akshayxyz Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Surely he had to have support cast, after all India had to put 11 players on field to get the game going. What do you understand by phrase "carried India completely on his shoulders"? India put just one player, Sachin, in the team for these matches? Below link provides numbers of Indian batsmen in later half of 90's in ODI's. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;result=1;spanmax1=01+jan+2000;spanmin1=01+jan+1996;spanval1=span;team=6;template=results;type=batting But I don't think these numbers will make you admit anything as you would rather deny your own experience than conceding a point. Anybody who has watched cricket in 90's knows what was Sachin's importance to Indian team, specially in ODI's. People would stop TV's when Sachin would get out and I am sure you would have done/experienced same , if you were an Indian cricket fan then. ++ It is difficult to put across the point 'carrying the burden/one man army' to anyone who has not experienced that. Link to comment
Guest BossBhai Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 -- Removed on request of the user -- Link to comment
Sooda Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Passage of time and advances of all kinds mean bowlers from the 30s will not be as good as guys now. By the same token even good-but-not-great practitioners (let alone the real outstanding ones) of any art, operating right now will be better than their forefathers Jermain Defoe >>> Pele Robin Soderling >>> Sampras ( McEnroe and Borg toh duur ki baat) David Haye >>> Mohammed Ali Link to comment
Sooda Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Id be interested to hear why Ramakant Achrekar became a cricketer, and then a coach. What if Bradman was even in part an inspiration on that front. Tendulkar attributes a huge amount of his success to his coach. Link to comment
Lurker Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Surely he had to have support cast, after all India had to put 11 players on field to get the game going. What do you understand by phrase "carried India completely on his shoulders"? India put just one player, Sachin, in the team for these matches? Below link provides numbers of Indian batsmen in later half of 90's in ODI's. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;result=1;spanmax1=01+jan+2000;spanmin1=01+jan+1996;spanval1=span;team=6;template=results;type=batting But I don't think these numbers will make you admit anything as you would rather deny your own experience than conceding a point. Anybody who has watched cricket in 90's knows what was Sachin's importance to Indian team, specially in ODI's. People would stop TV's when Sachin would get out and I am sure you would have done/experienced same , if you were an Indian cricket fan then. Please feel free to read up on Kapil Dev, Richard Hadlee etc to understand one-man band definition. Everything else is just meandering to prove why SRT was a one-man band. Well he never was :winky: Link to comment
mishra Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Passage of time and advances of all kinds mean bowlers from the 30s will not be as good as guys now. By the same token even good-but-not-great practitioners (let alone the real outstanding ones) of any art, operating right now will be better than their forefathers Jermain Defoe >>> Pele Robin Soderling >>> Sampras ( McEnroe and Borg toh duur ki baat) David Haye >>> Mohammed Ali :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: Link to comment
mishra Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Please feel free to read up on Kapil Dev, Richard Hadlee etc to understand one-man band definition. Everything else is just meandering to prove why SRT was a one-man band. Well he never was :winky: I know what you are trying to say about one man army.... I used to switch off the tele when Kapil and More used to get out. But did you notice one thing. You are giving examples of allrounders. Yes allrounders do win games singlehandedly. Imran,Kapil,Hedlee,Beefy are examples of it. But there was a time when whatever opponent scored, Sachin will score that for us. If we batted first, despite our weak bowling if Sachin scored that will be fastest rate anyone will score on that day.... In nineties, despite not only quality but match fixing antics of our batsmen Indian bookies wouldnt do all out anti India bet as long as Sachin was there.. So Sachin deserves some credit. :hatsoff: Link to comment
don_corleone840 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 NO one can be compared to SRT.sachin tendulkar is greatest thing ever happened to cricket.Infact i would say that SRT >> CRICKET itself..Vivan richards can be compared to sehwag but dont compare him to SRT. Link to comment
Raghav_12 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Please feel free to read up on Kapil Dev, Richard Hadlee etc to understand one-man band definition. Everything else is just meandering to prove why SRT was a one-man band. Well he never was :winky: I know you are trying to wink away as facts presented seriously undermine your argument. In between Sachin being one-man band and Kapil/Hadlee being one man band are not mutually exclusive events. Link to comment
Lurker Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 But did you notice one thing. You are giving examples of allrounders. Yes allrounders do win games singlehandedly. Imran,Kapil,Hedlee,Beefy are examples of it. My mention of Kapil and Hadlee was not with their all-rounder skills, which obviously they were great at. My mention was strictly about bowling acumen. Before Kapil arrived we had NO pace bowlers with even 100 wickets to his name. Gavaskar and Solkar would open bowling and rarely, if ever, did any opposition batsmen shake in their boots facing Indian pacers. Kapil arrives, make batsmen wear helmets against India, takes wickets by dozens and ends up with 400 wickets. That, is a one-man band. You can do the same with Hadlee and NZ bowling, and if anything Hadlee would be ahead of Kapil. You can not do the same with SRT. we already had batsmen with 5K, 10K etc before he arrived. I dont quite see how you can So Sachin deserves some credit. :hatsoff: Sure he does. One of the greatest bat of all times. Link to comment
The Outsider Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Surely he had to have support cast, after all India had to put 11 players on field to get the game going. What do you understand by phrase "carried India completely on his shoulders"? India put just one player, Sachin, in the team for these matches? Below link provides numbers of Indian batsmen in later half of 90's in ODI's. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;result=1;spanmax1=01+jan+2000;spanmin1=01+jan+1996;spanval1=span;team=6;template=results;type=batting But I don't think these numbers will make you admit anything as you would rather deny your own experience than conceding a point. Anybody who has watched cricket in 90's knows what was Sachin's importance to Indian team, specially in ODI's. People would stop TV's when Sachin would get out and I am sure you would have done/experienced same , if you were an Indian cricket fan then. Just out of curiosity, what are these stats supposed to show? I can see that they are the batting stats for a 5 year period of Indian batsmen in matches won, but what do they represent? Link to comment
