Tendulkar's quest for his hundredth hundred

[Vijay.Sharma]

What's so difficult about the definitions - clearly away tours to Australia' date=' South Africa, and England are the "tough" tours in international cricket today. [/quote']Now you clearly know we are not going to have any tours to Australia, England, and South Africa till November 2013. And it is very possible that Sachin may retire by then. So keeping this in mind do things change. If they don't then you are not even giving him a chance to prove you wrong. What fun is there in such predictions? I dunno where that logic came from. But anyway it's your criteria and you have a right to choose whatever you want to. But given India is not going on any of these tours in the next 18 months by which time the guy himself may retire (who knows) would you give him a chance to prove to you that he is "international class". On a different note (strictly different note for you to think about). If an individual has to perform at his career average on every tour to be considered "international class", how many batsmen are there in the history of the game who are really "international class"? Oh that reminds me Ricky Pawning did not perform as per his career average in SA, India, and England. Is he not "international class" anymore. The same goes for KP, Hussey, Lara, Rahul, and every other cricketer you can think of.

[Vijay.Sharma]

Outsider, I don't want to get into a discussion mode here. I just want to hold you onto your comment about Sachin's "international class" thingy. And I just want you to be real and give Sachin a chance to prove you wrong. Of all we know he may call it a day at the end of this tour. But I believe he will play one more season. And what does it take for him to show to you that he is "international class" if and when he does play another season. The next series India has are against NZ, Aus, and Eng. Now be true to your own cricketing intellect and devise criteria for him to prove to you that he is international class. I mean just please get real with your criteria. A tour of SA, Eng, and Aus is not in the foreseeable future, so please make adjustments accordingly

[The Outsider]

So, according to you someone who scores at home and can't score away from home is good enough to keep playing international cricket? Specially when the guy in question is 39 and unlikely to improve. Long story short - there is nothing Tendulkar can do at home which will "prove me wrong" because he still would be able to score decent runs at home, but then so can Pujara, Rohit, Rahane, Kohli even Yuvraj and Raina. Yeah, if he makes tours of England, South Africa, and Australia and performs there then his continued selection would have been justified. But it appears that you are not willing to stick your neck out and say that he will make these tours and score there to "prove me wrong" and blaming me for not giving him a "chance to prove me wrong". If he is not going to make those tours, then might as well play the batsmen who have a good chance of making those tours and give them a chance to develop their game and ascertain their abilities rather than throwing them directly in a tough away tour after Tendulkar has filled up his boots with easy runs at home only to retire before the next tour to South Africa, England, or Australia.

[ganeshran]

Thats a crazy assumption on your part. Dont put words in my mouth if you fail to comprehend. For the 10000th time I consider Kapil Dev as the greatest Indian cricketer. Got it? Now why do I need to bring down SRT to justify it?? I want SRT out because he has performed poorly, it is your crazy thought that I am doing it to extend Kapil as greater player. Dont hold me responsible for your lack of comprehension.

Ironic that you complain about me putting words into your mouth despite you doing exactly that in the previous post. The performing poorly part is laughable since your criticism of Sachin has been constant regardless of his performance over the years. Genuine criticism of SRT is completely understandable given his recent performances and which is what Outy and Bumper are doing (or very valid posts made by Gunner last year), but its completely different from a line of thought motivated by reasons not limited to cricket. Kapil fan criticizes SRT : Completely genuine SRT fan criticizes Kapil (or any other cricketer) : oh why do these SRT fans have to bring down past greats to elevate SRT.

Dont need to cloak it for cheerleaders like you. My stand is pretty clear. Either you take it for word or have the decency to ask me to clarify. If you have already made up your mind, why engage in a discussion? Seems like thats what you have been doing for 48 hours, telling me what you may be thinking of me. And when that falls on face you bring everyone card. As if I care one way or other :haha:

Ah, the cheerleader/bhakth card has been pulled out Again ironic, given that you inform me and others of their SRT cheerleader status (not clubed, going to be clubbed,fully clubbed...BAM) in every reply in a Sachin discussion.

