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

[Yoda-esque]

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.

Kinda agree on this,especially tests. The bowler is always coming at you.You can hit him for 4 fours in an over but the ball will find a way through your defences sooner than later. This is true in other sports as well. Sampras on his rivalry with Agassi mentioned that he always saw himself as the pitcher and Agassi as the hitter.The ball is always coming for you.

[bulbul]

Which post? This one. http://indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=22279&postcount=7 Fav Batsman : SRT Fav Bowler : Kumble Alltime Fav cricketer : kapil dev Yeah he is a thaali ka baighan. ludakte rehta hai idhar udhar...

why you guys abusing each other... close friends :dontknow:

[Lurker]

why you guys abusing each other... close friends :dontknow:

Thaali ka baighan is an abuse. :giggle::giggle: You shall rob me of half of my stocks of muhawaras then.

[CG]

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' date=' 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.[/quote'] my Choice will depend on conditions and the team already there.

[Lurker]

my Choice will depend on conditions and the team already there.

No it wont. :winky: Ever seen an all-time great XI, or any great team for that matter, that has more than 4 bowlers?? Typically most of them have 4 great bowlers with 1 possible all-rounder. Thats it. You often see 6 batsman with possibly a Gilly like keeper to do the damager as a player. Ever saw a great team with 6 specialist bowlers?? Do the maths 1 bowler = 1.5 batsmen (well not really but hope you get the point)

[Ultimate_Game]

my Choice will depend on conditions and the team already there.

Let's factor in the conditions then... 1. A bowler's paradise. You would love to have great bowlers in the side to make the most of the conditions coz on bowler friendly surfaces even the great batsmen are more likely to fail than not. 2. A batting wicket. In this case all the more reason to have great bowlers to keep the opponent in check and even half-decent batsmen should be able put the score on the board.

[CG]

Let's factor in the conditions then... 1. A bowler's paradise. You would love to have great bowlers in the side to make the most of the conditions coz on bowler friendly surfaces even the great batsmen are more likely to fail than not. 2. A batting wicket. In this case all the more reason to have great bowlers to keep the opponent in check and even half-decent batsmen should be able put the score on the board.

1.same arguement Even half decent bowlers could win us test matches in bowling friendly condition,a.k.a what has been happening in sa to sa.even srilanka beat them . That said i would also prefer a mcgrath over tendulkar if we played in india.

[Ultimate_Game]

1.same arguement Even half decent bowlers could win us test matches in bowling friendly condition' date='a.k.a what has been happening in sa to sa.even srilanka beat them .[/quote'] Yes they can but not consistently. Even Agrakar won us a Test in Aus but how many times did he do it? A half-decent bowling attack may get you some isolated wins here and there, but for a team to be dominant you need a good bowling attack. I mean you woul rather have McGrath bowling in seaming conditions with a batsmen like Trott, AB DeVilliers (good but not great) instead of Ishant in your team with batsmen like SRT, Kallis or Lara (ATGs). See my point? A great bowler will more likely get the better of great batsmen in bowler friendly conditions than a so-so bowler against merely good batsmen.

[CG]

Yes they can but not consistently. Even Agrakar won us a Test in Aus but how many times did he do it? A half-decent bowling attack may get you some isolated wins here and there' date=' but for a team to be dominant you need a good bowling attack. I mean you woul rather have McGrath bowling in seaming conditions with a batsmen like Trott, AB DeVilliers (good but not great) instead of Ishant in your team with batsmen like SRT, Kallis or Lara (ATGs). See my point? A great bowler will more likely get the better of great batsmen in bowler friendly conditions than a so-so bowler against merely good batsmen.[/quote'] Yup,I understand your point ,but team to be dominant still needs a very good batting lineup or you see what happened to england against pak,two good bowling sides ,who batted worst lost the match.Bowlers are more valuable surely nowadays.

