Think before criticising Tendulkar Great Article

[Tapioca]

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.

Tendulkar is in a position similar to Gavaskar was in after Kanpur 1983-4. He had been in a steady decline, was not even the team's best batsman against fast bowling, the 28th hundred was scored in "selfish circumstances" that would put Tendulkar to shame, and was made to look like a fool by Marshall at Kanpur. And then came the spectacular hundred at Delhi. One of these days, we would see Tendulkar also try the same. PS - For the circumstances of the 28th 100, see http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/152314.html

[Raghav_12]

Tendulkar is in a position similar to Gavaskar was in after Kanpur 1983-4. He had been in a steady decline, was not even the team's best batsman against fast bowling, the 28th hundred was scored in "selfish circumstances" that would put Tendulkar to shame, and was made to look like a fool by Marshall at Kanpur. And then came the spectacular hundred at Delhi. One of these days, we would see Tendulkar also try the same. PS - For the circumstances of the 28th 100, see http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/152314.html

Thanks for this reference. Was never aware of. The only things I can say is that, thank God there was no ICF then or Gavaskar would have been forced to retire after that innings.

[kirkutfan]

Tendulkar is in a position similar to Gavaskar was in after Kanpur 1983-4. He had been in a steady decline, was not even the team's best batsman against fast bowling, the 28th hundred was scored in "selfish circumstances" that would put Tendulkar to shame, and was made to look like a fool by Marshall at Kanpur. And then came the spectacular hundred at Delhi. One of these days, we would see Tendulkar also try the same. PS - For the circumstances of the 28th 100, see http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/152314.html

Darn, I remember that 28th 100. For a while there, many of us didn't realize that he was making a go of it. Yes, it was a dead game- but have to admit, I enjoyed that 100- even though it wasn't even close to his best inning. I remember the Marshall episode in Kanpur too. WIndies batted first, and everybody was saying that there was absolutely nothing in the wkt. WIndian batsmen were able to go forward, realize that it was in error, and then go on the back foot and slam that ball for 4. They had so... much time. Then after a day and three quarters on the field, the Indians came out to bat. And Marshall made that ball talk. Gavaskar would play at it, and I guess the ball would rap him on the knuckles or hit the handle and the bat would fly out of his hands. He was miserable and dismissed cheaply in both innings. It really looked like the end for him, because it was preceded by a miserable world cup and on the whole a pretty bad tour of the WIndies. To his credit he did get a bit of a second wind and was able to retire more on his own terms a few years later. Don't know if SRT will have the ability or time to do this.. although many also thought he was done in 2007.

[CG]

Tendulkar is in a position similar to Gavaskar was in after Kanpur 1983-4. He had been in a steady decline, was not even the team's best batsman against fast bowling, the 28th hundred was scored in "selfish circumstances" that would put Tendulkar to shame, and was made to look like a fool by Marshall at Kanpur. And then came the spectacular hundred at Delhi. One of these days, we would see Tendulkar also try the same. PS - For the circumstances of the 28th 100, see http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/152314.html

There is one difference ,tendulkar is still india best batsman against fast bowling,He looked in good form in tests ,but was unable to convert 80,60 to 100.

[akshayxyz]

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.

missing the point again? My intention of mentioning Ganguly's-SRT conversation was to highlight the absurdity of assumptions that every time SRT has gotten out in last one year, has to be due to 100 playing on his mind...whereas at least in this example SRT clearly told Ganguly, one of the reasons he chose to block Clarke. All I said was - it is easy for you/any outsider to pass on a judgement..when you have no idea what were the parameters he considered before deciding to block Clarke - esp when he was going good until then. Breeze was one of the reasons he told Ganguly. It could have been compounded with a lapse in concentration, or a state of indecisiveness,etc. ....and he chose to block. He might have gone after Clarke in next over... What would have happened had he gone after Clarke in that over, also has many possible outcomes - could still have gone either way. Btw, can you confidently say that this is the first time in his batting career, where he decided to block a part timer - and failed to do so?? Also, if you remember watching the ball he got out to, it was identical to previous one - just an unpredictable deviation of 5 degree or so.

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:

I have to say - you are showing signs of retardation here. I said - I know the Sehwag incident, and you could not resist repeating it here.. And especially when what Sehwag would have done has no relevance here. Your fantasies may come true once in a while, but are mere fantasies more often than not. My point was - you have no reliable information to pass off SRT's action against Clarke as 100 playing on mind and also what he told to Ganguly as an excuse.

[Ultimate_Game]

missing the point again? My intention of mentioning Ganguly's-SRT conversation was to highlight the absurdity of assumptions that every time SRT has gotten out in last one year, has to be due to 100 playing on his mind...whereas at least in this example SRT clearly told Ganguly, one of the reasons he chose to block Clarke. All I said was - it is easy for you/any outsider to pass on a judgement..when you have no idea what were the parameters he considered before deciding to block Clarke - esp when he was going good until then. Breeze was one of the reasons he told Ganguly. It could have been compounded with a lapse in concentration, or a state of indecisiveness,etc. ....and he chose to block. He might have gone after Clarke in next over... What would have happened had he gone after Clarke in that over, also has many possible outcomes - could still have gone either way. Btw, can you confidently say that this is the first time in his batting career, where he decided to block a part timer - and failed to do so?? Also, if you remember watching the ball he got out to, it was identical to previous one - just an unpredictable deviation of 5 degree or so.

