Viru is gone When will Sachin's turn come

[saneindian]

A younger team at worse will get whitewashed in the next few series we play..a result not different from what we achieved with all that experience in the squad. If he goes another series without a test 100 ( 2 more tests to go), he will quit on his own. Ideally should have moved down in the order as he nears retirement, wonder why that has not happened.

[Muloghonto]

A younger team at worse will get whitewashed in the next few series we play..a result not different from what we achieved with all that experience in the squad. If he goes another series without a test 100 ( 2 more tests to go), he will quit on his own. Ideally should have moved down in the order as he nears retirement, wonder why that has not happened.

Being younger is not a qualification in professional sport. Therefore, arguing in favour of a younger team because we got whitewashed is devoid of logic. We might as well say an older team would've done no worse. As for getting another 100, somehow i don't think Tendy cares as much about whether he scored a 100 or a 90-something as much as the cricket fans do. Tendy, even a decade ago, pretty much said that he doesnt care whether he scores a 100 or not, so long as he performs well compared to the teammates. Ultimately, the only empiric competition a man has in team sports is against his own teammates. For one can say that it is only against one's own teammates that the playing field is ever truely level (ie, same pitch, same bowlers, same conditions, etc). I am yet to see a team sport where dropping someone was based on absolute statistics rather than their relative performance to their teammates as a consistent dictum.

[Crookbond]

A younger team at worse will get whitewashed in the next few series we play..a result not different from what we achieved with all that experience in the squad. If he goes another series without a test 100 ( 2 more tests to go), he will quit on his own. Ideally should have moved down in the order as he nears retirement, wonder why that has not happened.

He wants to play at No.4 and No.4 is not retiring. "I am No.4" said the man in a recent interview. :giggle:

[The Outsider]

It doesnt matter if Tendy averages 100 with the bat. If six other bats happen to average more, he has to go. Ergo, it doesnt matter if Tendy averaged 32 with the bat. If six others did worse, they are the ones to go first. And once they are gone, its illogical to question his position until the newcommers have solidified their place. We are already acting like as if Pujara or Kohli 'have it made' for the middle order, when the fact is, they are both just over 1 year away from totally busting their careers if things go pear shaped.

To play for India Tendulkar should be among the top 4 middle order batsmen in the country. Fact is that he is not among the top 4 middle order batsmen in the country and so he does not deserve a place in the side. Whether Kohli and Pujara have made it or not is irrelevant, even according to your criteria as they are both better than Tendulkar. And so are many other middle order batsmen in the country. Even Yuvraj Singh is capable of averaging more than 32 over 19 tests which is the benchmark to be beaten to replace Tendulkar.

[saneindian]

Being younger is not a qualification in professional sport. Therefore, arguing in favour of a younger team because we got whitewashed is devoid of logic. We might as well say an older team would've done no worse. As for getting another 100, somehow i don't think Tendy cares as much about whether he scored a 100 or a 90-something as much as the cricket fans do. Tendy, even a decade ago, pretty much said that he doesnt care whether he scores a 100 or not, so long as he performs well compared to the teammates. Ultimately, the only empiric competition a man has in team sports is against his own teammates. For one can say that it is only against one's own teammates that the playing field is ever truely level (ie, same pitch, same bowlers, same conditions, etc). I am yet to see a team sport where dropping someone was based on absolute statistics rather than their relative performance to their teammates as a consistent dictum.

You were the one who said we need the bit of 'experience' we can have and talked about a babalog team going to SA. Being younger is not a qualification, but being experienced is?

[CG]

If tendulkar has any sense he should retire after this series .Its perfect ending at home against australia.Nobody is after his head now and he can retire gracefully.I am sure he will retire.

[Muloghonto]

To play for India Tendulkar should be among the top 4 middle order batsmen in the country. Fact is that he is not among the top 4 middle order batsmen in the country and so he does not deserve a place in the side.

I see no basis on making that statement, since he was the top 2 batsman in the entire team up to 10 innings ago. Since i have already said that 10 innings is too small a sample space to reject a proven player on, you have not proven your case. There is also no factual basis to conclude that there are four better middle order bats than him currently, as he's amongst the top two middle order bat for the last 5 series, the last two notwithstanding.

Whether Kohli and Pujara have made it or not is irrelevant, even according to your criteria as they are both better than Tendulkar. And so are many other middle order batsmen in the country. Even Yuvraj Singh is capable of averaging more than 32 over 19 tests which is the benchmark to be beaten to replace Tendulkar.

