CG Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Steve Waugh was not as past his prime as Sachin is at the moment. Waugh played a match saving knock in his last innings and i doubt SRT can do so. But if a farewell series is all that matters let's have that against NZ later this year and get it out of the way. Sachin batted pretty well in the tests he got starts and looked comfortable ,I have his worse struggles in 2003 australia and in pakistan 2005 ,He batted much better than what stats show.Also steve waugh may have scored runs in the last test at sydney but through out the series he struggled to face fast bowlers,even getting hit wicket to zaheer.
Ultimate_Game Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Sachin batted pretty well in the tests he got starts and looked comfortable ' date='I have his worse struggles in 2003 australia and in pakistan 2005 ,He batted much better than what stats show.Also steve waugh may have scored runs in the last test at sydney but through out the series he struggled to face fast bowlers,even getting hit wicket to zaheer.[/quote'] Don't know about you but for me the sign of a bigger problem is when the batsman is in form/good touch and still not scoring runs. It basically means it's not a question of player coming into form but that something major is wrong. It's the same thing as a batsman getting out in single figures as opposed to a batsman getting out in 20s and 30s. A batsman getting out in single digits is most probably out of form and should be able to come back once he gets his touch back but what do you do about a guy throwing it away in 20s and 30s as he's clearly not out of form? As Chappell once famously said after getting 4 ducks in 5 innings "I can't say I am out of form. I haven't been out there long enough to know that." :haha:
CG Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Don't know about you but for me the sign of a bigger problem is when the batsman is in form/good touch and still not scoring runs. It basically means it's not a question of player coming into form but that something major is wrong. It's the same thing as a batsman getting out in single figures as opposed to a batsman getting out in 20s and 30s. A batsman getting out in single digits is most probably out of form and should be able to come back once he gets his touch back but what do you do about a guy throwing it away in 20s and 30s as he's clearly not out of form? As Chappell once famously said after getting 4 ducks in 5 innings "I can't say I am out of form. I haven't been out there long enough to know that." :haha: he got 80 at sydney and 60 at mcg.Techincally i do not see any major problem like dravid or laxman. but the 100 th hundred thing has got to him.
Lurker Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 abey sharam kar... you could have questioned his decision' date=' but calling it an excuse is pathetic. especially coming from someone who claims to know the basics of discipline/commitment.. and questioning someone who is mai-baap of your mai-baaps in those terms. that's how he said he planned to deal with it! - 'failure' was in hindsight. It was very much possible he could have played out Clarke and hit from other end - going by the way he was playing until then.[/quote'] Do you have an idea of how Virendra Sehwag dealt with reverse swing of Abdul Razzak? Hint : Story of Jeremy Snape, highlighted in Shane Warne's favorite 100 cricketers book. If you dont let me know, will gladly share. :winky:
Ultimate_Game Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 he got 80 at sydney and 60 at mcg.the 100 th hundred thing has got to him. Should have toured WI or played WI odis at home. He has himself to blame for it and the team paid the price for it. SRT assumed he would be able to get a 100 in 4 tests in Aus ignoring the fact that Aussies are masters of mind-games and will not make it easy for him. In fact most of ICFers saw it coming long time back and wanted SRT to play odis against WI to score that elusive ton so that it gets out of the way and he could take on Aus without added pressure of the 100th 100 as Aussies would pounce on his weak spot. Hell, even WI in Tests at home didn't let him score the 100, what were the chances of him doing so in Aus???
akshayxyz Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Do you have an idea of how Virendra Sehwag dealt with reverse swing of Abdul Razzak? Hint : Story of Jeremy Snape, highlighted in Shane Warne's favorite 100 cricketers book. If you dont let me know, will gladly share. :winky: I must have been one of the first ones to post that Sehwag incident. Do you know how strong the breeze was, how slow Clarke was, besides few other parameters. Besides, are you suggesting hitting the ball out of the park would have stopped the winds? Hint: it is easy to laugh at decisions, when you have no idea about the actual conditions - and/or mental aptitude/skill/experience to have been at and faced such conditions. In most likelihood, your dissing of his explanation as an excuse is reflection of your own thinking process and approach in life - rather than your telepathic reading of someone's situation, which you have no idea about.