I am not saying SRT played the way he did coz of 100. Only SRT knows why he played the way he did or what was weighing on his mind. But it was clear he was not his regular self and was being way too defensive and respectful to Clarke. The point I was trying to make is that if you allow any bowler to bowl a good line and length he will eventually get you out, that's why it'simportant to be positive, take singles, rotate strike, use your feet to get to the pitch of the ball etc. Against part-timer it should be easier to do as he's unlikely to fox you in the air or a doosra. Tendulkar kept on prodding at good length deliveies and eventually one found the edge. As for SRT and part-timers this is not the first time I have seen him struggle against part-timers or lesser bowlers or the newbie bowlers. He used to look at sea against the likes of Cronje & Larsen and made likes of Paul Harris and Giles look like champions. To me it looks as if SRT is so afraid of failing against the lesser bowlers & part-timers that he goes out of his way to try and not get out, resulting in him being too defensive and getting out.

[Lurker]

All I said was - it is easy for you/any outsider to pass on a judgement..when you have no idea what were the parameters he considered before deciding to block Clarke - esp when he was going good until then. Breeze was one of the reasons he told Ganguly. It could have been compounded with a lapse in concentration, or a state of indecisiveness,etc. ....and he chose to block. He might have gone after Clarke in next over... What would have happened had he gone after Clarke in that over, also has many possible outcomes - could still have gone either way.

lol..defending the choker again I see. Look, in whatever world you live in, a failure is considered a failure. If Lehmann Bros CEO felt his company would be bankrupt, and it was, then he is not considered an ace for stating so. He is considered a failure for stopping to do so. Now in your world, SRT did an awesome job for picking the circumstance/reasons. In my world he failed. Deal with it.

I said - I know the Sehwag incident, and you could not resist repeating it here.. And especially when what Sehwag would have done has no relevance here. Your fantasies may come true once in a while, but are mere fantasies more often than not.

It wasnt repeated, unless you mistake humor for exact incidence. It was used to show the difference between someone who dealt with a problem at hand vs someone who effed up. You could easily give me an example where SRT recognized a problem and dealt with it (cutting off cover drive in his double century for example). Look, you have all the power in the world to look at a failure as a success, just dont expect me to do. :winky:

[akshayxyz]

lol..defending the choker again I see. Look, in whatever world you live in, a failure is considered a failure. If Lehmann Bros CEO felt his company would be bankrupt, and it was, then he is not considered an ace for stating so. He is considered a failure for stopping to do so. Now in your world, SRT did an awesome job for picking the circumstance/reasons. In my world he failed. Deal with it.

I am not defending any individual here, I am criticizing your logic - ( 100 playing on mind, giving excuses) - as you failed to notice consistently.

[Lurker]

I am not defending any individual here' date=' I am criticizing your logic - ( 100 playing on mind, giving excuses) - as you failed to notice consistently.[/quote'] Two can play that game - you are shielding a failure masking it as a reason when it is just an excuse. We can agree to disagree, just dont get antsy when your reason for covering up Sachin's failure is not acceptable to everyone. xxx

[Ultimate_Game]

Tendulkar is in a position similar to Gavaskar was in after Kanpur 1983-4. He had been in a steady decline, was not even the team's best batsman against fast bowling, the 28th hundred was scored in "selfish circumstances" that would put Tendulkar to shame, and was made to look like a fool by Marshall at Kanpur. And then came the spectacular hundred at Delhi. One of these days, we would see Tendulkar also try the same. PS - For the circumstances of the 28th 100, see http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/152314.html

One correction... Tendulkar was in that position in 2006 when he had the slump which lasted nearly 2 years. People backed him coz he had a few years left. Now he's in unchareterd waters coz Gavaskar didn't carry on while floundering at ripe old age of 39. He went out at the right time after the 87 world cup. SRT should have done the same after 2011 WC.

[akshayxyz]

Two can play that game - you are shielding a failure masking it as a reason when it is just an excuse. We can agree to disagree, just dont get antsy when your reason for covering up Sachin's failure is not acceptable to everyone. xxx

Comprehension and logic fail on our part. I just cited one example - (not out of imagination) - whereas your assertion of that statement being an excuse is just a fantasy, or perhaps just reflection of your own philosophy/approach in life. And remember it was not some public conference, he was confiding it with some of his long time friend/colleague - Ganguly. Anyway, you may continue to believe what you want to, regardless of cold facts. BTW - I am not doing any cover up job, I just re-stated, what Ganguly told. It is you who is assuming/re-dressing it as an excuse w/o any reason.