[Ultimate_Game]

Yup' date='I understand your point ,but [b']team to be dominant still needs a very good batting lineup or you see what happened to england against pak,two good bowling sides ,who batted worst lost the match.Bowlers are more valuable surely nowadays.

Yes a dominant team needs both but my point was simply that if given a choice between a great bowler and a great batsman, a great bowler provides much more value in return and should be the first choice. I think we are both saying the same thing.

[The Outsider]

Sachin's place should not be questioned as long as he is in list of top 6 indian bats.

That would work in an individual sport like Tennis, but in a team sport the team obviously comes first. Fact is Tendulkar flopped over 16 consecutive innings in challenging, away conditions. Most of the decent scores he made were on pattas like Oval and Sydney and/or in the second innings when faced with a lost cause - situations where even Praveen Kumar, Zaheer, and Ashwin were able to score in. Given this it would take a brave man to bet a) Tendulkar will be available when India tour in similar conditions and b) Tendulkar will be able to score meaningful runs again in similar conditions.

For me in this series also he was India's best bat

Sometimes I think you are a logical person like in the quote before and then you make statements like the above - Kohli?

- his all good scores came in live test matches where India was very much in contest. His scores in first four innings were 73,32,41 and 80 which doesn't indicate a failure.

And now you talk like a fan boy. So, what was different in Tendulkar's midset between the first and last two tests? Did he think I can afford to fail now that we have lost the first two tests? BTW, the third test was also "live" as the trophy was still at stake and as far as tests go there is none to very little precedence of teams relaxing and fielding their second XIs even after the series is decided.

If you look at re-run of these innings, they'll come across as good innings for their quality. However, in each of these innings he succumbed to relentless pressure put by aussie bowlers who were allowed to do so by struggling batsmen at other end.

And now you have progressed from a logical person at the start of the post to a delusional fan boy. Blame Tendulkar's failure's on the failures of others? Just how many people were supporting Dravid 6 months back in England? Forget Dravid, there are numerous instances of Tendulkar himself not "succumbing to pressure" of the failure of other batsmen.

The way he had come up with a plan to counter aussies with his upper cuts - and whch executed very well as well- shows that how much effort he still puts in practice and planning.

Sorry, but after 16 innings plans mean nothing if they can't produce meaningful runs.

It's not Sachin has been good in series but whatever we saw with respect to other batsmen of Indian team, no need to call for his retirement.

Theorem: Fanboyism leads to contradiction. Proof:

If you look at re-run of these innings, they'll come across as good innings for their quality.

QED.

[Raghav_12]

That would work in an individual sport like Tennis, but in a team sport the team obviously comes first. Fact is Tendulkar flopped over 16 consecutive innings in challenging, away conditions. Most of the decent scores he made were on pattas like Oval and Sydney and/or in the second innings when faced with a lost cause - situations where even Praveen Kumar, Zaheer, and Ashwin were able to score in. Given this it would take a brave man to bet a) Tendulkar will be available when India tour in similar conditions and b) Tendulkar will be able to score meaningful runs again in similar conditions. Sometimes I think you are a logical person like in the quote before and then you make statements like the above - Kohli? And now you talk like a fan boy. So, what was different in Tendulkar's midset between the first and last two tests? Did he think I can afford to fail now that we have lost the first two tests? BTW, the third test was also "live" as the trophy was still at stake and as far as tests go there is none to very little precedence of teams relaxing and fielding their second XIs even after the series is decided. And now you have progressed from a logical person at the start of the post to a delusional fan boy. Blame Tendulkar's failure's on the failures of others? Just how many people were supporting Dravid 6 months back in England? Forget Dravid, there are numerous instances of Tendulkar himself not "succumbing to pressure" of the failure of other batsmen. Sorry, but after 16 innings plans mean nothing if they can't produce meaningful runs. Theorem: Fanboyism leads to contradiction. Proof: QED.