What are you trying to prove there ace? That has NEVER been my stand. Read up, I mentioned clearly - No Kapil fan invokes his last days as a cricketer to prove his greatness. That would be retarded. Makes sense now? Good.

When did I say that it was your stand? It was my stand that it was indeed a blemish on Kapil's career that he chose to paly for 3 years to get the final 34 wickets needed to break Hadlee's record, and that if SRT exits with such a poor record over his last year, it will be a similar blemish on his career as well. Kapil doing it doesnt justify SRT doing it though.

The only thing worse than the knowledge of you bhakts are your comebacks! lol. Really dude thats the best you can come up with!!! Learn to start practising for a second life after your bhagwaan retires. You, of all people, would surely need one. xxxx

Another boring putdown

[Vijay.Sharma]

So, according to you someone who scores at home and can't score away from home is good enough to keep playing international cricket? Specially when the guy in question is 39 and unlikely to improve. Long story short - there is nothing Tendulkar can do at home which will "prove me wrong" because he still would be able to score decent runs at home, but then so can Pujara, Rohit, Rahane, Kohli even Yuvraj and Raina. Yeah, if he makes tours of England, South Africa, and Australia and performs there then his continued selection would have been justified. But it appears that you are not willing to stick your neck out and say that he will make these tours and score there to "prove me wrong" and blaming me for not giving him a "chance to prove me wrong". If he is not going to make those tours, then might as well play the batsmen who have a good chance of making those tours and give them a chance to develop their game and ascertain their abilities rather than throwing them directly in a tough away tour after Tendulkar has filled up his boots with easy runs at home only to retire before the next tour to South Africa, England, or Australia.

I am just being realistic. If Tendulkar does manage to be around come SA 2013 then great. But if he retires before that then you haven't given him an opportunity even to prove you wrong. Let's put it this way - you were emotional when you said he ain't international class and now you are covering up for it. To say someone is "international class" only based on one or two Away tours is basically stupid. Is Pawning "international class", Outy? After all the guy did not average even 40 in his last Away series in SA. Is KP "international class"? Did he average his career average against the Pakis? Did Bell do? Did Strauss do? Maybe you should tell us which players are international class right now so we are all clear of what can be expected and what cannot from these players and how selections must happen. Pls do answer these questions - Is Pawning international class? Is KP? Is Bell? Is Strauss? Is Hussey? Is Gambhir? Is Virat? Is Misbah? Is Younis? Is Trott? Edit - Besides, your point about axing him now just because he is 39 is not entirely logical even considering plain cricketing abilities (current). I ain't talking about ODIs - lemme make it clear. You are saying you wanna axe a guy who was the second best performer in an "Away" series just coz he is 39? The guy is not a geriatric like Rahul or Laxman who can't run 3 to save their lives. The guy looked better than any batsmen from both sides for the first half of the tour (he did not have those magic 3 figures to show for, agreed). Let's take a similar example - Pawning - he was in the most awful of form ever for like 2 years at a stretch. But hey he came good. I am not saying give Sachin 2 years to fail. I will not even mind if the selectors drop him from Tests too. My grouse is with your statement about his "international class". If you start saying this guy is not international class right now then I am afraid there will not be even 20 players from all 9 Test playing nations put together (i.e. about 100 players) who are "international class". I wonder why we are playing "international" cricket then

[Raghav_12]

There was some study published on ICF that Sachin's hundred's lead to India's defeats. I tyink in last 7-8 months author of that article has very well seen that how badly we fare when we don't have Sachin's hundreds to support.

[Vijay.Sharma]

There was some study published on ICF that Sachin's hundred's lead to India's defeats. I tyink in last 7-8 months author of that article has very well seen that how badly we fare when we don't have Sachin's hundreds to support.