Whether Yuvraj averages over 32 in his whole career is irrelevant, what is relevant, is of the six batsmen who played the last 5 series, Tendy features in the top 3 in 3 of those series. Ergo, he has still proven to be one of our best, over a sample space of last 5 series. Therefore, undroppable. Therefore, the entire case of dropping Tendulkar boils down to his lack of performance in the last two series. I consider that (to drop a proven player after 2 series of failure) to be stupid, at best.

[Muloghonto]

You were the one who said we need the bit of 'experience' we can have and talked about a babalog team going to SA. Being younger is not a qualification' date=' but being experienced is?[/quote'] Ofcourse being experienced is a qualification. Seems like in every profession, greater experience equals to higher value. Cricket is an exception ? Or do you happen to be gainfully employed in a field where experience is irrelevant to the paygrade or seniority ?

[Muloghonto]

If tendulkar has any sense he should retire after this series .Its perfect ending at home against australia.Nobody is after his head now and he can retire gracefully.I am sure he will retire.

Graceful retirement is an oxymoron. One should retire when one has nothing left to contribute and/or their contributions have become substandard. That seems to be the standard for every profession, i fail to see why cricket should be an exception. We don't wish our (American/Canuck) hockey players to retire after scoring 50 goals. Why should we want our batsmen to retire after averaging 80 in a series ?! It seems remarkably strange to wish for Tendy to retire while still contributing stellar performance. Can any one of you point me to a job where you are happy to see an employee resign/retire after turning in chart-topping productive year ?

[Crookbond]

SachinLara, IF there are three mediocre batsmen over last 2 years and all three are mediocre averaging 30-35 will you retain the best batsman amongst this mediocrity just because he was the BEST amongst these three?

[Crookbond]

Graceful retirement is an oxymoron. One should retire when one has nothing left to contribute and/or their contributions have become substandard. That seems to be the standard for every profession, i fail to see why cricket should be an exception. We don't wish our (American/Canuck) hockey players to retire after scoring 50 goals. Why should we want our batsmen to retire after averaging 80 in a series ?! It seems remarkably strange to wish for Tendy to retire while still contributing stellar performance. Can any one of you point me to a job where you are happy to see an employee resign/retire after turning in chart-topping productive year ?

Porn industry - literally. :icflove:

[The Outsider]

Whether Yuvraj averages over 32 in his whole career is irrelevant, what is relevant, is of the six batsmen who played the last 5 series, Tendy features in the top 3 in 3 of those series. Ergo, he has still proven to be one of our best, over a sample space of last 5 series. Therefore, undroppable. Therefore, the entire case of dropping Tendulkar boils down to his lack of performance in the last two series. I consider that (to drop a proven player after 2 series of failure) to be stupid, at best.

What have past series got to do with present and future selections when the players involved in those series are not in the team. How is relevant if Tendulkar was the second best among Dravid, Laxman, Sehwag, Gambhir, and Raina when none of them are part of the current squad? What's relevant is whether Tendulkar is among the top 4 middle order batsmen in the country currently and the answer is an unequivocal no because even someone like Yuvraj is capable of averaging 32 over 19 tests and there is data to show it.

[saneindian]

Ofcourse being experienced is a qualification. Seems like in every profession' date=' greater experience equals to higher value. Cricket is an exception ? Or do you happen to be gainfully employed in a field where experience is irrelevant to the paygrade or seniority ?[/quote'] All that experience is of no use if you are not performing as per you paygrade or seniority. And if that non performance continues for longer, in a professional setup, you will be out. Also, corporations struggling with performance often rejig the team, start a transformation journey, give the lesser experienced team a chance to succeed. And while doing so, the risk of failure is always taken into account. Wonder why this should be any different in sport.

[Muloghonto]

SachinLara' date=' IF there are three mediocre batsmen over last 2 years and all three are mediocre averaging 30-35 will you retain the best batsman amongst this mediocrity just because he was the BEST amongst these three?[/quote'] Yup. I don't know how many of you have played sports professionally or semi-professionally but i am ye to find a single one in my experience- player or coach alike- who actually advocate 'entire team drop' for sub-par performance. I will give you a hockey example here- the Philly Flyers are fighting for the last playoff spot while the Columbus BJs have no hope (again). Yet, neither team are 'firing their entire staff' to replace the team wholesale. Neither has any team fired its entire roster (or even the majority of it) due to performance issues. Ergo, level of performance (competetive vs being the worst) is indicative of required changes, but such changes are brought out gradually. For, as any coach will tell you, its sheer madness to think that a 'fully new team' will do better than a team that has been gradually phased in. PS: I am yet to get a straight answer from any of the 'drop tendy advocates'. Currently, we have four of six new players in the XI from just over a year ago. Can you *PLEASE* find me a single cricketing side (tests) that replaced 80% of its top six in a span of six years and still have done well in the following 2-3 years ?

