Tendulkar's quest for his hundredth hundred

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[The Outsider]

^ Quite obviously it means that the fundamental format of First Class cricket is closer to test cricket than ODIs are to test cricket - don't know what's so difficult to understand? And it's also quite obviously true when you look at the number of innings in a First Class game, the unlimited number of overs allowed, no concepts like 30 yard circle, batting power play, fielding restrictions etc. etc. I don't think I need to spell them all out. Tests, ODIs, and T20s are completely different formats with very different fundamental rules and they have always been treated separately except till this concept of international hundreds came about. As for the difficulty, ODIs amongst top teams are very competitive but once you go down to the minnow level the argument can no longer be made. So it makes little sense to include ODI numbers cobbled together with tests if difficulty is the only criteria. Some FC efforts would be above even some test efforts if difficulty is some criteria.

[Sachinism]

Oh Ok' date=' so Tendulkar would be easily averaging 100 in Ranjis :yay:[/quote'] Great interpretation skills :two_thumbs_up:

[zen]

Great interpretation skills :two_thumbs_up:

That's not interpretation but implication :giggle: To elaborate, Per SRT fan(atic)s: St1: Don avg 100, why? -----> poor quality of cricket (watch the videos) St2: ten > don St3:: quality of ranji is really poor What's implied: ten should be able to avg 100 like don *fact: ten does not avg 100 in ranjis*

[pensionplan]

That's not interpretation but implication :giggle: To elaborate, Per SRT fan(atic)s: St1: Don avg 100, why? -----> poor quality of cricket (watch the videos) St2: ten > don St3:: quality of ranji is really poor What's implied: ten should be able to avg 100 like don *fact: ten does not avg 100 in ranjis*

LOL...Good one.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Sachinism]

Ranji finals and semi finals are generally of a higher level than the likes of Namibia' date=' Netherlands, recent Zimbabwe, even Bangladesh for the most part.[/quote'] Generally, but not always the case. Every Ranji final won't be of high level (even if the best players are present), nor will all matches against those minnow teams a cakewalk. OK --- Aite on the article itself, as I said earlier, its not Sachin's fault the media and all have hyped it all. Mixing stats from different formats obviously is not the right way to go about things, as discussed in this thread. But I don't believe there is nothing wrong in celebrating 100 centuries across the two big formats of the sport. ODI tons may somehow be easier according to some, but they're not handed on a plate, not even against the minnows .

[Sachinism]

LOL...Good one.

No.

Yes.

Thank you for your useful contributions.

[CSK Fan]

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 ?

Nope. Not every good test player has excelled in ODIs. One of Sachin's remarkable ability is the skill to adapt to any situation. Not everyone can do that. Most players have only one gear and only one way of playing

[CSK Fan]

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' date=' Gilly, Viru, Gayle to be the most destructive players based on S/R and Tendulkar will be a rung below that set.[/quote'] Err, I am talking about the 90s when he was in his prime and not when he is past as of now. His strike rate then was way ahead of the pack. You are comparing symonds and Gilly in his past with a verge of retirement Sachin. His Sharjah knocks are two of the best examples of combining power hitting with big scores. And of course ODIs is not all about hitting so he did not go all out. In T20, you can take the example of one knock he played where he hit Qadir for four sixes in an over

[pensionplan]

Err' date=' I am talking about the 90s when he was in his prime and not when he is past as of now. His strike rate then was way ahead of the pack. You are comparing symonds and Gilly in his past with a verge of retirement Sachin. His Sharjah knocks are two of the best examples of combining power hitting with big scores. And of course ODIs is not all about hitting so he did not go all out. In T20, you can take the example of one knock he played where he hit Qadir for four sixes in an over[/quote']When was Sachin's S/R way ahead of the pack? Am I missing something here. No matter how you dissect it no one picks Tendulkar in 20-20 ahead of players like Gilly, Symmo, Gayle etc even when one considers each players peak. So that does not cut it.

[pensionplan]

Thank you for your useful contributions.

You are welcome.

[Laaloo]

You are welcome.

Okay.

[goose]

Given the test and one day formats are so different is it not all the more remarkable Tendulkar has topped the charts in both over such a long period? I think a celebration of his combined achievements across both formats is in order.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[goose]

Just because the combined statistic has not been traditionally used to separate batsman before should not stop us from acknowledging those rare instances when a player does manage to stand apart. Next Mukul will be berating those of us that salivate at Sehwag's strike rate in tests. I mean since when did that mean anything in test cricket? Errr about the same time Sehwag made it count. You get the message. Mukul is embarrassed at what he sees as a silly attempt on behalf of his countrymen to conjure up a statistic that ranks alongside Bradman's average. Well that's really the writer's problem and his alone. --- I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=51.513182,-0.205737

[zen]

Just because the combined statistic has not been traditionally used to separate batsman before should not stop us from acknowledging those rare instances when a player does manage to stand apart. Next Mukul will be berating those us that salivate at Sehwag's strike rate in tests. I mean since when did that mean anything in test cricket? Errr about the same time Sehwag made it count. You get the message. Mukul is embarrassed at what he sees as a silly attempt on behalf of his countrymen's attempt to conjure up a statistic that ranks alongside Bradman's average. Well that's really the writer's problem and his alone. --- I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=51.513182,-0.205737

:WTF: Err, it doesn't .... for e.g. the avg of Tendulkar in tests is 56, the number of 100s (performances) in tests are already counted in that avg :winky: If you think that a total number of international 100s is same as test avg of 100, then I don't know what to say except how poor the understanding of cricket is amongst Indians. May be not surprisingly why we are so poor in sports generally

[goose]

You what? Keep up!

[pensionplan]

Just because the combined statistic has not been traditionally used to separate batsman before should not stop us from acknowledging those rare instances when a player does manage to stand apart. Next Mukul will be berating those of us that salivate at Sehwag's strike rate in tests. I mean since when did that mean anything in test cricket? Errr about the same time Sehwag made it count. You get the message. Mukul is embarrassed at what he sees as a silly attempt on behalf of his countrymen to conjure up a statistic that ranks alongside Bradman's average. Well that's really the writer's problem and his alone.

We get the message. Someone's goose needs to be cooked.

[goose]

Ok then! --- I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=51.513226,-0.205945