Jump to content

Should Tendulkar retire himself at the end of this series? (Poll added)

Ponka

By Ponka
in Cricket Talk

Should Tendulkar retire himself at the end of this series? (Poll added)  

  1. 1.

    • yes
      84
    • no
      88

Recommended Posts

SachDan Newbie

SachDan

Posted
Posted
Yup close the thread before someone posts the stats for Matches won else the cheerleaders of "Daant-ki-Dukaan" urf Bharat ka sarva-shresht Tez Gaindbaaz urf aajkal ka Bharatiya sena ka hawaldar will get bent out of shape :laugh: :hehe:
:cantstop: Lurker mian comes out of his hole and posts on CT only when our team is going through tough times..always expect him to be active during those times and when the team is doing well he's too busy (read feeling low) watching Rajesh Khanna movies or getting his ***** handed by girls..so much so that he even forgets to wear chaddi :giggle: Can't even find a single post of lurker mian congratulating Team India on World Cup triumph. Indian cricket fan, my **** :puke:
Link to comment
Ultimate_Game Proficient

Ultimate_Game

Posted
Posted
Kapil - one of the greatest to ever played for INDIA Sachin - one of the greatest ever to have played the game of cricket sea of difference..bheegabheegagadha :)
Well actually given a choice one would prefer to have a great all-rounder over a great batsman. Kapil was possibly one of the best 5 all-rounders to play the game and SRT maybe one one of the top 10 batsmen (would struggle to make it to top 5 now when he can't even get past Kallis and Ponting). In fact even a great bowler will trump a great batsman anyday. Reason for the same is simple - a bowler or an all-rounder stays in the game and influences the game far longer than just a batsman. E.g., a batsman may get a good ball first up, or get a bad decision or may make a mistake and he can't do anything more to influence the game. On the other hand, a great bowler (or an all-rounder) can come back even after a bad ball, over or a spell. Case in point Steyn's spell against India in WC where he came back and cleaned up India in his last spell even though he was carted over in his 1st spell. Another example is guys like Akram or Zaheer who can come back with reverse swing even though their first spell was ordinary. That is the reason why bowlers are known as match-winners and batsmen only as match preservers. This is why the best teams in the world are those with good bowling attacks, and not the other way round. Case in point WI of 80s vintage, or Aussies of late 90s and early 2000s with Warne and McGrath. If batting could win you as many games as bowling, India's team from late 90s to around the WC should have been one of the best ever with potentially the best batting lineup in the world but they don't even come close, coz they didn't have a great or even good bowling attack other than Zaheer.
Link to comment
CG Contributor

CG

Posted
Posted
Well actually given a choice one would prefer to have a great all-rounder over a great batsman. Kapil was possibly one of the best 5 all-rounders to play the game and SRT maybe one one of the top 10 batsmen (would struggle to make it to top 5 now when he can't even get past Kallis and Ponting). In fact even a great bowler will trump a great batsman anyday. Reason for the same is simple - a bowler or an all-rounder stays in the game and influences the game far longer than just a batsman. E.g., a batsman may get a good ball first up, or get a bad decision or may make a mistake and he can't do anything more to influence the game. On the other hand, a great bowler (or an all-rounder) can come back even after a bad ball, over or a spell. Case in point Steyn's spell against India in WC where he came back and cleaned up India in his last spell even though he was carted over in his 1st spell. Another example is guys like Akram or Zaheer who can come back with reverse swing even though their first spell was ordinary. That is the reason why bowlers are known as match-winners and batsmen only as match preservers. This is why the best teams in the world are those with good bowling attacks, and not the other way round. Case in point WI of 80s vintage, or Aussies of late 90s and early 2000s with Warne and McGrath. If batting could win you as many games as bowling, India's team from late 90s to around the WC should have been one of the best ever with potentially the best batting lineup in the world but they don't even come close, coz they didn't have a great or even good bowling attack other than Zaheer.
:nono:,Its a myth that batsman are match preservers ,Every dominant team had as much a potent batting lineup as bowling .Cricket is a team game after all.
Link to comment
Lurker Newbie