Tendya Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Bradman, Sachin and Richards would figure in most World XIs(along with Sobers at 6), and in my opinion too they are the 3 best batsmen to play cricket. So its pretty obvious that opinion would be divided here. One more point to note is ppl tend to favour attacking batsmen(in 5 yrs Sehwag might be regarded as a better opening bat than Gavaskar). Not that Sachin is a defensive bat but Richards was a freak when it comes to attacking the bowlers. But if i had to pick one, it would obv be Goddy Link to comment
akshayxyz Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 9 pages and still going! Both were mediocre batsman who ended up achieving more than they deserve. /thread. Link to comment
Raghav_12 Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Just out of curiosity' date=' what are these stats supposed to show? I can see that they are the batting stats for a 5 year period of Indian batsmen in matches won, but what do they represent?[/quote'] Was countering Lurker's argument that Sachin's contribution to India ODI team of mid to late 90's is overstated. These figures show that for the above mentioned period he was indeed pivotal to India's success as you can see from batting averages in India's win. Nobody is anywhere close to Sachin where he averages a colossal 76.5. Don't think you needed that explanation, but since you asked :cantstop: To accompany those stats I have another set of stats for the matches which India lost. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;orderby=batting_average;result=2;spanmax1=01+jan+2000;spanmin1=01+jan+1996;spanval1=span;team=6;template=results;type=batting You can see here Four batsmen average higher than Sachin. If you combine both these stats together, my logical conclusion would be that India's success was very much dependent on Sachin's performance. Link to comment
The Outsider Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Was countering Lurker's argument that Sachin's contribution to India ODI team of mid to late 90's is overstated. These figures show that for the above mentioned period he was indeed pivotal to India's success as you can see from batting averages in India's win. Nobody is anywhere close to Sachin where he averages a colossal 76.5. Don't think you needed that explanation, but since you asked :cantstop: To accompany those stats I have another set of stats for the matches which India lost. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;orderby=batting_average;result=2;spanmax1=01+jan+2000;spanmin1=01+jan+1996;spanval1=span;team=6;template=results;type=batting You can see here Four batsmen average higher than Sachin. If you combine both these stats together, my logical conclusion would be that India's success was very much dependent on Sachin's performance. Applying the same 'logic' can we say Dhoni has been a one man army over the last 5 years? Matches won : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;orderby=batting_average;result=1;spanmin2=28+Jun+2006;spanval2=span;team=6;template=results;type=batting Clear leader in terms of averages. Matches lost : http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;orderby=batting_average;result=2;spanmin2=28+Jun+2006;spanval2=span;team=6;template=results;type=batting 5 batsmen above him. Link to comment
akshayxyz Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Was countering Lurker's argument that Sachin's contribution to India ODI team of mid to late 90's is overstated. These figures show that for the above mentioned period he was indeed pivotal to India's success as you can see from batting averages in India's win. Nobody is anywhere close to Sachin where he averages a colossal 76.5. Don't think you needed that explanation, but since you asked :cantstop: To accompany those stats I have another set of stats for the matches which India lost. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=2;orderby=batting_average;result=2;spanmax1=01+jan+2000;spanmin1=01+jan+1996;spanval1=span;team=6;template=results;type=batting You can see here Four batsmen average higher than Sachin. If you combine both these stats together, my logical conclusion would be that India's success was very much dependent on Sachin's performance. This is an interesting stat. Some people will be quick to interpret it as - SRT fails to win matches that matter. Which is another way of presenting 'burden of expectations' he has carried. Link to comment
Lurker Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Was countering Lurker's argument that Sachin's contribution to India ODI team of mid to late 90's is overstated. Correction, my assertion is SRT has not been one-man band and certainly not what you are suggesting. Feel free to pull stats left right and center but also to look around for India's batting during his 25 odd years of cricket and there is a good chance he always had a few good bats to support him. Link to comment
akshayxyz Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 ^ Clarification - SRT was as much of a one man army has it can be or has ever been in cricket, at least on par with the names you mentioned Kapil, Hadlee. Link to comment
The Outsider Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Correction' date=' my assertion is SRT has not been one-man band and certainly not what you are suggesting. Feel free to pull stats left right and center but also to look around for India's batting during his 25 odd years of cricket and there is a good chance he always had a few good bats to support him.[/quote'] It's funny how the fan boys try to spin myths and in the process bring down the achievements of other Indian batsmen. Yeah, Indian batting was not very good outside the subcontinent in test matches during the 90s but besides that the likes of Azhar, Sidhu, Kambli, Jadeja, Ganguly, Dravid formed a more than decent support cast. Certainly, not bad enough to be branded a one man army except for a couple of seasons when Azhar was out of form, Sidhu fell out with the management, and Dravid/Ganguly had not quite established themselves. Link to comment
The Outsider Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 ^ Clarification - SRT was as much of a one man army has it can be or has ever been in cricket, at least on par with the names you mentioned Kapil, Hadlee. :hysterical::hysterical: Link to comment
Recommended Posts