Ultimate_Game Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 I must have been one of the first ones to post that Sehwag incident. Do you know how strong the breeze was, how slow Clarke was, besides few other parameters. Besides, are you suggesting hitting the ball out of the park would have stopped the winds? Hint: it is easy to laugh at decisions, when you have no idea about the actual conditions - and/or mental aptitude/skill/experience to have been at and faced such conditions. In most likelihood, your dissing of his explanation as an excuse is reflection of your own thinking process and approach in life - rather than your telepathic reading of someone's situation, which you have no idea about. No matter how strong the breeze was it was still Clarke of all people on a good batting pitch. He dug his own grave by going into his shell the way he usually does just before tea or close of play. Nobody is saying he should have hit Clarke for a 6 but is it too much to ask a specialist batsman to be a bit more positive and at least try to score a run or two against a part-timer? Sachin didn't show any intent whatsoever, and didn't even try to take singles or rotate the strike. He simply blocked and paid the price for it. Don't make it sound as if Clarke was bowling grenades on a minefield as SRT was playing for the new ball and blocking everything and eventually edged one.
Lurker Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 I must have been one of the first ones to post that Sehwag incident. Do you know how strong the breeze was, how slow Clarke was, besides few other parameters. Besides, are you suggesting hitting the ball out of the park would have stopped the winds? Hint: it is easy to laugh at decisions, when you have no idea about the actual conditions - and/or mental aptitude/skill/experience to have been at and faced such conditions. In most likelihood, your dissing of his explanation as an excuse is reflection of your own thinking process and approach in life - rather than your telepathic reading of someone's situation, which you have no idea about. Right. Have a go at me now :cantstop: If Sehwag was in Sachin mould this is what he would have said when Razzak came on to bowl - Oh *****, Razzak is here. Now he is going to reverse it. You see the next ball will pitch in a feet outside off, dip in a little late and then cut back sharply to take my off stump. Mate we are royally effed. And sure enough thats what happened next delivery. As Sehwag(Sachin) walked off Snape was thinking to himsellf - Hats off, what a genius! :hatsoff:
CG Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Right. Have a go at me now :cantstop: If Sehwag was in Sachin mould this is what he would have said when Razzak came on to bowl - Oh *****, Razzak is here. Now he is going to reverse it. You see the next ball will pitch in a feet outside off, dip in a little late and then cut back sharply to take my off stump. Mate we are royally effed. And sure enough thats what happened next delivery. As Sehwag(Sachin) walked off Snape was thinking to himsellf - Hats off, what a genius! :hatsoff: Reason for sachins playing clarke as bishen singh bedi is he was close to 100 th hundred and the pressure got to him.
ganeshran Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 In hindsight, Sachin should have hit that ball for six. Never mind that had he gotten out while attempting the shot, I would be here criticizing him for taking a needless risk to get to his 100th century faster
The Outsider Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 So, the consensus on this thread from the fan boys seems to be that there is no middle ground between mindlessly blocking a part timer and attempting to hit a six off him?
Ultimate_Game Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 In hindsight, Sachin should have hit that ball for six. Never mind that had he gotten out while attempting the shot, I would be here criticizing him for taking a needless risk to get to his 100th century faster There are lot more ways of being positive than hit a 6. Pls read my previous post.
