Jump to content

Do you think the legacy of SRT will be hurt by this series!


Recommended Posts

Posted

Of course yes. Not just Sachin's lgacy, these drubbings will now follow this team everytime we step outside Asia. In a way though its good, as the next time we travel outside with a young team, they would know it can't get worse than 8-0, fans would have no expectations either and who knows that may help them do better than expected.

Posted
SRT's legacy is in tatters. Even Arjun has probably removed all of his posters and put up pictures of winners like Kallis .
Cut the crap brah. Kallis on his last tours of Eng- 7, 13, 4, 64, 5, 2, 9 In Aus- 63, 57, 26, 37, 4 291 runs in 12 innings@24
Posted
I have seen Sachin bat from day one and have followed him all along. He certainly was an ATG but not the greatest behind Bradman. When he entered the arena at the tender age of sixteen when boys of his age were still playing for school - he certainly fullfilled his potential as a teenager, but he did not leverage upon that early start to make a mark as the greatest modern batsman. I would have been more satisfied with Sachin at just 8000 runs at 75.0 average ( which he was capable of, but did not acheive, and therefore there is very little to separate him from Lara, Richards,Ponting, Kallis etc) with a couple of triple hundreds and a dozen of double hundreds and several match winning hundreds in a fighting cause. Without being clearly ahead of his peers, there is of course no reason to call him the greatest, except in a sense of hero worship or patriotism, sans objectivity - his records are mostly a result of longevity and in test cricket he really does not own any record apart from those obtained by very good players playing for very long periods. He did not score a 300, he did not score even 500 in a series, he did not average 60+, did not have a SR of 60, did not win too many matches for India under pressure. he did not stay at the top in the battings ranks for a long time etc. Infact, there is very little to call him the greatest, based on statistics alone. He is one of the greatest, certainly.
This is spot on. Well said mate!
Posted
I have seen Sachin bat from day one and have followed him all along. He certainly was an ATG but not the greatest behind Bradman. When he entered the arena at the tender age of sixteen when boys of his age were still playing for school - he certainly fullfilled his potential as a teenager, but he did not leverage upon that early start to make a mark as the greatest modern batsman. I would have been more satisfied with Sachin at just 8000 runs at 75.0 average ( which he was capable of, but did not acheive, and therefore there is very little to separate him from Lara, Richards,Ponting, Kallis etc) with a couple of triple hundreds and a dozen of double hundreds and several match winning hundreds in a fighting cause. Without being clearly ahead of his peers, there is of course no reason to call him the greatest, except in a sense of hero worship or patriotism, sans objectivity - his records are mostly a result of longevity and in test cricket he really does not own any record apart from those obtained by very good players playing for very long periods. He did not score a 300, he did not score even 500 in a series, he did not average 60+, did not have a SR of 60, did not win too many matches for India under pressure. he did not stay at the top in the battings ranks for a long time etc. Infact, there is very little to call him the greatest, based on statistics alone. He is one of the greatest, certainly.
POTW :hatsoff:
Guest BossBhai
Posted

-- Removed on request of the user --

Posted
No way' date=' Sachin has been in form and looked our best batsman, just cos he hasnt got a 100 people do not see that, [b']if he was batting against our bowlers he would have done a Ponting and co.
this. and Sehwag would have hit 2-3 double 100s. on the title.. the whole team fails, one guy looked in decent touch against some real good bowling, and its only an individual's legacy that will be hurt.
Guest BossBhai
Posted

-- Removed on request of the user --

Posted

His legacy won't be hurt much. But chances of going out on a high is very very slim now. Even if he personally performs well India might not win considering the team we have. At this rate he will retire like steve tikolo retires for Kenya. Another two years of performance like this from India their test status might be questioned.

Posted
this. and Sehwag would have hit 2-3 double 100s. on the title.. the whole team fails, one guy looked in decent touch against some real good bowling, and its only an individual's legacy that will be hurt.
I assume that one person is Dravid since the thread is discussing a combination of the England and Australia tours?
Posted
I assume that one person is Dravid since the thread is discussing a combination of the England and Australia tours?
lol.. didn't check the start date...bad job at merging two different contexts. anyway, personally I don't care...it is business of people with short term memory issues.
Posted
His legacy won't be hurt much. But chances of going out on a high is very very slim now. Even if he personally performs well India might not win considering the team we have. At this rate he will retire like steve tikolo retires for Kenya. Another two years of performance like this from India their test status might be questioned.
I don't understand this business of going out on high...and I guess its used mostly in team sports, e.g. I can't think of any example from tennis, where someone retired right after winning a grand slam. Can't find that recent quote from Ian Thorpe - he said something like, "I am willing to give up all the legacy/medals for another chance at competing with the best."
Posted

I guess this is it..

But Thorpe comprehends this dilemma. He understood “people hold this image of athletes at their best”, but this isn’t about people, it’s about a man and his dream. He appreciated, with a laugh, that from the conventional legacy perspective, “it’s the worst career move I’ve made”. But then he said this. “People forget athletes were once kids who love what they do. I am finding that love again. I am prepared to sacrifice my legacy for (that) love.”
decent read on the business of legacy. http://www.livemint.com/2011/11/10205839/The-madness-of-comeback-athlet.html
Posted
I don't understand this business of going out on high...and I guess its used mostly in team sports, e.g. I can't think of any example from tennis, where someone retired right after winning a grand slam.
You don't have to win the last game of your life to go out on a high. Borg left on a high as in he was still playing at a high level, except that he lost his last match. Sampras went on a high as in he wasn't at his peak, but was still capable of winning a slam and got the career slam record. For Tendulkar, the high would have ofc been the WC. For Dravid, IMO, the high/not so high would have been after the whole captaincy mess, when he decided to give it up, to have quit at the same time. Kumble left on a reasonable high, IMO, when he was still productive.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...