Tendulkar's quest for his hundredth hundred

[The Outsider]

I did not get your point here. Are you trying to suggest that' date=' in fact, a century in F5 would be easier than the century in T20, ceteris paribus??[/quote'] Maybe humans will genetically evolve within the next 10 years when F5 becomes functional? You asked for my point - cricket is a game based on some core skills. There are possibly dozens of them, but a very important one is the judgment of when to leave a delivery and when to try and score off it. That has been the crux of cricket for a long long time. As you keep shortening the format, you keep on chipping away from the core skill of a game and make it unrecognizable to what it was. We can still play an O1 game with a bat, ball, stumps, Hot Spot, and Hawk Eye but would it retain the essence of the sport? No, or at least I think not. Cricket as a sport does not encourage cowlashing over judgment but the other way round. But, as you keep shortening the format you make it into a completely different sport, which might still be liked by many, but it's not cricket in the traditional sense.

[Sachin=GOD]

A more interesting article would be: "Media's quest for Sachin's hundredth hundred"

this.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[putrevus]

Scoring 100 international hundreds is no mean achievement, guys like Mukul Keshvan need to fill their useless columns so they write junk. How is scoring 100 in test match on some flat track in Colombo where one team scores batting first 550 and other team replies with score of 950 more important than a hundred scored by Virat Kohli in odi chasing 270 when his team is 85/3.

[Sachinism]

Mukul is right all things considered it is hard to score a century in Tests than in ODI's. And by the way with the advent of 20-20's and its popularity it is time to scrap 50 over cricket. How many abbreviated versions of the game do we need. Enough of duping people. Let us have 20-20 since it is the chosen exhibition variety now ahead of the 50 over game based on the popularity to go along with the real cricket which is ofcourse Test cricket.

If its about popularity, then I guess its time to scrap tests

[The Outsider]

Maybe you should actually read that article before jumping in head first shooting from your hips ... I even made it easier for you by quoting the relevant paragraph... he clearly states that scoring a hundred in a ODI is a LOT EASIER. I simply proved that it is not the case despite the reasons he is providing ( bowlers ' date=' pitches , etc ).[/quote'] No. All you showed was that it's less probable to hit a hundred in an ODI compared to tests, as it's even lesser probable to hit one in a T20. Pretty surprised you had to run numbers to find that out - it's common sense that as you abridge the game more chances of getting a 100 would decrease. Has nothing to do with the application and success of core cricketing skills which are a measure of what is hard and what Mukul is referring to. Don't expect you to understand all this though, so if I don't reply to your next piece of sophistry feel free to mark this down in your list of online victories where the opponent has been silenced by "uncomfortable facts".

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[bulbul]

BB saaaar...istu serious yake....ella nammavre.... Swalpa adjust madkolli..... :winky:

[Crookbond]

Any insightful comments on this paragraph in the article?

I believe that Tendulkar has a substantial claim to being considered the greatest Test and one-day batsman of his generation. This is a very large achievement with which he (and we) must be content. We don't need gild this lily with trashy "statistics". To use "a hundred hundreds" to winch Tendulkar up onto a pedestal is to disrespect the great players he has played alongside. Consider Jacques Kallis, who after 16 years at the top has a Test batting average higher than Tendulkar's. He also has 271 Test wickets to Tendulkar's 45, and 169 catches to Tendulkar's 110. If I was a determined South African fan looking for numbers to prove that my man was the best, I could legitimately argue that you would need to merge Sachin Tendulkar with Zaheer Khan to come up with Jacques Kallis. Zaheer, India's best strike bowler for years, has 273 wickets, barely more than Kallis. Do these numbers bear out the claim that Kallis is the more significant player? No they don't, because greatness in cricket can't always be boiled down to numbers - which Tendulkar's cheerleaders would do well to remember.

[yoda]

Actually I found it to be an excellent writeup. The main essence of it is not whether statistically in which form of the game do we have more 100s per match or more 100s per 2 innings vs 1 inning, rather do they mean totally different things that combining them is essentially a meaningless stat. The second point he is trying to make is if it were such a good stat, then why is it that it was never combined for any other player and it has become such a celebrated stat only in this case.

