Viru is gone When will Sachin's turn come

[Old guy]

team mates who were not performing are all out openers gone dravid gone laxman gone dhoni hit a double and a 100 recently which saved him

[Old guy]

also zaheer gone too harbhajan was dropped and might get dropped again ishant is next..also those were not 10 innings he flopped in 2 very important tours ,missed west indies tour and played badly even at home people say formats should not be mixed but well in india cricket they unfortunately are and he flopped in all odis too.. now if he can perform sachin should say otherwise his time is up too

[saneindian]

Have been saying it for long, Sachin and Kohli should swap batting positions. Many great batsman moved down the order as they neared retirement, Sachin should do the same.

[Sidhoni]

Have been saying it for long' date=' Sachin and Kohli should swap batting positions. Many great batsman moved down the order as they neared retirement, Sachin should do the same.[/quote'] I don't see Sachin doing it. He is not of that type to change his batting position for the sake of the team.

[Crookbond]

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 ?

This is a classic question of short-term versus long-term. Australia did this in the early 80s and went on to do well in the next 20 odd years. I would rather prefer such a plan rather than a old warhorse who has no performance guarantee and can break down any time.

[adi B]

sachin has hurt his legacy,his average has dropped quite a lot.

[SLICKR392]

sachin has hurt his legacy' date='his average has dropped quite a lot.[/quote'] Was around 58 during the England tour and its 54 now. :((

[Laaloo]

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.

Lol nowhere near perfect ending. He should have retired a year ago after the humiliation in Eng and Aus. The last three home series should have been given to groom our upcoming batsman. Now we don't play the next series, in SAF, till 7 MORE MONTHS. So we're going to put a new number 4 against Steyn and company? It's already too late. Whatever he's doing now is trying put out a house fire with a bucket of water. The damage has already been done.

[putrevus]

This series also would have been 0-2 down so far if they had depended on no 4 to deliver, he is only no4 batsman who has not scored 100 in tests since world cup 2011. It is not like he is in bad form he has gotten many starts but has never kicked on to make substantial scores which is total reflection on his age. If he had relinquished his no 4 spot and moved down the order and let youngsters take charge and guided them like all other great batsmen have done in past, it would have been honorable. If he was batting at no6 which has been weakest link in batting order after openers ,it would have given a solidity to batting line up even with his zero hundreds. Even now, I think if he is going to SA he should bat at no 5 or 6 and be crisis man and guide young batting order. If Dhoni bats at no6 in SA we might as well not tour there, it will be a procession.

[yoda]

Lol nowhere near perfect ending. He should have retired a year ago after the humiliation in Eng and Aus. The last three home series should have been given to groom our upcoming batsman. Now we don't play the next series' date=' in SAF, till 7 MORE MONTHS. So we're going to put a new number 4 against Steyn and company? It's already too late. Whatever he's doing now is trying put out a house fire with a bucket of water. The damage has already been done.[/quote'] ++

[adi B]

Lol nowhere near perfect ending. He should have retired a year ago after the humiliation in Eng and Aus. The last three home series should have been given to groom our upcoming batsman. Now we don't play the next series' date=' in SAF, till 7 MORE MONTHS. So we're going to put a new number 4 against Steyn and company? It's already too late. Whatever he's doing now is trying put out a house fire with a bucket of water. The damage has already been done.[/quote'] exactly

[I6MTW]

Tendulkar at his prime averaged 63 with the bat. He is now 54. If he continues batting like this then he will go below 50.

[Muloghonto]

If Blake' date=' 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.[/quote'] Indeed. But if blake, bolt, gatlin and carter didnt show up for team practice/meets, i still win by virtue of performance. So-called 'Sachins replacements' have not proven themselves at the test stage and until they do, via the #6 position, there is no basis to your analogy.

[Muloghonto]

This is a classic question of short-term versus long-term. Australia did this in the early 80s and went on to do well in the next 20 odd years. I would rather prefer such a plan rather than a old warhorse who has no performance guarantee and can break down any time.

The Aussie team of the early 80s won jack diddly squat. the Chappels, Lillee, Thommo etc. were all gone by 1983. Australia won nothign significicant till 1989. That is the 'new new' generation, the generation that replaced the new generation which replaced the old team. Ie, the massive and sudden changes the Aussies went through rendered them critically short on experience and proven ability and the generation forced to make wholesale changes in the team never quite adapted and did nothing. Ergo, if you are using the Aussies for a model, then what you are basically gonna have is India struggling to beat anyone but Bangladesh and Zimbabwe till 2017 and then graduating to defeating Sri Lanka after that. This supports my point that there hasn't been a single team thats switched its entire top six in less than a year and not regretted it.