Lurker

Posted
Posted
:cantstop: Lurker mian comes out of his hole and posts on CT only when our team is going through tough times..always expect him to be active during those times and when the team is doing well he's too busy (read feeling low) watching Rajesh Khanna movies or getting his ***** handed by girls..so much so that he even forgets to wear chaddi :giggle: Can't even find a single post of lurker mian congratulating Team India on World Cup triumph. Indian cricket fan, my **** :puke:
Jeez dude, maybe I should open a poll on "Why Sachin bhakts lack a sense of humour"...Any reason why you lot get into gaali-galauj making everybody around you miserable?? By the way here is a milestone number for you. 326. If you are a true Sachin fan you should get it. Go ahead show me you have more cricketing brain than a cheerleader with a Pom Pom. :secret:
Link to comment
Lurker Newbie

Lurker

Posted
Posted
:nono:' date='Its a myth that batsman are match preservers ,Every dominant team had as much a potent batting lineup as bowling .Cricket is a team game after all.[/quote'] Simply put thats not true. Aussies's team of 90s and early 2000s were dominant thanks to Warne and Mcgrath. Given a choice every team would have them, not many would care about Ponting, Waughs and Martin. Only exception being Gilchrist, but it was a different reason altogether. Same with WIndies of 80s. Sure they had Richards and co but it Marshall and co who would win the game. Thats one reason our padosis have a good record. There battting has been trash but their bowlers have won matches everywhere. :agree:
Link to comment
CG Contributor

CG

Posted
Posted
Simply put thats not true. Aussies's team of 90s and early 2000s were dominant thanks to Warne and Mcgrath. Given a choice every team would have them, not many would care about Ponting, Waughs and Martin. Only exception being Gilchrist, but it was a different reason altogether. Same with WIndies of 80s. Sure they had Richards and co but it Marshall and co who would win the game. Thats one reason our padosis have a good record. There battting has been trash but their bowlers have won matches everywhere. :agree:
I have seen australians mostly so i can comment on them,Yes they had bowlers who were great but there batting was as great ,They hammered all attacks in all conditions scoring at 4 r.p.o. and got out of tricky situations when they were 100-5 ,With out that batting i do not see them being as dominant as they were,Yes pakistan has better record than india because they had fast bowlers who could win matches ,But they never can become a dominant side with out great batting.
Link to comment
Lurker Newbie

Lurker

Posted
Posted
I have seen australians mostly so i can comment on them' date='Yes they had bowlers who were great but there batting was as great ,They hammered all attacks scoring at 4 r.p.o. and got out of tricky situations when they were 100-5 ,With out that batting i do not see them being as dominant as they were,Yes pakistan has better record than india because they had fast bowlers who could win matches ,But they never can become a dominant side with out great batting.[/quote'] That was never the point now, was it? The point was rather simple. Bowlers win you matches. You have to have 20 wickets to win. That does not render batsmen useless. You have to have defence as well as offence in any game but when it comes to simplicity a good bowler is more valuable than a good batsman. Plus as an all-rounder you have the chance to contribute in both format, which was UG's point I am guessing.
Link to comment
Ultimate_Game Proficient

Ultimate_Game

Posted
Posted
:nono:' date='Its a myth that batsman are match preservers ,Every dominant team had as much a potent batting lineup as bowling .Cricket is a team game after all.[/quote'] What I meant by match preservers is that you still need batsmen to score runs - after all the objective of the game is to score more than the opponent. But it's the bowlers who win the games. Given a choice between having a great batsman or a great bowler in the team, I and most of the folks would prefer to have a McGrath, a Wasim Akram, a Marshall or a Holding in the team over a Ponting, a Tendulkar or a Waugh. The only exception to the rule is Bradman who averaged nearly 100 and deserves to be ahead even the great bowlers.
Link to comment
Ultimate_Game Proficient

Ultimate_Game

Posted
Posted
That was never the point now, was it? The point was rather simple. Bowlers win you matches. You have to have 20 wickets to win. That does not render batsmen useless. You have to have defence as well as offence in any game but when it comes to simplicity a good bowler is more valuable than a good batsman. Plus as an all-rounder you have the chance to contribute in both format, which was UG's point I am guessing.
Yup, exactly right. An all-rounder can still come back from a batting failure to take wkts and in fact I would go for an all-rounder with better bowling skills than the batting ones based on the reasoning I mentioned above that bowlers have much more influence on the game than batsmen.
Link to comment

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
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...