[Muloghonto]

All that experience is of no use if you are not performing as per you paygrade or seniority. And if that non performance continues for longer' date=' in a professional setup, you will be out. [/quote'] indeed. But every job has its rope. Just like you don't fire your reigning sales champion for the last year, due to him having a bad week, you don't drop your top 3 batsmen owing to last 10 innings. As i have explained before, Tendy's non-performance is essentially over the last 10 innings, prior to that, he was doing pretty okay compared to his teammates. I find your idea of corporate transformation to be amusing. For i am yet to find a corporation that has fired its top 3 employee on the basis of last year's mediocrity. Usually such drastic changes start with firing the CEO and COO, which roughly are analogous to the coach and captain in cricket.

[saneindian]

indeed. But every job has its rope. Just like you don't fire your reigning sales champion for the last year' date= due to him having a bad week, you don't drop your top 3 batsmen owing to last 10 innings. As i have explained before, Tendy's non-performance is essentially over the last 10 innings, prior to that, he was doing pretty okay compared to his teammates. I find your idea of corporate transformation to be amusing. For i am yet to find a corporation that has fired its top 3 employee on the basis of last year's mediocrity. Usually such drastic changes start with firing the CEO and COO, which roughly are analogous to the coach and captain in cricket.

All this was true probably till the Aus tour. No longer holds after back to back average series against home vs NZ and England. As for firing of CEO COO, that is correct as well. Both Fletcher and Dhoni should have been gone. But because we have made the mistake of retaining Dhoni (Fletcher would be gone soon), should we make another mistake of retaining Sachin?

[The Outsider]

As i have explained before, Tendy's non-performance is essentially over the last 10 innings, prior to that, he was doing pretty okay compared to his teammates.

The teammates he was doing okay compared to are no longer part of the team. What you are essentially saying is that if came second in your college 100 meter race against Tom, Dick, and Harry you are also going to come second when competing with Bolt, Blake, and Gatlin. :hysterical:

[Muloghonto]

All this was true probably till the Aus tour. No longer holds after back to back average series against home vs NZ and England.

False. By the end of the Aussie tour, Tendy is still our 2nd/3rd best bat based on performance. his 10 innings of failure are at home and the most recent one.

As for firing of CEO COO, that is correct as well. Both Fletcher and Dhoni should have been gone. But because we have made the mistake of retaining Dhoni (Fletcher would be gone soon), should we make another mistake of retaining Sachin?

As i said, we don't fire our best performer in the last year at job-place due to failure in the first quarter. And if we do, it almost always comes with entire carte blanche change, such as firing the entire top end. So yes, what you are proposing is serving a meat pie without the meat in it.

[Muloghonto]

The teammates he was doing okay compared to are no longer part of the team.

Irrelevant, since the extrapolation of your argument is a newbie over-achiever (eg: fabulous debut series) should always trump any senior's performance. A logical fallacy.

What you are essentially saying is that if came second in your college 100 meter race against Tom, Dick, and Harry you are also going to come second when competing with Bolt, Blake, and Gatlin. :hysterical:

No, what i am saying is, if i came second in my college 100m race, i don't deserve to get dropped from my college team, regardless of what my time is. Similarly, if Tendy came in 2nd in his team, he doesnt deserve to get dropped, regardless of what his stats are. You are beating up a strawman analogy here. My point is, you don't fire your top 25% performers in the team regardless of what their record actually is- be it in any sport or any profession.

[The Outsider]

No, what i am saying is, if i came second in my college 100m race, i don't deserve to get dropped from my college team, regardless of what my time is. Similarly, if Tendy came in 2nd in his team, he doesnt deserve to get dropped, regardless of what his stats are.

If Blake, Bolt, Gatlin, and Carter join your college then you, Tom, Dick, and Harry all deserve to be dropped. Whether you were faster than Tom, Dick and Harry is irrelevant because they are not part of the college team anymore for that comparison to hold relevance. Your position would depend on how fast you are compared with Blake, Bolt, Gatlin, and Carter.