Cricinfo out to defame Sachin..

[Holysmoke]

you guys are cribbing about sachins centuries. But these innings were almost chanceless. Not like Karthik who gave 3 catches etc. So what if he didnt loft the ball and score fast. This was a test, and we won it in less than 3 days. For me, the debate ends right there.

[Roshanrocks]

India scored 610 runs at an average of almost 4 runs an over ? Whers is the question of even having the need to "up the ante" ? And we should remember that every innings consists of partnerships, and sachin played the role that was asked of him -- the steadying influence as the batsman at the other end attacked. Where is need for sachin to go slam-bang when there there is Dhoni at the other end ? And anyways , his strike rate for the entire innings is 53 , which is not too bad by any standards. I am getting tired of defending Sachin. Its obvious that most of you have made up your mind that he is "slow" , "selfish" etc.. Only time will tell how valuable sachin still is to the Indian team..

:--D Father time has spoken

[Ram]

Boy, 2007 was an interesting time to be an Indian cricket fan! :--D

[Holysmoke]

Boy' date=' 2007 was an interesting time to be an Indian cricket fan! :--D[/quote'] :icflove:

[Shakthi]

Boy' date=' 2007 was an interesting time to be an Indian cricket fan! :--D[/quote'] First half of 2007 was nightmare after first round exit in the world cup all started with series in England where sachin showed y he is the greatest batsman of all time .

[RockStar]

First half of 2007 was nightmare after first round exit in the world cup all started with series in England where sachin showed y he is the greatest batsman of all time .

yup things started happening after he got those fine 90s against south africa on those seaming tracks of belfast..

[Ram]

I just re-read the whole article again for the lulz it is among the biggest bunch of crap I have seen on cricinfo. The author was whining how one batsmen was apparently scoring too slowly, even as the combined team run-rate was around 4, which is excellent by test cricket standards. The overarching theme of the article was 'Why isnt he dominating? Why isnt he scoring faster than he actually is..?', like as though the sole motto of a cricketing team is to have every single player who goes into the game dominate every single aspect of the current situation. There are several gems in that article that deserve special mention, but i just picked out a few;

Coming in at 281 for 0, Tendulkar never looked like he was batting in a side pushing for a declaration on a flat wicket where their bowlers would need the maximum time to get 20 wickets.

So much for the concern about time to pick up 20 opposition wickets. The test was over in less than 3 days.

What does one expect of a No. 4 walking in at 281 for 0, when the team know they will have to bowl on a flat wicket in extremely tough conditions? Tendulkar has, not unfairly, been put in the same bracket as Ricky Ponting and Brian Lara over his career but surely neither would have scored at a strike-rate of 53.98 in a similar situation?

Wow, that tone is soooo condescending. Its almost as though he's saying 'Lets just assume for now that Sachin is in the same league as Lara and Ponting, so that I can bash him even more..' Like as though he's making a concession to Sachin by having him in the same class as the other two..Seriously dude.... that is just SOOOOOO effed up.. :headshake:

Ganguly's arrival should have forced Tendulkar to take charge. Instead, he seemed more intent on ensuring that a 37th Test hundred didn't elude him - Tendulkar was on 83 when Ganguly came, and the get-your-century-at-any-cost attitude meant he used up 42 deliveries to go from 80 to 100.

Wow, did he just say the only reason Sachin was out there was to get his 100? But this is the best bit though;

It just doesn't seem possible that the team plan required Tendulkar to play anchor, after having racked up such a large total without losing a wicket and especially as Rahul Dravid also asserted himself on the game. If it was, it was a flawed one. That they got quick wickets towards the end of the day's play should not change things; it remains that the wicket was not doing anything while Tendulkar batted.

Here he is saying in the first part of the sentence that the 'plan to have Sachin play anchor and other around to attack was flawed becuase it wont work', only to contradict in the second half saying 'That it worked shouldnt change the fact that it was flawed..'. :cantstop: Plus, it has to be some flawed logic, for it to have worked so badly.. After all, we won only by an innings and 240 runs.. Had Sachin scored faster, we would have won by TWO Innings! This is what happens when you get too caught up in stats and forget the fact that one of the most captivating things about the game of cricket, unlike most other sports, is that it is WAAAAAY more nuanced than any stat table can capture. There are always smaller battles going on within bigger battles and the game ebbs and flows like no other sport and you cannot characterize, at least not 100% accurately, a particular phase within a game by a set of stats.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --