistan in the league phase, lost to lanka in the final. Sachin – 2 (Sachin gets two points for being our highest scorer and the lone star of the final) Yuvraj – 0 Dhoni – 0* Sub total :Sachin – 9, Yuvraj – 7, Dhoni – 0

Series: 2004 Videocon cup (Ind, Pakistan and Australia in Netherlands) Stats: Sachin – Did not play Yuvraj – 13 runs at an average of 13, Description – Lost to Pakistan in the qualifying phase. Qualifying match against Australia washed out, didn’t make it to the finals Sachin – 0 Yuvraj – 0 Dhoni – 0* Sub total :Sachin – 9, Yuvraj – 7, Dhoni – 0

Series: 2004 Natwest Challenge (Ind, England and Wales in Wales) Stats: Sachin – Did not play Yuvraj – 37 runs at an average of 13 in 3 matches Description – Lost the series 1-2 to England Sachin – 0 Yuvraj – 0 Dhoni – 0* Sub total :Sachin – 9, Yuvraj – 7, Dhoni – 0

Series: 2004 ICC Champions trophy Stats: Sachin – Did not play Yuvraj – 9 runs at an average of 4.5 in 2 matches Description – Won against Kenya, lost against Pakistan and failed to qualify for the semis Sachin – 0 Yuvraj – 0 Dhoni – 0* Sub total :Sachin – 9, Yuvraj – 7, Dhoni – 0

Series: 2004/05 BCCI Platinum Jubilee match Stats: Sachin – 13 Yuvraj – Top scored with 78 Description – Salman Butt’s 100 won it for Pakistan on that day Sachin – 0 Yuvraj – 1 Dhoni – 0* Sub total :Sachin – 9, Yuvraj – 8, Dhoni – 0

The true highlight for us during the period so far was our Natwest trophy win in England and the world cup performance by Sachin. Sachin outperformed Yuvraj in a significant number of series, but also missed more than 20 games in this period, which allowed Yuvraj to claw some points back. Over the remainder of this week, I will also post the series-by-series analysis for all the 3 players for the remaining two periods. At the end of it, we can decide who is the one true significant component of our ODI batting unit.

[The Outsider]

The points distribution is absolutely ridiculous in the above post. brb, coming up with a system where Agarkar is better than Akram.......oh wait I've already done that.

[Ram]

The points distribution is absolutely ridiculous in the above post. brb, coming up with a system where Agarkar is better than Akram.......oh wait I've already done that.

Which point assignment do you consider ridiculous? If you choose, you can even pick any one series and point out the anamoly. You’re also free to suggest alternatives. But if you’re simply going to say ‘Here are the averages, here are the 50s, the 100s, and the not-outs’, I will consider that even more ridiculous. This may not be the most scientic method, but I consider this far more sophisticated than the 'Averages in wins, losses, 50s and 100s' argument, that completey lacks any sort of context whatsoever.