[Muloghonto]

Tendulkar at his prime averaged 63 with the bat. He is now 54. If he continues batting like this then he will go below 50.

IIRC, at no point in Tendulkar's career did he average over 60 in test cricket. His highest career average was 58.5 IIRC.

[The Outsider]

Indeed. But if blake' date=' bolt, gatlin and carter didnt show up for team practice/meets, i still win by virtue of performance. So-called 'Sachins replacements' have not proven themselves at the test stage and until they do, via the #6 position, there is no basis to your analogy.[/quote'] Yuvraj has already shown that he can average more than 32 over the long run.

[Muloghonto]

Yuvraj has already shown that he can average more than 32 over the long run.

Irrelevant. Sachin has shown he can average more than 54 in the long run. Your track and field analogy does not equate, since in track, practice runs are identical replicas of event runs but in cricket, there is no identical replica for test performance. Since Yuvi was not involved in the test team, he has to outperform his Ranji competition. Since Sachin is, he has to be outperformed by his test colleagues to merit a drop. Given that he's been our top 3 batsman barring the last 10 innings and that position six remains vacant, there is no logical basis in questioning Sachin's place in the team.

[The Outsider]

Irrelevant. Sachin has shown he can average more than 54 in the long run. Your track and field analogy does not equate' date=' since in track, practice runs are identical replicas of event runs but in cricket, there is no identical replica for test performance. Since Yuvi was not involved in the test team, he has to outperform his Ranji competition. Since Sachin is, he has to be outperformed by his test colleagues to merit a drop. Given that he's been our top 3 batsman barring the last 10 innings and that position six remains vacant, there is no logical basis in questioning Sachin's place in the team.[/quote'] Tendulkar cannot average 54 anymore and the last 19 tests are proof of it. To replace Tendulkar his replacement needs only to be able to average more than 32 which are his returns from the last two years. Jaffer, Yuvraj have shown that they can do better than that in international cricket and Rahane, Rohit, Tiwary have shown runs in Ranji to give a good indicator that they can average more than 32. Your repeating the top 3 argument makes zero sense because the players involved have changed and I've shown you the reason for it. If tomorrow there are 4 Bradmans to choose from Tendulkar will still be dropped even if he has been doing the best in the team forget about top 3.

[Muloghonto]

Tendulkar cannot average 54 anymore and the last 19 tests are proof of it.

Nonsense. This is nothing more than scapegoating for loss of form. We could've argued the same- that Sachin was incapable of averaging 54 in 2003 when he averaged 20-something with the bat for 10 innings or so.

To replace Tendulkar his replacement needs only to be able to average more than 32 which are his returns from the last two years.

No, you need to have atleast half your specialist batsmen outperform him in the same test matches he played. Which is not the case, except his recent loss of form.

Jaffer, Yuvraj have shown that they can do better than that in international cricket and Rahane, Rohit, Tiwary have shown runs in Ranji to give a good indicator that they can average more than 32.

And then they should go average higher than Tendu at position six before contesting for his position. As i said, there is no logic whatsoever in dropping your top 3 bat from just over 10 innings ago, when there are other open spaces to be filled in the lineup. Your argument boils down to 'lets drop any proven player if they don't perform for 10 innings', which is a logical and cricketing fallacy.

Your repeating the top 3 argument makes zero sense because the players involved have changed and I've shown you the reason for it.

The players having changed does not change the fact that he has been our top 3 bat from just over 10 innings ago. Your logical flaw has already been shown here, since by the replacement argument, any debutant making a century should then automatically make him jump ahead of any veteran who didn't make a century. I am yet to see you address that either.

If tomorrow there are 4 Bradmans to choose from Tendulkar will still be dropped even if he has been doing the best in the team forget about top 3.

False. Well, you may be right, because Indian sports is still quasi-amatuerish, with amatuers still running the establishment. But in any professional legaue, i would urge you to find me a single example of a top 3 performer being dropped to make way for newbies. Just one or two examples would suffice. Find me any cricketing or non cricketing example where the a top 3 performer from just over a few matches ago gets dropped. Until then, you have no case.

[vvvslaxman]

He is not done yet. He has to teach more about "art of getting bowled" .