Who was that idiot? I really do not know who could have said that

[SachDan]

Who was that idiot? I really do not know who could have said that

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=262794

[ganeshran]

vaibhav delhi was saying that. I just pulled out the stats to prove that isnt the case.

[Vijay.Sharma]

http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=262794

:((

[akshayxyz]

There was some study published on ICF that Sachin's hundred's lead to India's defeats. I tyink in last 7-8 months author of that article has very well seen that how badly we fare when we don't have Sachin's hundreds to support.

Who was that idiot? I really do not know who could have said that

In case you havent read that thread yet, there was more to the basic 'premise'.. it was like SRT's 100 affects psychology of team members, and they end up under-performing, leading to the defeats.

[TheWall]

Hope once Sachin hits 100th ton, every other players also get back their form

[Vijay.Sharma]

In case you havent read that thread yet' date=' there was more to the basic 'premise'.. it was like SRT's 100 affects psychology of team members, and they end up under-performing, leading to the defeats.[/quote'] Most of this post is not directed at you because I know you were just informing me about the thread (I did read it a lil bit though) I can understand another team member (not a batsman though) giving that as an excuse (although will not accept it) but how can a fan justify it? If Sachin's 100 affects psychology then it is better he does not make any runs, no? And if it truly does affect the team's psychology so badly then why do we end up winning 73% of the times? Either the facts are not valid or the logic is seriously stupid and I think the latter is the case. It does not take even simple Newtonian science to figure out that one individual cannot win a team game all by himself, especially in cricket. Secondly, it further does not take simple Newtonian science to figure out that something is going right if you win 73% of the time. It is seriously a lack of basic logic skills to claim that 27% of occurrence is more significant than 73% of the same quantity's occurrence. But hey, to each his own Edit - Even if we were to humor V_D for the sake of argument, now that Sachin is not making much of contribution (and the times in the past when he did not) why did India not have a 99% win record? (I am giving 1% benefit for freak occurrences). As per the logic extended, everytime Sachin fails India must win. Why dunn that happen? However, hard indisputable facts tell us that whenever Sachin scores a hundred 73% of the time India ends up winning. Given India actually wins around 50% of its ODI games, I think it is fair to conclude that Sachin improves the chances of India winning by (73 - 50) / 50 = 23 / 50 = 46% everytime he scores a cent. Now, how many other players are there who can boast of improving India's chances of winning by 46% everytime they score a century? Pls note - a player who has scored minuscule number of centuries is not gonna make a difference (for ex Kapil Dev scored one cent and everytime he scores a cent it increases India's chances of winning by 50%). Consider guys who have scored at least 5-10 centuries in ODIs Can we find five Indian batsman who are better than Sachin Tendulkar at improving India's chances of winning a game when he scores a century. Min Qualification - 5 centuries in ODIs

[Kriterion]

Can we find five Indian batsman who are better than Sachin Tendulkar at improving India's chances of winning a game when he scores a century. Min Qualification - 5 centuries in ODIs

I think all players, even the not so good ones, will have impressive figures here. Because when one scores an ODI century, it means the team has almost guaranteed to score a decent total because a) 100 runs were scored b) there had to have been another batsman at the other end for the duration of that innings who contributed at least 75% more runs. It might be more worthwhile to see how many centuries in chasing targets there are, or even better % of team's total in wins.

[The Outsider]

Can we find five Indian batsman who are better than Sachin Tendulkar at improving India's chances of winning a game when he scores a century. Min Qualification - 5 centuries in ODIs

You're looking for a flawed statistics to prove your point - goes to show your understanding of statistics and cricket. A lot of Indian (and non Indian) batsmen will have better percentages of centuries in a win than Tendulkar. That's not because they "helped" their team win more, but due to the fact that Tendulkar has been so brilliant that he has been able to score ODi hundreds with more regularity than anyone. The only sensible comparison is to measure the number of hundreds per innings because Tendulkar has no control over his teammates failings and his own mastery of the situation.