Ultimate_Game Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 So' date=' the consensus on this thread from the fan boys seems to be that there is no middle ground between mindlessly blocking a part timer and attempting to hit a six off him?[/quote'] It's amazing to see people think being positive against a spinner is hitting him for a 6. There are so many ways you can milk a part timer - occasional use of your feet, drop back in the crease etc. to force the part timer to change his length and scoring easy 1s or 2s. A part timer (Clarke in this case) is unlikely to fox a quality batsman with his loop or variety. Tendulkar was simply hell-bent on blocking Clarke and in fact was pre-mediating his front foot prods.
ganeshran Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 So' date=' the consensus on this thread from the fan boys seems to be that there is no middle ground between mindlessly blocking a part timer and attempting to hit a six off him?[/quote'] No, the consensus is that its extremely easy to pass judgment after an event has happened. Once an event happens people adjust their opinions to have supported it all along. Hindsight is the inclination to see events that have already occurred as being more predictable than they were before they took place
Ultimate_Game Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 No, the consensus is that its extremely easy to pass judgment after an event has happened. Once an event happens people adjust their opinions to have supported it all along. Hindsight is the inclination to see events that have already occurred as being more predictable than they were before they took place You only analyze once the event has occured :dontknow: How the hell were we supposed to know before-hand that Tendulkar will make Clarke look like the 2nd coming of Warne
The Outsider Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 No, the consensus is that its extremely easy to pass judgment after an event has happened. Once an event happens people adjust their opinions to have supported it all along. Hindsight is the inclination to see events that have already occurred as being more predictable than they were before they took place This has nothing to do with hindsight. Anyone who has watched Tendulkar's career with any care and detail will be able to tell you that he is at his best when he is positive. There are countless occasions when he has gone into a shell against pretty average bowling and ultimately lost his wicket. I am sure you remember them but Harris at Cape Town and Afridi at Bangalore come to mind immediately. The first time I noticed it was way back in 1993 in this test match: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63600.html He got owned by Tufnell of all people because he inexplicably went into a purely defensive mode after reaching his 50 off a 100 deliveries or so.
CG Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 This has nothing to do with hindsight. Anyone who has watched Tendulkar's career with any care and detail will be able to tell you that he is at his best when he is positive. There are countless occasions when he has gone into a shell against pretty average bowling and ultimately lost his wicket. I am sure you remember them but Harris at Cape Town and Afridi at Bangalore come to mind immediately. The first time I noticed it was way back in 1993 in this test match: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63600.html He got owned by Tufnell of all people because he inexplicably went into a purely defensive mode after reaching his 50 off a 100 deliveries or so. Yes sachin has a bad habbit of getting in to shell when he is near a milestone ,Its nothing new in odis he had the same problem few years back .Ganguly when he is commenting always repeats how he wants sachin to be aggresive and not go in to his shell.
ganeshran Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 This has nothing to do with hindsight. Anyone who has watched Tendulkar's career with any care and detail will be able to tell you that he is at his best when he is positive. There are countless occasions when he has gone into a shell against pretty average bowling and ultimately lost his wicket. I am sure you remember them but Harris at Cape Town and Afridi at Bangalore come to mind immediately. The first time I noticed it was way back in 1993 in this test match: http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/63600.html He got owned by Tufnell of all people because he inexplicably went into a purely defensive mode after reaching his 50 off a 100 deliveries or so. Why would he inexplicably go into a shell against any bowler even though he is in a good position to play his shots (Other than milestone pressure) ? Surely he doesnt want to score less even though he is able to do so at a faster clip There could be many reasons - match situation, not being able to read the bowler well even though he is a part timer, loss of concentration (or a strong breeze as he explained for that dismissal). His eventual dismissal could be attributed to one of those reasons as well.
The Outsider Posted February 20, 2012 Posted February 20, 2012 Why would he inexplicably go into a shell against any bowler even though he is in a good position to play his shots (Other than milestone pressure) ? Surely he doesnt want to score less even though he is able to do so at a faster clip There could be many reasons - match situation, not being able to read the bowler well even though he is a part timer, loss of concentration (or a strong breeze as he explained for that dismissal). His eventual dismissal could be attributed to one of those reasons as well. Only Tendulkar would know the answer to that but there have been too many occasions of him getting dismissed after going into a defensive shell for it to be a coincidence and something which requires hindsight. Some more recent times from this series - first innings at Melbourne and then there was this other occasion when he almost popped a return catch to some part timer when he was trying to dead bat everything before some lunch or tea interval.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now