Nowhere I am telling that Sachin didn't fail. It is the extent of failure that we are discussing here. And I still think that Sachin was India's best bat in this series as Kohli's good innings, no doubt very promising they were, came when series was over or almost over. Sachin kept India in hunt in Melbourne and not for that unfortunate dismissal towards end of second day, story of series could have been different. About his retirement, I think that Sachin won't gain anything personally if he continues of play in home tours of NZ and Eng. Any surfiet of run-making from him, if that happens, on those tours can not compensate for failures of Eng and Aus tours. Neither that would give him much of satisfaction. For me, Sachin continuing test cricket would be most justified if he can go on to play until next tough away tour, which is very unlikely. So he can very well stop playing after this series. Anyways, sooner or later, one day that has to happen :((

[Stuge]

59-55 .. quite tight .Sachin willl die laughing if he read this thread lol

[Number]

56-59 .. logo ka gussa thoda thanda ho raha hai.. :giggle:

[bulbul]

56-59 .. logo ka gussa thoda thanda ho raha hai.. :giggle:

phixing

[Bilal_Khan]

Doesn't he still have the best batting average from the Indian side on this tour? Either way they are useless to you retired keep em in the squad to help out with the kiddies

[The Outsider]

Nowhere I am telling that Sachin didn't fail. It is the extent of failure that we are discussing here. And I still think that Sachin was India's best bat in this series as Kohli's good innings' date= no doubt very promising they were, came when series was over or almost over. Sachin kept India in hunt in Melbourne and not for that unfortunate dismissal towards end of second day, story of series could have been different.

No credit of being a rookie playing test cricket in Australia for the first time? Even Dravid kept us in the hunt at Melbourne - at 200/2 even I was hopeful of a comeback sparked by these legends. Not only did they fail in that innings, they became walking wickets for the remaining series. Yes, if Tendulkar had stayed on, things would have been different, if Dravid had stayed on things would have been different. I mean, I can see that these guys are just not up to it to perform in difficult conditions. For all the talk about Ponting and Hussey, even Dravid, Tendulkar and Laxman can rack up big hundreds at home - Ponting and Hussey are going to flounder like the Indian middle order as soon as confronted with challenging conditions outside their comfort zone.

About his retirement, I think that Sachin won't gain anything personally if he continues of play in home tours of NZ and Eng. Any surfiet of run-making from him, if that happens, on those tours can not compensate for failures of Eng and Aus tours. Neither that would give him much of satisfaction.

Unlike you, I don't have a "Tendulkar mind reader" and so I have no idea what he is thinking. But whatever it is, it's not good if it involves him playing ODIs in Australia ahead of Rahane.

For me, Sachin continuing test cricket would be most justified if he can go on to play until next tough away tour, which is very unlikely. So he can very well stop playing after this series. Anyways, sooner or later, one day that has to happen :((

True, and that's been my point all along. The genius that Tendulkar is, he will never become a bad or poor batsman, till probably he can't stand on his feet. It's about developing new batsmen in test cricket and if ever there was a time for a mass change in the line up it is after a 0-8 - there isn't a worse scoreline as far as my limited Math skills tell me over 8 matches.

[cybervickey]

Sometimes i feel that indian fans are more fickle than English fans.We just don't appreciate what we already have.Other teams would kill to have a tendulkar like player in their team yet we want to ***** and moan about him.

[Ultimate_Game]

Sometimes i feel that indian fans are more fickle than English fans.We just don't appreciate what we already have.Other teams would kill to have a tendulkar like player in their team yet we want to ***** and moan about him.

0-8 after 8 away tests is not being fickle but logical. India doesn't play an oversea test till 2013 and we have all seen what the seniors can do at this point in their career. If we don't get the youngsters in and get them ready for the away tours when will we ever do that? Or maybe you prefer that we keep these over the hill players for the home series so that they can get some cheap runs and then quit before the next away tour leaving the team and youngsters who replace them in the lurch.

[Tendulkar_Bhai]

Poll is a disgrace, i hope its just the pakis and konvicts voting yes