[Kriterion]

You're looking for a flawed statistics to prove your point - goes to show your understanding of statistics and cricket. A lot of Indian (and non Indian) batsmen will have better percentages of centuries in a win than Tendulkar. That's not because they "helped" their team win more' date=' but due to the fact that Tendulkar has been so brilliant that he has been able to score ODi hundreds with more regularity than anyone. The only sensible comparison is to measure the number of hundreds per innings because Tendulkar has no control over his teammates failings and his own mastery of the situation.[/quote'] Even that is arbitrary. What if someone scores 99* as his team wins the game, with 9 wickets down, in the 50th over in a chase of 215? Surely that 99 is more meaningful than all those tons that were hit when SA chased 434 against Australia back in 2006. The best stat, if possible to dig up, is the % of teams runs a player scored in won matches or in successful chases.

[vvvslaxman]

Even that is arbitrary. What if someone scores 99* as his team wins the game, with 9 wickets down, in the 50th over in a chase of 215? Surely that 99 is more meaningful than all those tons that were hit when SA chased 434 against Australia back in 2006. The best stat, if possible to dig up, is the % of teams runs a player scored in won matches or in successful chases.

55683 runs by India when Sachin played and India won the match 11060 runs scored by Sachin out of 55683 runs. 33 centuries 58 fifties. 56 man of the match awards in winning cause.

[The Outsider]

Even that is arbitrary. What if someone scores 99* as his team wins the game, with 9 wickets down, in the 50th over in a chase of 215? Surely that 99 is more meaningful than all those tons that were hit when SA chased 434 against Australia back in 2006. The best stat, if possible to dig up, is the % of teams runs a player scored in won matches or in successful chases.

But that happens rarely - if you average such things across 200-300 odd ODIs one would expect to cancel out or at least dilute the impact of such freak innings as you describe in your post.

[yoda]

The best stat, if possible to dig up, is the % of teams runs a player scored in won matches or in successful chases.

Why is that % of runs in wins/successful chases are more important than those in losses? The latter typically come against better bowling under more adverse conditions. Seems like quality of opponent and batting/bowling conditions are more important than whether the match was won or not. Ofc you help your team get over the hump, that should get extra credit, but doesn't in itself define greatness of an innings.

[Vijay.Sharma]

You're looking for a flawed statistics to prove your point - goes to show your understanding of statistics and cricket. A lot of Indian (and non Indian) batsmen will have better percentages of centuries in a win than Tendulkar. That's not because they "helped" their team win more' date=' but due to the fact that Tendulkar has been so brilliant that he has been able to score ODi hundreds with more regularity than anyone. The only sensible comparison is to measure the number of hundreds per innings because Tendulkar has no control over his teammates failings and his own mastery of the situation.[/quote']Outsider, my post was intended as a response to the supposedly valid logical question that V_D posed in the other thread. I think you should know by now that I have some basic understanding of the game of cricket. You probably also know that I have played cricket upto a decent level to know to understand that it is a team game. You make an interesting point - making of ODI centuries with regularity - frequency of ODI cents. Incidentally I had done some look at Statsguru on that and given a minimum of 10 cents in a career and 20 matches, Sachin has an awesome frequency of less than 10 innings per cent (9.35 to be precise). His is the best. The only one to have a sub 10 innings per cent! It is quite something that he has played almost 3.7 times the number of innings that his closest competitor has - the second is AB DeVilliers at 12 cents in 120 innings and third is Trescothick with 12 from 122. http://tinyurl.com/6qo855z However, if we relax the qual to say 5 cents and 20 matches in career then there are 5 players who have done more frequently than Sachin - Amla has 9 from 55 innings, Virat has 8 from 77, Salman Butt has 8 from 78, Zaheer Abbas has 7 from 60, and the best of them all is Ryan ten Doeschete who has 5 from 32 innings. http://tinyurl.com/7l2rjqm I mean there is absolutely no comparison in ODI cricket to the Batting Buddha