[The Outsider]

Chris Gayle and David Warner churn out more hundreds and fifties in the "hardest" format to score a hundred of a fifty. You need different skills to make a hundred in a T20 and Tendulkar is not even in the frame among the most prolific T20 century makers. Yet, no one gives a damn about it and rightly so because as a test of core cricketing skills T20 is behind ODIs and ODIs are behind test matches. That is why Mukul wrote about tests being the hardest to score a century in, not for measuring the "hardest" form by finding the century to matches ratio.

[pensionplan]

If its about popularity' date=' then I guess its time to scrap tests[/quote']I meant between 50 overs and 20-20. We do not need two abbreviated versions. Since Test cricket is the real cricket that will stay.

[bulbul]

Good Article... really how should Tendulkars greatness affect if he hits 100th 100 or 99 hundreds only... what if Bradman had 100 avg will that Too great than current avg? i dont know why some people get Fired up everytime there is a Article regarding Sachin but any way it gives a good Entertainment to others :winky:

[pensionplan]

Chris Gayle and David Warner churn out more hundreds and fifties in the "hardest" format to score a hundred of a fifty. You need different skills to make a hundred in a T20 and Tendulkar is not even in the frame among the most prolific T20 century makers. Yet, no one gives a damn about it and rightly so because as a test of core cricketing skills T20 is behind ODIs and ODIs are behind test matches. That is why Mukul wrote about tests being the hardest to score a century in, not for measuring the "hardest" form by finding the century to matches ratio.

Truth be told Tendulkar at his best will not be picked ahead of Gayle, Yusuf Pathan, Gilchrist, Symonds, Sehwag to name a few in 20-20. Just look at the difference in S/R between him and others mentioned in the list and you will know why - the most important metric for a batsman in 20-20.

[CSK Fan]

The second point he is trying to make is if it were such a good stat, then why is it that it was never combined for any other player and it has become such a celebrated stat only in this case.

Will answer only this point. Maybe because it never happened because? There are lots of such meaningless stats celebrated before, most 100s, average in domestic cricket, etc

[zen]

100th 100 is a bogus stats if you are combining all formats to come up with that number .... It would be even more funny if scoring 100th 100 is equated with an avg of 100 I would prefer an 'RPT' of 100 over 100th 100 after accounting for all formats :--D

[CSK Fan]

Truth be told Tendulkat at his best will not be picked ahead of Gayle' date=' Yusuf Pathan, Gilchrist, Symonds, Sehwag to name a few in 20-20. Just look at the difference in S/R between him and others mentioned in the list and you will know why - the most important metric for a batsman in 20-20.[/quote'] Yep, there is no dounbt about that. After the advent of T20 Sachin is no where near the top. But I also believe, that if T20 had been introduced during Sachin's prime, he would have taken to it like fish to water, like he did with ODIs where he had among the highest strike rate(for people who had played a decent amount of matches) for a long time

[bulbul]

Yep' date=' there is no dounbt about that. After the advent of T20 Sachin is no where near the top. But I also believe,[b'] that if T20 had been introduced during Sachin's prime, he would have taken to it like fish to water, like he did with ODIs where he had among the highest strike rate(for people who had played a decent amount of matches) for a long time

Just curious will this same rule should have applied to Old greats also.. i mean People who excelled only at Tests when ODI cricket not yet started aslo should have been excelled ?

[bulbul]

100th 100 is a bogus stats if you are combining all formats to come up with that number .... It would be even more funny if scoring 100th 100 is equated with an avg of 100 I would prefer an 'RPT' of 100 over 100th 100 after accounting for all formats :--D

i guess 100 is purely because of the Numbers Value...Golden number nothing else

[pensionplan]

Yep' date=' there is no dounbt about that. After the advent of T20 Sachin is no where near the top. But I also believe, that if T20 had been introduced during Sachin's prime, he would have taken to it like fish to water, like he did with ODIs where he had among the highest strike rate(for people who had played a decent amount of matches) for a long time[/quote']When you are considering S/R even at his best in ODI's he is not a match for a Symonds or a Gilly for example in power hitting on a consistent basis. I am certain even if 20-20 was introduced let us say 20 years back I will put my money on players like Symo, Gilly, Viru, Gayle to be the most destructive players based on S/R and Tendulkar will be a rung below that set.